Paul Trejo

Larry, I appreciate very much that you've met me more than half-way with this post. As for the self-confessed Richard Case Nagell and David Morales, they were, by my estimation, CIA "junior officers". E. Howard Hunt called himself a "bench warmer," and he was already near the end of his career. I myself cannot find solid evidence of CIA "senior officers" in the JFK murder plot beyond Edward Lansdale. Lansdale was a US General, and was able to order Colonel Fletcher Prouty to travel to the South Pole instead of providing Security for JFK in Dallas. That's the highest level of official Authority that I can find in my JFK research so far. Fletcher Prouty names Edward Lansdale, and so that is now, IMHO, a fact of history. Lansdale was the ranking Officer involved in the JFK murder. As such, he had tremendous power over many Military and CIA assets (like Colonel Fletcher Prouty). HOWEVER -- even General Lansdale didn't have the ability to control the ground-crew in Dallas. For that arena, even somebody as powerful as General Lansdale would require somebody with some real clout among the right-wing lunatics in Dallas (who were directly involved, IMHO, starting with the DPD and their members among JBS, the Minutemen, White Citizens' Councils and the KKK in Dallas). When we trace the career of DPD officer, Roscoe White, for example, we find extreme right-wing causes in his resume. It was bold yahoos like this -- and like ex-General Walker, their bold yahoo leader (superstar of Ole Miss and Adlai Stevenson night) who would compete with each other to protect their home turf from the "Communist Menace that was JFK." Even the Warren Commission had to closely examine the "nut country" exhibits which circulated throughout Dallas that day, from the WANTED FOR TREASON handbill to the WELCOME MR. KENNEDY full page Ad designed and paid for by the John Birch Society. Given boldness like this in Dallas, it seems reasonable to me that General Lansdale was not the leader of the Dallas plot, but rather a secondary player, who was responsible for the relatively minor details of handling the CIA, the local Infantry, the Secret Service, the Limo, the Autopsy records, the Press and so on. The main event was all home grown, IMHO. As for the all-important Patsy -- he was probably supplied by Ex-General Edwin Walker himself -- in cooperation with Guy Banister, the DRE and INCA in New Orleans in 1963, starting 14 April through 23 September -- and in cooperation with Loran Hall and Larry Howard from 24 September through 3 October. Ex-General Walker, a seasoned expert in paramilitary planning, had it all planned out. If I'm missing higher placed people in the CIA than Edward Lansdale, Larry, then please offer a name, so that I can look it up in your book, Someone Would Have Talked (2010). Best regards, --Paul Trejo

One legitimate CIA Agent, David Morales, his obscure flunky, Roy Hargraves, a demented super-flunky, Thomas Valee, and then one more legitimate CIA Agent, George Joannides -- these are the personnel being offered up here as an "official CIA plot" to murder JFK. Sorry - but (even with the status of Joannides) this line-up is still too LOW-LEVEL within the CIA to be credible as representative of an "official CIA plot." Another mismatch, Steven, is the loose linking of the CIA with any "CIA-funded organization," like the dozens of wild and wacky Cuban Exile groups, continually intoxicated and trigger-happy -- whom the CIA had great difficulty controlling. These mangy mutts are also paraded before us as credible representatives of an "official CIA plot." The figures simply don't add up, Steven. What I'm being shown are LOW-LEVEL assets in every single case. These CIA assets are unanimously linked with emotionally invested failures of the Bay of Pigs disaster. By attempting to link former CIA Director Allen Dulles into this alleged "official CIA plot," the debater tacitly admits that if the alleged plotter was connected with the Bay of Pigs, then his or her participation must be "guaranteed." This is the strongest part of their argument. It is extremely clear, IMHO, that the Cuba question rests at the heart of the JFK murder -- and yet the leaders of the plot were not Cuban Exiles. The Cuban Exiles were LOW-LEVEL assets. Nor were the leaders their CIA handlers (most of whom were also caught by surprise). Instead, the leaders of the JFK murder plot were US civilians, probably led by Ex-General Walker in cooperation with Guy Banister. They recognized that they held tremendous power because of the mythology that anybody linked with the CIA (even at a LOW-LEVEL) must have the authority of the CIA. That mythology persists down to this very day, in this very thread. While we have plenty of evidence (and you yourself show it, Steven) that LOW-LEVEL Cuban Exiles funded by the CIA were clearly also linked to Lee Harvey Oswald -- it is simply a stretch of logic to make the "official CIA" responsible for the LOW-LEVEL framing of Lee Harvey Oswald in the murder of JFK. Nor does the amount of money that the CIA paid these CIA Exile groups (even if millions) bear any proof at all that the CIA was in control of the plot to murder JFK. I'd point out with regard to the DRE that its leader, Carlos Bringuier, appeared in newspaper print, court records, jail records, radio broadcasts and a TV show with Lee Harvey Oswald during the summer of 1963. I'd also point out the close relationship between Carlos Bringuier and Guy Banister in the summer of 1963. I'd also point out that Ex-General Walker was known to be a cash supporter of the DRE in 1963 (as he admitted in the Warren hearings), and that Carlos Bringuier would also speak at the same right-wing rallies at which Walker spoke, along with Billy James Hargis and Kent Courtney. There was money going to the DRE all right -- and not all of it was from the CIA. I strongly suspect, however, that CIA Agent George Joannides is linked with the murder of JFK -- not simply because of his dealings with Cuban Exiles (DRE) at the time. I urgently call for further photographic evidence to locate Joannides in Dallas on the day JFK was murdered. As for John Newman's book on OSWALD AND THE CIA (1995) it is justly criticized, even by Jim DiEugenio, for its flights of speculation and innuendo (e.g. his sinister portrait of George De Mohrenschildt). Aside from the LOW-LEVEL street-level assets who boasted about their links with the CIA (Sturgis, Hemming, Hall, Roselli, Crisman, Martin, Beckham, Ferrie, Shaw, Oswald), what actual CIA Agents have we really identified? Richard Case Nagell, David Morales and E. Howard Hunt. We might have George Joannides and we could even add Edward Lansdale -- but even if we do, this still amounts to a ROGUES GALLERY. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Steve, I'll begin by saying that the term 'Conservative' has many meanings -- as many as the term, 'Liberal.' Some of the qualifiers of 'Conservative' include 'ultra-Conservative' and 'extreme Conservative' and 'moderate Conservative' -- so it's an ambiguous term. I'm Conservative enough to belong to a Methodist Church. I'm not so Conservative as to belong to a so-called Tea Party, or to believe that the CIA must always be right and correct in everything it has done, or even that it should exist under the US Constitution. I don't willy-nilly defend Allen Dulles and the CIA. My position is that if somebody is going to ATTACK Allen Dulles and the CIA, I will expect a SOLID case -- not one based on rumor and innuendo, e.g. the kind of case upon with the Lone Nut theory was based. Those who object to convicting Lee Harvey Oswald as the Lone Nut murderer of JFK on the basis of the weak evidence presented by the Warren Commission, should also be held to their own high standards of evidence if they are going to charge somebody ELSE. I admit that you raise some interesting and important questions, Steve, but I still think you're too quick to draw the conclusions that you draw. Take for example the Chicago plot, which like the Florida plota, has much evidence to confirm it. In my reading of the history, there were (conservatively speaking) DOZENS of plots to kill JFK going on in 1963. More to your point, let's look at the testimony of Bolden, which was discredited by the HSCA, and look deeper into the Ford Falcon that was driven by Thomas Valee, allegedly registered to Lee Harvey Oswald. One can try to make a quick conclusion -- that the very name of Lee Harvey Oswald circulating among the CIA before the JFK murder is "proof" of a high-level CIA plot to murder JFK. But there are many other explanations. For one, we know from FBI reports that the name of Lee Harvey Oswald was already circulating in the USA regarding gun-running in 1959, when Lee Oswald was still in the USSR. Rather than jump to the absurd conclusion that the CIA was plotting to kill JFK as early as 1959, before he was even President -- one should pause. The CIA admitted that they were interested in interviewing Lee Harvey Oswald for possible employment as a bona fide CIA Agent. Oswald was very cooperative with the CIA, and evidently wanted very much to enjoy the high salaries (and the prestige) of working for the CIA as a full-time Agent. It is likely that Oswald gave them this impression before he entered the USSR -- and even gave them permission to use his name and birth certificate as they saw fit. I say this is likely because Lee Harvey Oswald's cooperation in his own sheep-dipping (framing) as a Communist officer of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in NOLA (where there was no such genuine chapter of the FPCC) is best explained by a bogus offer by fake CIA Agents (e.g. boasting, low-level CIA assets) that Oswald was being groomed for a job with the CIA. So -- based on this scenario, it is not impossible that Oswald's name would be used in CIA activities. AND THEN ONCE THAT BALL STARTED ROLLING, THE STREET-PUNKS AND OTHER LOW-LEVEL CIA ASSETS INVOLVED IN THE FIDEL CASTRO CRISIS, would also begin to exploit the name of Lee Harvey Oswald for their own illegal (and non-CIA) activities. (This is also a viable explanation for the Oswald "doubles" that has such a wide literature.) In other words, Steve, all by itself the Thomas Valee episode with the Ford Falcon does not PROVE that the CIA was setting up Lee Harvey Oswald as a patsy. (I will go further and note that Thomas Valee was once a member of the John Birch Society.) I'll go even further than that. After re-reading Joan Mellen's excellent, FAREWELL TO JUSTICE (2005) I find too many gaps in her theory that Fred Crisman was a CIA Agent who was grooming Thomas Edward Beckham to be a patsy. There are simply too many other interpretations of the same data. Fred Crisman was clearly a boasting xxxx who worked as a LOW-LEVEL CIA asset AT BEST. I agree with Joan Mellen that he, along with Jack S. Martin and Thomas Beckham were CERTAINLY involved in the JFK murder. I only disagree with her as regards their CIA status -- I say they were below the level of ROGUES. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Steven, your data is well-documented, but you still rush to many judgments, IMHO. Gilberto Policarpo Lopez was also a very LOW-LEVEL intelligence asset. Yet even though his career parallels Oswald's in so many ways, it is rushing to judgment to presume that he was being groomed to be a patsy of the JFK murder. Oswald was familiar with the sorts of tasks that Banister, Ferrie, Shaw, Butler and Bringuier asked him to do. These were the sorts of things anybody (including Lopez) would have done while SEEKING A FULL-TIME JOB WITH THE CIA or with some other Intelligence Agency. Oswald wasn't alone in these clandestine monkey-shines. But Oswald probably was alone in being told he was working on one of the countless "Kill Fidel through the Mexico City Embassy" projects, when in fact he was really being framed to be the patsy of the JFK murder in Dallas. As for Guy Banister, he was once a high-level FBI Agent, and was certainly of use *as a flunky* for the CIA, but after he retired (or was fired) from the FBI, he became more and more right-wing, political and LOW-LEVEL in status for the CIA. As for Jack Ruby -- uugh! -- he was a Mafia bag-man and a pimp. He ran drugs for the Mafia, and he used his nightclub to blackmail countless DPD Police Officers. Jack Ruby was Mr. Vice in Dallas. One cannot get any more LOW-LEVEL as a CIA asset than that. Jim Garrison was the first to point out that Jack Ruby was extremely liable to blackmail himself. Ruby was more of a liability than an asset. He was an expedient. Not only the Mob, but any underworld figure with a bankroll could buy Jack Ruby's services. As for Gerry Patrick Hemming, he was famous for being a hot-head and not-a-team-player. He could never get a full-time job as a CIA Agent for that very reason. He baby-sat his Interpen buddies his entire life long -- so this made him more a liability to the CIA than an asset. He did contract work for the CIA (like Frank Sturgis and Johnny Roselli) but this must be honestly seen for the LOW-LEVEL work that it truly was. All the CIA assets you cited above, Steven, were demonstrably LOW-LEVEL. It all goes to confirm my suspicion -- that the JFK murder was conducted outside of the official CIA by LOW-LEVEL CIA rogues who ran amok. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Steven, I will admit that that story about Bill Shelley being at the NOLA Trade Mart and also at the Dallas TSBD building is important news. I don't think that it shoots my theory about Walker out of the water, though. Bill Shelley is also important because he actually testified before the Warren Commission on 14 May 1964, in Dallas, questioned by Attorney Joseph Ball. Here's a snippet of that testimony: ==================== Shelley testimony snippet BEGIN ============= Mr. BALL. ...Do you recall seeing a couple of guns in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 20th of November 1963? Mr. SHELLEY. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Where? Mr. SHELLEY. Just outside Mr. Truly's office on the will-call counter. Mr. BALL. And how did they get there? Mr. SHELLEY. Mr. Warren Caster had just purchased them and brought them in and stopped by to see us. Mr. BALL. Did you handle the guns? Mr. SHELLEY. I held the .22. Mr. BALL. And was there another make of gun too---there was, wasn't there? Mr. SHELLEY. Yes; I believe there was a .30-06 Mauser that had been converted. It was a foreign make converted to a .30-06. Mr. BALL. Did you handle that? Mr. SHELLEY. No... ==================== Shelley testimony snippet END ============= This is additional confirmation of the claims of DPD sheriff Roger Craig, who was present when the DPD found the "murder rifle" on the 6th floor of the TSBD depository -- and standing only inches from it, saw clearly the words stamped right on the barrel: "30-06 MAUSER". Shelley confirms -- under oath -- that he saw a Mauser at the TSBD depository on that day, too -- only it belonged to Mr. Caster, and it was shown in a harmless circumstance. All this contradictory testimony is very suspicious to me. The fact that Shelley was also one of those arrested on 11/22/1963 is also suspicious. The fact that Shelley was also seen at the NOLA Trade Mart close to Lee Harvey Oswald, is also very suspicious. Yet how in the world does that shoot down my theory about Ex-General Walker and the John Birch Society? I've already shown the close connections between Walker and Guy Banister. They are connected precisely through the John Birch Society, as well as through the related paramilitary group, the Minutemen. Other fellow travelers on the right-wing in Dallas (along with General Walker) would be DPD officers Roscoe White and J.D. Tippit. One final point -- Joan Mellen and Larry Hancock's recent works largely predominate the current reading of JFK researchers, and yet I think that their suspicions of the CIA are based too loosely on extremely low-level assets of the CIA, for example, in Joan Mellen's case, Fred Crisman and Jack S. Martin. (In Larry Hancock's case, we find a plethora of Cuban Exiles.) Other CIA-connected assets include self-confessed plotters Frank Sturgis and Gerry Patrick Hemming -- but again they were very low level, and probably always hungry for the next cash 'contract' as mercenaries typically would be. Lee Harvey Oswald falls into the same category -- he would probably have done anything to get hired full-time into the CIA (or even the FBI). He was a wannabe. That best explains why he cooperated so fully with his framers. My point is that one mainly finds in the JFK plot these low-level assets among the CIA -- and they are so low-level that one is justified in doubting official CIA involvement. (True, there are three bona-fide CIA Agents who were self-confessedly involved, namely: Richard Case Nagell, David Morales and E. Howard Hunt. Yet the first two were mainly "field" agents, and Hunt was nearing the end of his career, and admitted to being "a bench warmer" in the plot.) Anyway -- even if Shelley turns out to be one of these low-level "assets" of the CIA, this cannot be used to prove that the CIA was officially involved. What the evidence strongly implies is that a bunch of these low-level CIA "assets" got together and made something work on their own. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

My only point, Greg, was that having interviewed Gerry Patrick Hemming -- which is a real accomplishment -- that does not automatically result in a full understanding of his words. Hemming took special care to speak in a way that would protect him from multiple sources and manners of criticism, and he is famous for being hard to understand. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Greg, I never interviewed Gerry Patrick Hemming. I was invited to join this FORUM three years after Hemming died; otherwise I would have loved to have interviewed him. Yet Gerry Patrick Hemming was among the most interviewed person of interest in the JFK assassination, and he was enormously knowledgeable -- although also circumspect. This is clear from the interviews that OTHERS have done -- which are widely circulated and very public. I understand that your own interviews of Hemming are being rolled out, Greg. It will be interesting to review those, as well. Yet the question remains -- how can we navigate through the resistance that Hemming showed toward "coming clean?" In other words, Greg, even though you personally interviewed Gerry Patrick Hemming (to the benefit of all readers) you're also obliged to offer your own interpretation of his words, and to defend your interpretation, like the rest of us. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ordinarily yes, David, but matters are different when life and death are on the line. This wasn't the only time that Gerry Patrick Hemming refused to name names -- we can see this behavior even on this Forum when Hemming was a member back in 2006, before he died of poor health in 2008. He was asked in this Forum why he didn't name names, he stated plainly that his friends were still alive, and they could be expected to react violently to having their peaceful home lives disrupted by extreme publicity. We should reflect however, that he used the word 'friends,' and in this regard we know his friends, his key comrades, were those freedom fighters who fought alongside him for so many years, first for and then against Fidel Castro (but always in the pay of the CIA -- not as agents, but as flunkies). In other words, Hemming was speaking of the unnamed members of Interpen, who at various times included Loran Hall, Larry Howard and William Seymour, to name only a few. Harry Dean affirms, and Loran Hall alludes to the story that Larry Howard threatened to kill Loran Hall (and actually tried to do that, twice) after the FBI harassed Larry Howard because Loran Hall had named Larry Howard to them during the Sylvia Odio investigation. The Warren Commission was so close to solving the JFK murder, especially with their constant pressure on Ex-General Edwin Walker, the John Birch Society folks (e.g. Bernard Weissman) and the Sylvia Odio incident. But the Lone Nut theory first announced by J. Edgar Hoover had become a dogma by that time, so they failed to complete their investigation. I digress. My main point is that Gerry Patrick Hemming admitted to Weberman that he was indirectly involved in the JFK murder, and he hinted at the involvement of Loran Hall, and he also insinuated that other Interpen members were involved. Coincidentally, Ex-General Edwin Walker had entertained Interpen members at his home in Dallas -- on his back porch -- shortly after the 10 April 1963 shooting incident. We have that story from Gerry Patrick Hemming himself. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., the intrigue of Gerry Patrick Hemming -- and the mystery -- is as resilient today as it was for Jim Garrison 46 years ago. The same with Loran Hall. They were both consummate liars -- and yet there is so much evidence that places them so close to the JFK murder, both the people and the events, that we are always tempted to see if we ourselves will be better at separating their truths from their lies than the previous generation. I realize that Gerry Patrick Hemming -- especially -- was specifically trained in disinformation. Nevertheless, I think that his many, many, many interviews in public (and even his year-and-a-half on this very FORUM) suggests that he hoped somebody would "read between the lines" so to speak, and pick out his truths from his lies. But why lie at all? Because of fear -- nothing else -- sheer fear for his own life. Hemming was clear about this, IMHO, in the Argosy interview mentioned above. Here's an excerpt: --------------------------- BEGIN Excerpt - 1974 ARGOSY Interview -------------------- ARGOSY: Can you be specific about the offers you received to kill Kennedy? HEMMING: Look, there are people who didn't have a goddamn thing to do with it, but they think they did because they were conned by other people. If they think somebody's gonna point the finger at them, they're gonna get 'em. And I'd like to stay alive. --------------------------- END Excerpt - 1974 ARGOSY Interview -------------------- This tells volumes, IMHO. It repeats something every JFK researcher already knows, namely, that there were several plots to murder JFK circulating throughout the USA, among the Mafia, among fanatic Right-wingers and in the South over the MLK scene. Because of the CIA blunder of hiring street thugs in their effort against Fidel Castro, the USA saw a new phenomenon -- hundreds and hundreds of petty thugs from the Mafia, the fanatic Right-wing and Southern racists, all claiming to work for the CIA. The more bold among them literally claimed to be actual "CIA Agents." Johnny Roselli was one of these. Loran Hall was perhaps another. Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin and David Ferrie were three more. This became their smoke-screen to get away with almost anything. Naturally this drew a large number of swindlers into the mix. One could make a speech to the JBS or some other right-wing group, and then in a back room somewhere, one would agree to kill JFK for $50,000 (as Loran Hall openly discussed in the National Enquirer magazine of 3 September 1968. This article can be found here: http://www.pet880.com/images/19680903_Natl_Enquirer_NB.pdf ) So, now look at what Gerry Patrick Hemming said: he wasn't about to go on record as naming names, simply because there were way too many people who believed that they contributed the money to the team that killed JFK -- even though most of them did nothing of the kind. Most of these people financed the wrong team. But the problem is that there were too many other them. Some of those victims had also been the victims of a double swindle, that is, their swindlers then came back to them (having proved they were nice and stupid) and tried to blackmail them by threatening to tell the FBI and CIA that they financed the murder of JFK. Well, as Gerry Patrick Hemming tells the story, those swindling blackmailers always ended up on the wrong side of a new Mafia hit contract. So -- there was already a culture of death that haunted those who dealt in donations to any of the several teams to murder JFK, most of which were bogus, some of which were bankrupt in Chicago, in Miami, or waiting in vain at the Trade Mart. So, Gerry Patrick Hemming had a damn good reason for speaking in mysteries. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Yes, Steven, I'm already aware of the vast research on Jack Ruby. It doesn't prove my point is wrong -- in fact, I believe it supports my point. Jack Ruby was a bit player in a much larger game. But even Jack Ruby knew that Edwin Walker and John Birch Society rogues were involved up to their necks. As for the Allen Dulles connection with British interests, they clearly existed insofar as the USA and England were Allies during WW2, but to suggest that they had global consequences after the clear defeat of England and the clear assumption of US Imperial power after WW2 is not only unproven, it is unnecessary. The British have indeed tried to influence US politics after their utter defeat (along with Germany, as both Berlin and London were reduced to rubble and at the mercy of USA charity). However, that does not mean that they were SUCCESSFUL at their attempts to influence the USA. Quite the contrary. The USA has played the UK card quite deftly since 1945. Your strongest argument above, IMHO, is your argument that "If Shelly is at the Trade Mart, then we have a manipulation going way beyond Walker/JBS." However, I believe I have an answer to your argument. One of the major players at the NOLA Trade Mart (besides Clay Shaw), as shown by Jim Garrison, was former ONI and FBI officer Guy Banister. Guy Banister, we have learned, was also a ranking officer of the Louisiana Minutemen, as well as a member of the John Birch Society. That is a double-connection with Ex-General Edwin Walker. Walker was not only a leader within the Dallas John Birch Society, but he was also a ranking officer of the Texas Minutemen. The Minutemen (for those few who aren't sure) were ultra-rightist, armed militia who met regularly for paramilitary exercises in woods and swamps around the USA. Their main fear was a Communist invasion from South America. (The 1984 movie starring a young Patrick Swayze, namely, Red Dawn, is from a 1960's script documenting the culture of the Minutemen.) There is a bigger connection. We have Lee Harvey Oswald being "sheep-dipped" (to use Jim Garrison's term) starting in April 1963, when he arrives in New Orleans, through August 1963, when he is finally ready to make his trip to Mexico City, taking his "street credentials" as an FPCC officer to the Cuban Embassy there. What else happened in April 1963? That's right, the fact (IMHO) that Oswald tried to kill Ex-General Walker. Both George De Mohrenschildt (I'm a Patsy, I'm a Patsy!, 1978) and Volkmar Schmidt (1987) admitted that they tried to convince Lee Harvey Oswald to hate ex-General Walker enough to kill him. This was in February of 1963. In March of 1963 Oswald ordered firearms through the mail. In April of 1963 Oswald (as Marina testified) admitted to Marina that he tried to kill Edwin Walker at his home. Dick Russell's 1993 book, The Man Who Knew Too Much, also documents the fact that after George De Mohrenshildt and his wife figured this out three days later, George told his friends, the Voshinins, about it four days later, and they told the FBI immediately. The FBI (I surmise) told Edwin Walker that same day (Easter Sunday) because Walker maintained in his personal papers, often and for the rest of his life, that he knew Oswald was his shooter days after the shooting. Yes, Walker lied to the Warren Commission about that -- but he told the truth to Senator Frank Church about it in the late 1970's. I surmise from all this that: (1) Walker was very close to Guy Banister through the Minutemen and the John Birch Society; (2) Walker knew Lee Harvey Oswald was his shooter on 14 April 1963; (3) Walker told his friends in the Minutemen about this outrage; (4) Guy Banister had a close associate, David Ferrie, who knew Lee Oswald since his youth; (5) Guy Banister, David Ferrie and Edwin Walker conceived a plot to get revenge on Lee Harvey Oswald; (6) Their plot would offer Oswald fame and fortune in a special, secret "CIA" operation to kill Fidel Castro; (7) Lee Harvey Oswald quickly moved to New Orleans to take advantage of this special offer; (8) The plan of Banister and Ferrie (with Ed Butler of INCA and Carlos Bringuier of DRE) would frame Oswald as an FPCC officer; (9) Oswald played his role with great gusto. Thus, Oswald knew his framers very well, and trusted them. (10) As the framing plot gained momentum in July and August, other people, like Clay Shaw, were brought into the mix. Clearly, once Clay Shaw was in, then rogue elements of the CIA began to participate. Thus, as I say -- I can explain the entire NOLA Trade Mart operation with Edwin Walker and the John Birch Society at the very center of that cyclone. It was not the CIA who planned this -- it was rogue CIA members and their street-punk assets who claimed to be CIA (and so fooled Jim Garrison, Joan Mellen and many others), who came in after the fact. Once the patsy was perfectly groomed, everything else fell into place. Without the patsy, this plot (like many others) would have been called off. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Gene, you're among a very few who recognize that Edwin Walker wanted to be our next US President. It doesn't seem plausible today, but remember that in 1963 not only was Barry Goldwater running, but so was George Wallace. The old Dixiecrats were also thinking of running another candidate of their own. The South was traditionally Democrat at a time when being a Democrat meant being a lily-white segretationist. Woodrow Wilson himself was elected partly on the fact that as President of Princeton University he fought to keep Black Americans out of the college. It was a winning formula in the South. Edwin Walker was clearly a child of the South. When H.L. Hunt encouraged and helped Edwin Walker to resign from the US Army (unsuccessfully in 1959, and successfully in 1961) he did so with the ideology of the John Birch Society. Walker was to win the Governor's office in Texas as a launching pad for President of the USA (much as other politicians have done this in more recent times). Even though Walker wasn't fired by JFK, but quit despite JFK's efforts to retain him, Walker and H.L. Hunt continually fed the myth that JFK fired Walker -- that Walker was the victim of a Communist plot in the White House. This mythology was not new -- it was started by Senator Eugene McCarthy with regard to President Truman firing General Douglas MacArthur in 1951. This mythology fed the US right-wing like gasoline on a fire. H.L. Hunt in the 1950s financed the Presidential campaign of Douglas MacArthur. MacArthur lost, but Hunt never gave up his drive to control the White House with his millions. It was apparently H.L. Hunt's idea to groom General Edwin Walker to take the place of General Douglas MacArthur and become the right-wing President that H.L. Hunt always wanted. So, Walker quit the US Army and forfeited his pension, but he landed in Dallas, in the neighborhood of H.L. Hunt's relatives, and he took an office in an oil company and began writing political speeches with the assurance that H.L. Hunt would finance his political campaigns. One month after he quit the US Army, in December 1961, Edwin Walker gave his first speech in Dallas at the Dallas Memorial Auditiorium (the same Auditorium where Adlai was later humiliated in Dallas). Walker addressed the Dallas home-grown organization, NIC (National Indignational Convention). He received about one standing ovation every minute of his speech, and his final standing ovation lasted for three minutes, said one reporter. (The speech was filmed, and YouTube kindly posts this snippet from Walker's first speech here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYyONwsHqbw ) In the liberal press, Edwin Walker had a reputation of being a terrible speaker. However, to the right-wing press, when Walker addressed the right-wing extremist groups, he had a reputation of being a fiery, fire-and-brimstone preacher who could whip crowds up to a fever pitch. Newsweek magazine in December 1961 featured Edwin Walker on its cover, as the leader of the ultra-right in the USA. The first part of 1962 saw Walker whip up crowds to a frenzy in city after city. He was a force to be reckoned with in those days. The early sixties movie, Seven Days in May, starring Burt Lancaster as the US General who would give public speeches to whip up crowds to frenzies, was loosely based on Ex-General Edwin Walker. (The Kennedys did much to support that film.) On Wednesday 14 March 1962, the Pecos Daily News, an independent, moderate Texas newspaper, published an article entitled, "The Unwanted And Also The Uninvited." It began as follows: --------------------------- BEGIN QUOTATION FROM THE PECOS DAILY NEWS 3/14/1962 --------------------------- "It is unpleasant to have to record the downfall of a once honored American that is ex-General Walker. The strange, poisonous bite of the John Birch Society infection forced him out of the Army for disloyalty to his Commander-in-Chief and inability to accept orders from his superior officers. The Birch infection dumped him into the Texas political scene, where he filed himself as an unwanted candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor. The unhappy Birch-type overweening conceit impelled him to get into the race that Democrats urged him to avoid. His assured loss of the nomination to any one of the several fine Democrats happily will wash him out of consideration for any elective place in either party. Now neither party will accept him as a Presidential nominee -- quite obviously his overly-ambitious ultimate goal..." --------------------------- END QUOTATION FROM THE PECOS DAILY NEWS 3/14/1962 --------------------------- So, Gene, I wanted to show you that your perception that Walker wanted to be US President was also evident to moderate Americans in 1962 as well. I would only add that with 1962-1963 politics in mind, Edwin Walker's political focus was riveted on Cuba, Cuba and more Cuba. Even when Walker wrote his Public Letter to JFK only days before he deliberately instigated the Ole Miss riots in late 1962, that Public Letter keeps the main focus on Cuba, rather than on Ole Miss. Here's the full text of that letter: http://www.pet880.com/images/19620926_EAW_Open_Letter.JPG So I repeat -- to understand the JFK murder, we should focus on 1962-1963, to the exclusion of later political developments, and resist projecting our more recent experience onto the events leading up to the JFK murder. Using this method, we can avoid projecting blame for 1963 onto the Bush family, and keep the focus where it squarely belongs -- on Ex-General Edwin Walker. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Gene, I appreciate your perspective, and I also appreciate your openness to my arguments. If Jim Root's work pans out, then we will have a closer link with Walker and Lee Harvey Oswald than I can find evidence for. I have serious reservations that it will pan out. If Gerry Patrick Hemming is Root's best witness, we must add an additional grain of salt. Dick Russell is a more plausible source. He relates in his famous, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1993) that the butler of H.L. Hunt reported that he overheard H.L. Hunt and Edwin Walker speaking about Lee Harvey Oswald in a private meeting only days before the JFK murder. He heard no details, but the name was unmistakable, he said. One key fact about Walker I'd like to emphasize -- you write: "the Kennedys were justified in having him decommissioned..." but in fact that's incorrect. JFK offered Walker a better job in Hawaii. Walker resigned his post (and was the only US General to do so in the 20th century). This was the second time Walker submitted his resignation -- the first time was in 1959, to President Eisenhower, around the same time Walker joined the Birchers, and he cited a "conspiracy" as his reason for quitting. Eisenhower denied the resignation, and instead sent Walker to Germany, where, after two years, he resigned again. JFK's offer of a job in Hawaii was fruitless. JFK accepted Walker's resignation. Walker resigned WITHOUT A PENSION and with his eyes wide open. The fact is that H.L. Hunt in Dallas had prepared a way for Walker, and would soon finance Walker's bid for Texas Governor. Anyway, I think that's an important historical point to clarify. By the way, I very much appreciate your notation about "Hidell Hardware" in Dallas. If that link pans out, then we might have a stronger confirmation of Jim Root's theory, which tries to link Walker and Oswald as early as 1959. I'm open to new information, Gene, truly. I realize I have a lot of work to do to convince the skeptics. The attempt on Walker's life on 10 April 1963 is the main sticking point. Having dived into that morass rather deeply, I'm convinced that the attack was genuine, and that Lee Harvey Oswald was one of two shooters that night. There is ample evidence from the Warren Commission (whose conclusions I reject, but whose testimony I largely accept) that George De Mohrenschildt was the key plotter against Walker, in conjunction with Michael Paine and Volkmar Schmidt. They worked on Lee Harvey Oswald who was reactively spouting Marine rhetoric about shooting JFK over the Bay of Pigs. De Mohrenschildt, Paine and Schmidt worked to convert Oswald into a "liberal" and yet they were shocked when Oswald took them at their word and actually tried to murder Walker. Then they ran like scared rabbits. Volkmar Schmidt gave his confession to this on film. He is eminently believable. (By the way, this in no way proves, as the Warren Commission suggested, that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Lone Shooter at JFK, and had no accomplices. Oswald had several accomplices as Jim Garrison showed.) It was this attack on Walker's life -- I maintain -- that got Walker involved in the plot to kill JFK. Walker says in his personal papers that he learned that Lee Harvey Oswald was his shooter only days after the shooting. That would be probably Easter Sunday, 1963, since that was the day that George De Mohrenschildt confessed to Mr and Mrs Igor Voshinin, who told Dick Russell that they called the FBI immediately. The FBI told Walker, evidently -- because Walker recounts his April 1963 knowledge of Oswald several times in his personal papers -- year after year in letters to powerful people and to newspapers. The evidence for this theory is material. The suspicions that many have about the shooting being staged seem to originate with Gerry Patrick Hemming. Enough said. Again -- I hope I'm not being tedious here -- the fact that Walker is too obvious as a suspect is one of his best defenses! Walker didn't mind being obvious -- he could walk between the raindrops. (By the way, Gene, may I ask you to please reconsider the phrase, "too obvious?" Obvious should mean obvious by any definition. It should be a flashing red light.) You were already aware that Walker led the attacks on Adlai Stevenson in October 1963 -- yet you are among the few I've spoken with who has expressed that knowledge. This is a central fact, IMHO, because again, Walker walks away from that crime scot free. As for Walker's demand to impeach Earl Warren -- that came from his adoption of the famous John Birch Society slogan. Warren was the Supreme Court promoter of the Brown Decision (1954) to racially integrate US public schools. The South called for his impeachment, and the John Birch Society found this to be its most successful rallying cry. Walker did behave as a racist, but I think it's important to note that Walker never spoke as a racist in any of the published speeches he ever delivered -- as far as I could tell from his personal papers. He catered to racist audiences -- but he always stopped short of the "N" word -- at a time when other politicians, and even Presidential candidates (e.g. George Wallace) were not shy about using that word. There is one claim that he once used the "N" word in Oklahoma, but it is unconfirmed. The issue is that Walker always wanted to return to politics. He thought he had a chance. The South was the only venue open to him, and so he took it, and tried his best. We must remember his youth -- President Woodrow Wilson had been famous in the South for keeping Princeton University lily-white. This was Conservatism for Walker's generation. Yes, Walker was arrested -- twice -- in his golden years for homosexual behavior in public. He was a lifelong closet homosexual, and this was perhaps his main political failing. His personal life is a deep dark mystery (and he has no personal papers on display that discuss it). Yet I believe that if historians can break this mystery, that the JFK murder can also be illuminated. (There is one item in his personal papers -- his secretary Julia Knecht, sent him a news clipping in the 1980's about the legalization of homosexuality in Germany, with an encouraging notation.) Walker was far from a lightening rod, far from a patsy, far from a distraction. He will one day prove to be the very key to solving the JFK murder, in my humble opinion. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <minor edits>

Yes, Ernie, in fact I have seen those letters, and evidently more than you have. It is from Robert Welch's own words about Edwin Walker that I made my statement. Once again, you jump in with both feet with eyes closed. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

However, Paul. B., your cynicism there simply shields Loran Hall from any further research. Loran Hall was a xxxx, we know that. What kind of person claims to be a CIA Agent when actually he is only one of the cheapest assets the CIA exploited in their haphazard battles against Fidel Castro? Toward the end of his life Loran Hall also accused his one-time friend, Gerry Patrick Hemming of being a Communist -- and threatened to beat up or shoot anybody who tried to interview him -- because at the end he became a paranoid speed-freak. Yet in his hey-day, from 1960-1963 Loran Hall was a capable fund-raiser and speech-maker. His speeches on YouTube today are a case in point. Hall was a capable mercenary soldier. Just like Gerry Patrick Hemming, with whom he fought both FOR and AGAINST Fidel Castro (but always on the side of the CIA), Loran Hall did what he believed was RIGHT. It was not his fault (just as it was not the fault of Harry Dean or Frank Sturgis) that Fidel Castro faked out his US Supporters and proved to be a COMMUNIST. So, this whiplash burned Hemming, Hall and Dean, Sturgis, Ferrie and countless others. It basically ruined their lives. But this should not convince us to stop giving Loran Hall the attention he surely deserves in JFK research. I invite everybody to review his own words (as taken down by Harold Weisberg) in 1968 at this URL: http://www.pet880.com/images/19680903_Natl_Enquirer_NB.pdf There is gold in there for the mining. Note for example his reference to "Ex-military" plotters in the JFK murder. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Gene, I hope you'll increase your suspicions of Edwin Walker, because I propose to present -- above and beyond the eye-witness claims of Harry Dean -- that Edwin Walker deserves far more attention than JFK research has afforded him in 50 years, and for this very reason has failed to connect all the dots. Walker is not as enigmatic as he seems, except that he seems made of Teflon -- the negative simply bounces away from him. He was able to get away with the riots of Ole Miss in 1962 (which was the real reason that Robert Welch distanced himself from Walker). You say that "his profile was too bright" to be a plotter or planner. Yet it is precisely this "brightness" which allowed him to get away with one outrage after another! One can detect a pattern with it. Consider this -- there is plenty of documented evidence that Edwin Walker was directly behind the beating and spitting at Adlai Stevenson in Dallas one month before JFK arrived. It was a well-known fact in Dallas -- printed in the periodical, The Big D, shortly after the incident. Did you know that? Why wasn't Edwin Walker prosecuted in the slightest bit for these attacks on Adlai Stevenson? I will offer my opinion -- Edwin Walker was made of Teflon, being a victorious World War Two US General. He could do no wrong in the eyes of Dallas society. He was a leader's leader among the extreme right-wing in Dallas, and he could get away with anything. Walker got away with the riots at Ole Miss. Walker got away with the attacks on Adlai Stevenson in Dallas. Would this same fanatic allow JFK -- the world's most powerful Communist (in Walker's honest opinion) -- to drive by in a parade only blocks away from Walker's home on Turtle Creek Boulevard in Dallas? I think we underestimate Walker because we think of him as just a fanatic old codger. This is a completely mistaken notion of a former US General (the only US General to resign in the 20th century) who ran for Governor of Texas only the year before! Walker had plenty of fight left in him in 1963. He bore a black eye after the riots at Ole Miss, mainly because JFK and RFK threw him into an insane asylum after the riots. Historians generally report that fact, but they also tend to omit the fact that famous psychiatrist Thomas Szasz reacted immediately to get Edwin Walker released in only two days from that insane asylum! In fact, even the ACLU opposed JFK and RFK on this decision! Psychiatrists came from everywhere to defend Edwin Walker from "political psychiatry." Brilliantly, Walker's attorneys argued in his case before the Mississippi Grand Jury that Edwin Walker was a victim in these Ole Miss trials, rather than a perpetrator! They won. So, history shows that Edwin Walker could walk under the radar, no matter how outrageous his actions were. I totally agree with you that Garrison and the HSCA just dismissed him as uninteresting. That's the Teflon. Walker's name appears hundreds of times in the Warren Commission volumes. He was one of the most interesting figures to the Warren attorneys at the time, and there were many (even aside from Jack Ruby) who suspected Walker and the JBS of the murder of JFK. Nothing has surfaced about Walker in the past 50 years you say? But actually the horrible beating that the Memoirs of Harry Dean have taken in this regard -- even here on this Forum -- are part of the suppression of a discussion for this Teflon Ex-General. Even in our sister web site of Spartacus, to this very day, false information about Harry Dean's case vis-a-vis the JBS and Loran Hall is spread by Spartacus (i.e. they spread the W.R. Morris nonsense that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI Agent and even a CIA Agent). That happens to be a lie. So -- when the lies about the Walker Case extend even to this very day, Gene, I cannot agree with you when you conclude that the past 50 years have produced nothing suspicious about Walker. These very lies about Harry Dean tend to protect Walker's image to this very day! These contemporary lies are themselves suspicious! As for Walker's pushing of the Warren Reynolds issue -- Walker was attempting to obscure his guilt, IMHO, by pushing on the FBI regarding Oswald's shooting at him in 10 April 1963. His personal papers mention this consistently until the year he died. Walker also pushed on the HSCA on this same score. He wanted to assure his place as a victim of the JFK investigation, rather than as a suspect. Again -- he succeeded brilliantly. The attempt on Reynold's life was real -- and the Dallas Police actually solved it. His shooter was known, but had an air-tight alibi also sealed by death. This was well known, even by the Warren Commission lawyers who dismissed Reynold's bizarre claim that Walker's second shooter was also his shooter. Walker was evidently the source of that lie. Finally, Gene, I'm glad you recognize the possibility that Loran Hall could have been trying to protect Walker before, during and after the JFK murder -- it is critical information, IMHO. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Although we agree, Gene, that the main goal of the JFK murder was REVENGE (for his alleged "Communist" treason) I must take issue with your assessment of history with regard to the John Birch Society. In no way did "the JBS and radical right...fade into obscurity." On the contrary. What faded into obscurity in the USA was the radical LEFT. Today the radical left-wing in America is a fried chicken wing. On the contrary -- the right-wing in America today is a profoundly powerful force, involving Tea Party politics. On the contrary -- the JBS today is still alive and well. You can look them up on the Internet. Furthermore, their children are almost all members of the Tea Party. Just look at the Koch brothers, Tea Party giants -- their father was a LEADER of the John Birch Society, and raised his sons according to their principles. That best explains their Tea Party politics. If we look deep enough into the Tea Party LEADERS, we'll find parents and grandparents who were members of the John Birch Society, I feel sure. So, Gene, I disagree with you on this point, too. IMHO, the John Birch Society -- which should have been prosecuted for the murder of JFK -- instead remains alive and well in American right-wing politics to this very day. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, I think these are all good questions. My responses are: 1. Rather than the word "intelligent," which I cannot stretch to include the JFK murderers -- I would use the word "shrewd." Did they have "animal intelligence?" Surely. Did they have professional acumen in the planning and execution of this crime? Surely. Were they intelligent enough to attain what they wanted by this means? NOT AT ALL. 2. My answer about what the plotters wanted is this: they wanted to blame the Communists for murdering JFK, so that the American public would invade Cuba, kill Fidel Castro, and return Cuba to Capitalism. As for your question about whether later developments turned out the way they originally planned, my answer is: NOT AT ALL. Further, I imagine that putting LBJ in the White House was entirely SECONDARY to their purpose. In my opinion, with the blaming of a Communist for the murder of JFK, the plotters believed that the American people would DEMAND that the USA invade Cuba, and that LBJ would have NO CHOICE but to obey the Will of the People. So, the plotters thought that they could manipulate history, and manipulate LBJ, by this crime. THEY FAILED. I agree with you on one point, Ernie -- the plotters didn't care one way or the other about LBJ. CUBA WAS THEIR MAIN CONCERN. The plotters honestly believed they could control LBJ by motivating the USA against the Communists. 3. Again -- the implication of Harry Dean's Memoirs is not that the John Birch Society wanted to put LBJ in the White House. Rather, as Harry plainly repeats -- the goal of the John Birch Society was to Control the USA in the War Against COMMUNISM. The Birchers were obsessed with this utterly stupid idea that sitting US Presidents were Communist or Communist-controlled, and they saw in their fevered imaginations that the Whole World was going COMMUNIST. They saw JFK as a COMMUNIST. This is not speculation -- this is part of the official literature -- which is MILD compared with the street talk among the John Birchers and their Minutemen cousins, according to many sources, including Harry Dean. So, Ernie, your argument has this flaw - it focuses on LBJ. Actually, LBJ was a minor player. The hope of those who murdered JFK was that their PATSY, Lee Harvey Oswald, was so perfectly framed as a COMMUNIST that the USA would have no choice but to invade CUBA and murder Fidel Castro and return Cuba to the Capitalist fold. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Gene, you can't conceive of it being a right-wing action, but you can conceive of it being paramilitary? WHAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE? In my studies of right-wing militancy in the USA, few groups stand as far to the right as the Minutemen, who were composed largely of ex-military personnel. An Ex-General like Edwin Walker in a group like the Minutemen would be a fearsome opponent. We must also remember that Walker, when he was younger, had Special Operations training in WW2. All of these maneuvers were as familiar to Walker as the back of his hand. You say their fingerprints would be erased -- and I grant that -- except this was the USA and not Vietnam -- and there were so many photographs and films taken at Dealey Plaza at the time of JFK's murder that we have a different ball game. Gene, respectfully sir, your opinion of Edwin Walker is far too biased for my taste. He was a US General, and deserves more credit than you give him. He certainly was no lunatic -- we have numerous psychiatrists who cleared him of that. Further, one cannot call Edwin Walker a "deviant" today without falling afoul of the Gay Politics in the USA today. Deviant? Because he was gay? If not that -- then what? Walker was a US General, and well-respected until late 1962 when he led the riots at Ole Miss against James Meredith. Even then, a Mississippi Grand Jury acquitted Edwin Walker of all charges in those riots (in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed). Part of Walker's power was the great respect that Americans have for their victorious Generals of WW2. Although I profoundly agree that Edwin Walker was no intellectual -- and he let Robert Welch mislead him into joining the utterly absurd John Birch Society -- that is not "deviance" because thousands upon thousands of Americans were joining the Birchers. I have no respect for the Bircher's intellectual powers, but I do respect their American rights to believe whatever nonsense they want to believe -- and to vote in the way they wish to vote. They remain adults and citizens with rights, even if not intellectuals. It is because I disagree so strongly with your characterization of Edwin Walker, Gene, that I also disagree sharply with your assessment of him as "a diversion and a scapegoat, meant to take us off of the true path of the assassins." That is even more cloak-and-dagger than Joan Mellen's theories. Nothing of the kind ever happened with Edwin Walker. The Warren Commission devoted a lot of attention to Edwin Walker -- he was truly a suspect in the JFK murder, and with good cause. You're not taking all the evidence into account, Gene. No way was Walker a "diversion" for anybody at all. No way was Edwin Walker (or Loran Hall) "a diversion or red herring." This is our sharpest disagreement, Gene. You're ignoring volumes of data about Edwin Walker. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well Greg, that snippet taken by itself does serve your theory. I'd already said, and it's well-known, that Hemming spoke in contradictory terms, mainly in self-defense. But there are so many other quotes from Gerry Patrick Hemming there that suggest the opposite. For example: So, Gerry Patrick Hemming stands on both sides of this debate. Loran Hall lied when he said he wasn't in Dallas the day JFK was murdered. Loran Hall left Miami with the "stated intent to kill Kennedy." Combine this with Harry Dean's eye-witness testimony to the Southern California cabal of John Birch Society plotters including Ex-General Edwin Walker, down to the level of Loran Hall. There is even more evidence marking Loran Hall than the contradictory (self-defensive) evidence we get from Gerry Patrick Hemming. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Gene, I appreciate your posting your theory in such a succinct and clear manner. Also, I think your theory has a lot to recommend it -- it's well-researched. I do agree, e.g. that William Harvey, David Morales and JMWave personnel are likely participants -- and in the case of David Morales, he is, IMHO, an absolutely certain plotter, because of his personal confession. Also, the Cuban motivation is the absolutely strongest motivation in 1963, IMHO. We err, IMHO, when we try to apply motivations from later years to the murder of JFK. The JMWave personnel were obsessed with Cuba. The failure to re-take Cuba was the Achilles heel of the JFK White House. Further, I agree with you when you say that "a small cabal...comprised of lower level professionals" within the CIA were the main plotters. That suggests to me that the official CIA was not involved (except in the panicked cover-up). The murderers included "lower-level" Agents who acted secretly, below the well-known (to them) radar of the CIA and FBI. That was the problem with the CIA in 1963 -- they were largely set-up by former Vice-President Nixon, and they had little loyalty to JFK, but more vitally, they were experts in SECRECY. The less loyal among them could and would keep secrets even from the White House -- and even from their CIA bosses. Although I exempt Allen Dulles from these "lower-level" Agents, I have little doubt that his sources of information were superior, so he knew more about what was happening underground than the new CIA Director. Yet I don't believe that he took direct action -- although he probably predicted the effort -- and he was a civilian at the time. Jim Garrison has proved that the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald began as soon as Oswald entered New Orleans in the Spring of 1963, and continued throughout the Summer of 1963, specifically by Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier. The entire New Orleans FPCC episode was street theater. It is impossible to believe that Clay Shaw was involved without the knowledge of the "lower-level" CIA Agents you reference, Gene, namely, William Harvey and David Morales. As for the rifle, I don't think it was bogus -- but it was lucky for the planners. It had already been used to try to kill Edwin Walker, IMHO, and this was the act which doomed Lee Oswald to his fate. It was George De Mohrenschildt, Michael Paine and Volkmar Schmidt (who confessed) who convinced Lee Harvey Oswald to murder Ex-General Edwin Walker. Oswald missed, and three days later the identity of Oswald was given to Walker through the FBI agent who heard it from Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin who heard it from George De Mohrenschildt himself. Walker knew on Easter Sunday that Lee Harvey Oswald (and one other person) was his shooter on 10 April 1963. (We get this info from Walker's personal papers, as well as from Dick Russell's TMWKTM combined with the Warren Report.) The manipulation of Oswald's rifle was an afterthought, managed by Gerry Patrick Hemming (by his own confession). Hemming was also part of the JMWave operation (at a very low level) as was Loran Hall (at an equally low level). These were the sorts of assets that David Morales could manipulate. Experts in black operations, they laid their plans with professional acumen -- as per Larry Hancock (SWHT/2010). Yet what Larry Hancock and Joan Mellon have not yet recognized, IMHO, is that for their ground-crew support in Dallas (which was not "neutralized" but "exploited") they relied on fanatics in the right-wing. Such fanatics would have by now joined the Cuban Exile march against JFK. We see this in the post-Grand Jury pronouncements of Edwin Walker -- that the Kennedys had so enraged him that he was now going to join the Cuban Exiles. I appreciate, Gene, that you recognize that "Organized crime and right wing radicals were used in certain actions," yet more detail is clearly required. I also agree with you that "we see CIA, FBI and politicians covering their backsides in the aftermath of the crime." This is true of the official CIA and FBI. I believe there were rogues (like Harvey and Morales) inside the CIA and inside the FBI (possibly James Hosty) who gave secret support to the cabal. Now, Gene, you chose to name ground-crew names, and I am very grateful for your courageous speculation on this point. Yet all your names are Cuban Exiles (i.e. Tony Cuesta, Diaz Garcia, Felipe Vidal Santiago, Rafael Quintero, Nestor Izquierdo, and Herminio Diaz Garcia). While you might be right, IMHO you've neglected any Mafia or American right-wing radicals in your line-up. I think one major point remains to be highlighted -- that the mistake of the CIA was to stoop to such a low level as using the Mafia and the Underground right in its operations in the USA. While the CIA had the custom of using the Mafia in foreign countries, they had no experience, and no protocol for domestic operations at all. Cuba was a bit too close to the USA to work with -- and they should have remained in Honduras and Guatemala for ALL their operations -- i.e. Florida was their big mistake. The biggest blunder inside that blunder was that the Mafia and the Underground right -- which consists not only of criminals but also of extremely stupid and headstrong individuals -- could now go around boasting that they were CIA Agents. The CIA got a tremendous black-eye from these hundreds of idiots claiming that they were CIA Agents, when actually they were the lowest-paid CIA "flunkies" that ever existed. Frank Sturgis is only one key example. This would include everybody named by Joan Mellen in her ground-breaking 2005 book, "Farewell to Justice," (e.g. Thomas Edward Beckham and his principal handlers, Jack Martin and Fred Crisman). Here were perhaps hundreds of street-level flunkies who boasted about being CIA Agents -- and most were little more than common criminals -- like Johnny Roselli and many more. Frank Sturgis, by the way, is a certain plotter, because of his personal confession. E. Howard Hunt, also, is a certain plotter (somewhat removed) because of his personal, death-bed confession. Yet not nearly enough light has been shown on Loran Hall or Edwin Walker, IMHO. Walker was a Dallas asset with a mammoth altitude and authority amongst right-wing crackpots -- for which Dallas was famous. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., I perceive that you bring your political bias to this discussion. We all have political views, so that's no crime, but I believe your political views have clouded your evaluation of JFK research. Your view is biased against the wealthy -- the rich -- the 1% who control the wealth of the USA as compared to the 99% who have less than they do. We might add, however, that among that 99% there are many millionaires. That's right. Millionaires. The 1% today are billionaires and multi-billionaires. This is nothing new. In 1937 Ferdinand Lundberg wrote, "America's 60 Families" to show that not 1% but 1% of 1% of 1% of the population owned most of America, and controlled Americans with a financial fist. However, America has thousands of millionaires today, compared with 1937, and paradoxically, the fact that as much as 1% of the population are in control of the Economy is real progress. Most other nations don't have it so well -- they are still ruled by 1% of 1% of 1%. So, I say to my leftist fellow Americans -- look on the bright side. Also, JFK himself was part of that upper 1%. It is too simplistic to say that JFK was the enemy of the "military industrial complex." In fact, the Kennedy family was heavily invested in that same military industrial complex. I realize that in my opinions here I'm also challenging the great Jim Garrison, who also wished to blame the CIA for the murder of JFK, and who also cited the Vietnam War as one of their main goals. I admit that Jim Garrison was the courageous leader of JFK research when nobody else wanted to follow that path. However, this does not make Jim into a saint or a prophet -- and not everything Jim Garrison said was correct. So, to answer your question, Paul B., yes, I can easily doubt that Allen Dulles hated JFK, or regarded him as an enemy of the upper 1% of America. Quite the contrary. I admit that Dulles probably believed that JFK was mistaken on many issues -- including his own fitness to be CIA Director. Yet I don't compare Allen Dulles a John Birch Society fanatic like Ex-General Edwin Walker. I say that the John Birch Society and Ex-General Edwin Walker stand at the *center* of the murder of JFK. What is my evidence, which challenges the mountain of evidence provided by Jim Garrison? My evidence is Jack Ruby himself -- a man far closer to the events in Dallas than Jim Garrison ever was there in New Orleans. Jack Ruby personally told Supreme Court Earl Warren that those responsible for the JFK murder were the John Birch Society and General Edwin Walker in Dallas. People somehow let this fact of testimony slip through their fingers. Jim Garrison let it slip, too. That was his most glaring error of his entire heroic investigation, IMHO. Regards, --Paul Trejo

I must say, Paul B., that you do grasp my position fairly well. I am skeptical about theories that attribute crass and unrepentant Evil to the US Government -- and claims that to this very day that US Government is covering up its own Evil by withholding records about Lee Harvey Oswald. I am skeptical about theories that claim that the CIA planned, executed and covered-up the murder of JFK. We are shown circumstantial evidence -- suspicions at a high level -- and "it must have been" and "as everybody knows" types of arguments. In my reading there is a galaxy of difference between Dulles and Ex-General Edwin Walker -- who graduated in the BOTTOM 10% of his class at West Point, and whose intellect was challenged by the John Birch Society literature -- of which he could never liberate himself. Walker therefore had an average IQ at best. Yes, Walker was a great soldier and gunnery Captain -- but was he really two-star General material? General Walker's pathetic performance as a General in Germany 1960-1961 is a matter of Congressional Record. Walker's ridiculous right-wing speeches after he became a civilian are a matter of his own private papers for all to read. Walker was not an intellectual -- and in my opinion, because he was a member of the John Birch Society, this suggests that he might have taken a blow to the head during combat in WW2 or in Korea. (Or perhaps the rumors about Walker having a brain tumor might have some truth in them.) Now, contrast this intellectual pea-brain with an intellectual giant like Allen Dulles. There is really no comparison -- look at the accomplishments of Allen Dulles in WW2 and in the CIA as Agent and Director. What an intellect! No, Paul B., you'll have to offer more than equivocation to compare these two men, so very different. So I conclude -- if one leans to the Left (just as one leans to the Right) one is going to miss the most important nuances of American Politics -- because most Americans strive mightily to stand in the Middle Road of politics, and resist the two extremes. Therefore -- I need more PROOF if somebody is going to blame the US Government for the murder of JFK. I agree that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act ALONE. I insist that he had Accomplices. I demand to know their names at the Ground-Crew level. It's been fifty years and, like most other readers in the world, I'm still waiting. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Yes, Paul B., I can see your point, and I agree that it is plausible and that I might be mistaken. Yet I must also add that y'all haven't proven your point either. Your point is solid IF AND ONLY IF the plot to kill JFK originated with the NSC people. But if there are any holes in that scenario, then you've accused Allen Dulles without much evidence. Yes -- there are suspicious circumstances -- the most glaring is that JFK fired Dulles as CIA Director, and blamed Dulles (ultimately) for the Bay of Pigs disaster. One can argue that Dulles never forgave JFK for that. One can also argue that Dulles was convinced that JFK was a Communist -- just like the John Birch Society preached that JFK was a Communist. But I cannot fix my mind to think of a genius like Allen Dulles reducing his intellect to the pea-brain of a John Birch Society moron. No -- only absolute idiots believed that JFK was a Communist -- and Allen Dulles was no idiot. Also, Allen Dulles might have resented JFK for getting fired from his favorite job as CIA Director -- but that is not enough motivation for a genius like Allen Dulles to assassinate a sitting President, IMHO. In short, to imagine that Allen Dulles worried that JFK was a Communist and had to be killed is to reduce this hero of WW2 and so many successful CIA missions down to the level of a stupid idiot member of the John Birch Society. So, since that's plainly implausible, I don't see a match there. If we don't respect Allen Dulles, it's easier to accuse him of things we don't like. But I've read his career, and as US military biographies go, I'm impressed with Allen Dulles. Like his brother, John Foster Dulles, he was a great man and a great leader of the USA. Allen Dulles was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) like his brother -- and the John Birch Society then claimed that Allen Dulles and his brother were both Communists on that basis. Like I said -- the John Birch Society consists of some of the stupidest Americans who ever lived. They are so stupid they don't realize that their so-called patriotism is constructed entirely on disloyalty to the USA. Even a super-conservative like J. Edgar Hoover rejected the John Birchers, and made a policy that no FBI Agent could be a member of the Birchers. So -- y'all have a mismatch. Allen Dulles wasn't that stupid. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Steve, it seems to me that what you have there is circumstantial evidence. That's the sort of evidence that was presented by Hoover to convict Lee Harvey Oswald. That didn't actually stick very well, according to the critical literature of the last fifty years. While it's true that former CIA Director Allen Dulles was part of the COVER-UP of the JFK murder, that is quite different, IMHO, from being a part of the EXECUTION of the JFK murder -- and I claim that these two acts represent two very different and opposite groups. IMHO, the people who covered up the JFK murder were not the friends of the people who murdered JFK. The people who murdered JFK painted Oswald as a Red because they wanted to blame the Reds. But the people who covered it up painted Oswald as a Lone Nut, because they didn't want the real murderers to have their way. That's what the evidence shows to me today. For the past fifty years, most JFK researchers have presumed (based on circumstantial evidence) that those who covered up the JFK murder were the same people that murdered JFK. But this new perspective will change everything, IMHO. Regards, --Paul Trejo

bump