Paul Trejo

So, basically, Tommy, you're merely saying that you refuse to return to the topic of my two urgent questions about "Leopoldo" namely: (1) Why did the FBI pick up Loran Hall in the first place? (2) Why did Loran Hall confess at first? Instead of dealing with those two questions, you consistently change the topic to my personality -- the old ad hominem gambit. The fact is glaringly clear -- you don't have a response. Despite these urgent facts, you'll stick to your belief system, and just run away. Oh, well. --Paul Trejo

Larry, I just finished chapters 6 and 7 from your new book, Shadow Warfare. Those chapters clearly described in documented detail the evolution of the CIA during the days of President Truman and the Guatemala crisis of the 1950's. Truman's response was a project called, PBFORTUNE which was scuttled due to client leaks. You also showed that during Eisenhower's term, the Guatemala project was revived under the name of PBSUCCESS, and with its successful replacement of the left-wing regime of Jacobo Guzman Árbenz with the right-wing regime of Carlos Castillo Armas in Guatemala, these CIA Agents enjoyed the grateful but secret commendations of President Eisenhower. This was a fitting historical background for the Cuban period, since many of the same personnel involved with PBSUCCESS (Alan Dulles, Richard Bissell, Tracy Barnes, J.C. King, David Morales and David Atlee Phillips) will reaappear again for a showdown with Fidel Castro. I'll now begin Chapter 11 -- your chapter on Cuba -- with a clearer orientation than before. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Tommy, I deny that I "twist" words and facts deliberately. If I make a mistake and its shown to me, then I'll apologize, as you know. (1) My objection to your claims about "Leopoldo" have less to do with the height and weight of Loran Hall (as you noted) than with the notion that estimated height and weight are as important as you make them. I myself cannot accurately guess the height or weight of people. I really can't. I once saw a Carnival barker who could guess anybody's height and weight within one inch and one pound -- and I was truly amazed. I thought there had to be a trick to it. My denial that Bernardo De Torres was "Leopoldo" is that Sylvia Odio first and foremost claimed that these three men at her doorstep were strangers to her. Yet Bernardo and Sylvia had seen each other in Cuba (says Joan Mellen). Also, Angelo Murgado knew people in Sylvia Odio's family -- did he not? So, on that basis alone, it is utterly impossible that Bernardo De Torres could be "Leopoldo". I've already explained why it is utterly impossible for Angelo Murgado to be "Angelo." You are quite right to note that Bernardo De Torres matches Sylvia's "estimated" height and weight for "Leopoldo," and if those facts (and the receding hairline) were her only descriptions, then you'd have a match. Yet, since Sylvia knew Bernardo -- there is no possibility of a match. If one wants to be totally LITERAL about it, then of course we don't have any match at all -- nobody we know matches "Leopoldo" exactly as Sylvia Odio described him. The FBI showed Sylvia many, many photographs, and she denied that any one of them was "Leopoldo" or "Angelo". HOWEVER -- the FBI *eventually* picked up Loran Hall -- and at that time Loran Hall confessed that yes, it was he himself, Loran Hall (alias Lorenzo Pacillo) and Larry Howard (alias Alonzo Escruido) who visited Sylvia Duran during the final week of September 1963. That is the evidence that theorists must explain. I think that you make entirely too much of the heights and weights given by Sylvia Odio -- and because I myself find it so difficult to guess people's height and weight, you'll have to do a lot more than repeat yourself to convince me. (2) I've already apologized for calling a two month lapse of time "immediate." It was an exaggeration that was intended to draw attention to my point. I wasn't aware that confessed exaggerations were unforgivable around here. (3) I will apologize today for calling Sylvia Odio's height and weight estimates just "random guesses." That again was an exaggeration. I should have said, "estimates." (4) I will also apologize today for saying that Sylvia Odio admitted to "just guessing" in her WC testimony, when actually the words she used were, "about" and "something like that." While one cannot obtain precision from that sort of language, I admit today that this is not the same as "just guessing." All right, Tommy? I've apologized where I used exaggeration. I hope you're satisfied with an apology. Also, I'm not in the slightest desperate for anybody to see things my way -- and I obtain no "advantage" one way or another. Despite an occasional error on my part (usually due to exaggeration or a figure of speech) the points I make about history and about evidence in the JFK murder case tends to be stronger than most. For example -- in the case of Bernardo De Torres being "Leopoldo," I think your case, Tommy, is decidedly weak. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Paul -- since I am the person who provided Keith Gilbert's comments, it is certainly odd that you accuse me of "evading" them. And, yet again, you need a dictionary. "FACT" is something proven to be true -- i.e. reality. What Gilbert wrote was a recollection or an anecdote, or hearsay -- but not "FACT". You obviously do not understand the different between assertions and proven verifiable facts. You miss my point, Ernie. It is precisely because you were the one who provided Keith Gilbert's remarks on this thread that makes this whole situation drip with irony! Did you also miss the connection of what you were promoting in Keith GIlbert's remarks with what you are opposing in Harry Dean's remarks? Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

OK, Larry; you've recommended chapters 6,7,11 and 12. I appreciate your advice and I'll read the chapters in that order. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Very interesting perspective, Jim. I can accept and follow most of this. I wonder if Oswald knew he was being used as a patsy in the USSR, however. Perhaps -- I'm not convinced yet. Was Oswald capable of killing JFK? Nobody could find a motive. If Oswald figured out that he was a patsy in the USSR, then perhaps you've uncovered a motive. I'm not convinced, yet. Yet I'm inclined to agree with you, for two main reasons: (1) Lee Harvey Oswald was only a fake supporter of the FPCC and Fidel Castro. Actually, Oswald was a right-wing vigilante and his material friends and associates were all right-wing vigilantes. (Oswald did communicate with the Communists, but only using the postal service, and deliberately leaving a paper trail. Oswald did not form friendships on the left-wing.) On the right-wing, Oswald was careful never to leave a paper trail -- but we have eye-witnesses including those identified by Jim Garrison, Joan Mellen, Gerry Patrick Hemming and Harry Dean. (2) Lee Harvey Oswald's friends were all extreme right-wingers -- and as Gerry Patrick Hemming and Harry Dean agree, everybody in the extreme right-wing in 1963 spoke about murdering JFK on a daily basis. (There were probably 200 plots to murder JFK out there, suggested Hemming, with people donating money so wildly, than when JFK was finally murdered, the crooks tried to blackmail those who had donated money, threatening them with exposure, and so those donors turned to the Mafia to kill the blackmailers, said Hemming. This was one key reason that Hemming would never tell all he knew.) Therefore, I agree that Lee Harvey Oswald was capable of shooting at JFK (precisely over the Bay of Pigs). However, I don't believe that Oswald was crazy enough to try this on his own. I believe that Oswald became part of a much larger plot -- involving scores of people -- and he finally agreed to take orders for a change. It was too late for him, though, because he had been sheep-dipped as Patsy Number One. Oswald didn't know that he was the Patsy at the time. That means that he was easily fooled. That suggests that he did not realize he was a patsy in the USSR until long after the fact (if ever). Nothing changed Lee Harvey Oswald from his friends and connections in the extreme right-wing. For this reason, the Warren Commission and FBI had to paint Lee Harvey Oswald as a "Loner" even though he really had plenty of friends. All of Oswald's friends and associates were on the right-wing -- and for some strange reason the Warren Commission and the FBI decided to shield the right-wing from lawful prosecution. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

However, Tommy, the only evidence you have that "Leopoldo" weighed 160 pounds is the random guess of Sylvia Odio who admitted she was just guessing. If you counter that she guessed the height and weight of Lee Harvey Oswald correctly, I could counter that Lee Harvey Oswald was the most infamous person in the world at that time, with countless articles in the news and press, including a full description -- so perhaps she read it somewhere. My point to you was that we have more evidence to support Harry Dean's belief that "Leopoldo" was Loran Hall than other evidence that "Leopoldo" was Bernardo De Torres. Angelo Murgado claimed that that "Leopoldo" was Bernardo De Torres, and that he was "Angelo" during the visit to Sylvia Odio's that day. However, he also said that he and Bernardo did not have a third person with them. He also said that Lee Harvey Oswald was already in the living room with Sylvia Odio when Bernardo and he arrived. Clearly Angelo Murgado was thinking of a different visit. Firstly, Sylvia Odio was already familiar with Bernardo De Torres in Cuba, yet she stated clearly that the three men at her doorstep during the final week of September 1963 were strangers to her. Secondly, Sylvia Odio explicitly said that she refused to let the three strangers into her home. Thirdly, Angelo said that he was the one who had business with Sylvia Odio, so he shook the hand of the visitor with Sylvia, but Angelo did not speak with him; he only spoke with Sylvia at length. However, Sylvia said that "Leopoldo" did most of the talking, and "Angelo" only said "Hello". Fourthly, Sylvia Odio plainly stated that the two Latinos gave her their "war names" and of course Angelo Murgado's first name was really "Angelo," and not a "war name." So, I have no doubt that Angelo Murgado and Bernardo De Torres visited Sylvia Odio in Dallas sometime -- but the person in her living room was somebody else than Lee Harvey Oswald, without any doubt. Angelo Murgado is simply mistaken about that visitor, and I think you should recognize that. As for Ernie -- he continually evades the simple FACT that Keith Gilbert plainly testified to exactly the same two points that Harry Dean has always promoted, namely: .1. Loran Hall (alias Lorenzo Pacillo) was seen in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald. .2. Loran Hall and Lee Harvey Oswald were both connected with the Minutemen in Southern California. Why doesn't Ernie respond to this important FACT? You're only encouraging him to evade facts, Tommy, when you egg him on that way. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, you consistenly miss my point. Your bias contiuously skews your judgment. Once again, here's my point: your own subject, Keith Gilbert plainly confirmed key parts of Harry Dean's main story, namely: .1. That Loran Hall (alias Lorenzo Pacillo) was seen in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald. .2. That Loran Hall and Lee Harvey Oswald were also connected with the Minutemen in Southern California. Why don't you respond to this important FACT? Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., that's a problem I have -- the Constitution makes no provision for the CIA. I think the Masonic argument is too late here, because as Jim Phelps explains elsewhere, the Masons themselves were long ago divided between the Imperialist (Colonizing) Masons of the UK, and the Anti-Imperialist (Non-Colonizing) Masons of the USA. This is where George Washington and the Founding Fathers of 1776 arrive on the scene. Everything changed in the world when the UK fell from its place of Imperialist Global Power in 1945, and the USA suddenly emerged to the role of Anti-Imperialist Global Power. Nothing like this ever happened in history before. The USA has been shaky with its Global Power -- we started with a half-hearted tendency to imitate the UK and its Colonial policies (e.g. with Vietnam). Even former Vice President Dick Chaney expected the USA to take a Colonial attitude toward Iraq and appropriate its oil fields to pay for our war there. But the personality of the USA simply isn't like that. We're Anti-Colonialists. So, we're walking around confused about it. The US Constitution made no provision for the USA becoming the Global Power. That, IMHO, is the real origin of the CIA. It is necessary, but it is an after-thought -- it hasn't yet been reconsidered in the light of the US Constitution within a Global Power scenario. Yes, I want to give the CIA the benefit of the doubt; I want to give our government the benefit of the doubt. The evidence does partially suggest this, Paul B., yet it remains inconclusive. Joan Mellen's book, Farewell to Justice (2005), makes another case that the CIA carefully planned the JFK murder, using her main character, the young Thomas Edward Beckham, a protoge of Fred Crisman and Jack Martin. Yet although she made a solid case that Fred Crisman and Jack Martin were clearly involved in the JFK murder up to their necks (as was Lee Harvey Oswald) she failed to make a solid case that these men were actually CIA Agents. (They claimed that they were, but so what?) The same must be said about Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and Larry Howard. They talked big about the CIA -- and they boasted about the CIA a great deal. (For that matter, so did Johnny Roselli and his Mafia connections). This was the problem with the CIA in those days -- they had gone slumming. The Cuban crisis caused the CIA to reach down into the gutter for expendible resources, and they selected members from the Mafia and the likes of David Ferrie and company. The power and secrecy intoxicated them -- and they exterted their own influence -- that is how the JFK murder became plausible. See -- I'm still arguing that rogue CIA (and Pentagon) agents were behind the JFK murder -- and not the official CIA or the official Pentagon. Now -- once the deed was done, yes, the CIA and the Pentagon had to cover it up. They had no choice, obviously. However, I believe we can be certain that those who murdered JFK and those who covered it up were two different groups. The JFK murderers were obsessed with Cuba, and they failed to get what they wanted with regard to Cuba. Those who covered up the deed were more level-headed. I've been reading more about the alleged "leadership" role of George Bush Sr. in the JFK murder, and I'm far from convinced. This 39 year old businessman had very strong connections, clearly, but in 1963 the US powers-that-be were not going to relinquish their control to this young businessman, no matter how bright he was. The problem, of course, is that we're now half-a-century past the JFK murder, and we are affected by all the events that happened afterwards. The Vietnam War completely distracted the national mind away from Cuba, for example. To grasp the JFK murder, I believe, we must return to the Sitz Im Leben of 1963, and apply the hermeneutic method to that history. The American Zietgeist of 1963 was Cuba, Cuba, Civil Rights marches and a little more Cuba. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Larry, I've obtained a copy of your book, Shadow Warfare: The HIstory of America's Undeclared Wars (2014), and I'm going to concentrate on Chapter 11: Against the Castro Regime. I'll eventually add my remarks to this thread. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

No, Ernie, the error in Logic is yours, not mine. 1. I never said that "similarity is identity." That's your mistake. 2. As for the demographics of Minutemen versus John Birch Society members, I am clearly offering an opinion based on personal observation -- I've known many Southern California John Birch Society people -- many. They were all professional people; every single one. Doctors, dentists, lawyers, insurance and real estate agents. They were all home-owners; every one. They were all Anglo-European, with the exception of one Jewish person. I myself was very interested in their literature for many years, and I read many of their books and magazines. I attended one showing of a JBS film in San Jose in 1975 in one member's home. It was out of curiosity, but I was allowed to attend. I felt very much out of place there -- but at least this proves that blue-collar workers (as I was at the time) could be allowed to become members. I just never saw any who were. I myself never met a Minuteman -- except for Harry Dean. I asked Harry Dean many questions about them; and Harry told me that they were very comfortable with guns, rifles and paramilitary training. That does not match most ordinary middle-class people I know (although very likely there were a few doctors, dentists and lawyers in their ranks.) So -- I never said that *all* JBS members were upper-middle class; or that *all* Minutemen were blue-collar types -- however, on the basis of my experience, reading people (JBS) tended to be upper-middle class, while the action people (Minutemen) were apparently lower-middle class. 3. Nor did I ever suggest that every single JBS member was "upper middle class professional." You are over-generalizing. My suggestion was merely that *most* JBS members were "upper middle class professionals." As for Harry Dean, Guy Galbadon, Loran Hall, Edwin Walker and Lawrence Howard -- they were all Minutemen; so I will repeat -- the JBS were the ideological leaders, and the Minutemen were their foot-soldiers. Yet there were blends. Edwin Walker, for example, was also an ideological leader -- that is, he gave speeches and he raised money for the cause. Guy Gabaldon and Loran Hall also made speeches -- mainly in an effort to collect funds and supplies for Cuban Raids. So, their activities were blended -- a portion of JBS and a portion of Minutemen. 4. I am completely aware that many Conservatives rejected the JBS/Minuteman ideology -- and William F. Buckley is a perfect example. That proves nothing about social class. The JBS had many super-rich supporters like H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison, and many others. As for upper-middle-class JBS members, Guy Gabaldon and Harry Dean spent considerable time in Southern California collecting funds, supplies and medicines from dentists, doctors, lawyers and other upper-middle-class professionals with significant disposable incomes. One of these JBS supporters donated an *airplane* to Guy Gabaldon. These people had plenty of money -- that is extremely clear in the histories. 5. The real bottom line, Ernie, is this -- that you're missing my point. You are the one making generalizations. I merely pointed out some similarities. It's up to the reader to weigh these facts and draw possible conclusions. I pointed out that your subject, Keith Gilbert plainly confirmed key parts of Harry Dean's main story, namely: .1. That Loran Hall (alias Lorenzo Pacillo) was seen in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald. .2. That Loran Hall and Lee Harvey Oswald were also connected with the Minutemen in Southern California. This isn't mere speculation on my part -- this is documented in your own post above. The similarities are striking. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Yes, absolutely, Ernie, this post about the allegations of Keith Gilbert is indeed of great interest on the Harry Dean thread. For one thing, Gilbert's claims confirm parts of Harry Dean's main story. 1. That Loran Hall (alias Lorenzo Pacillo) was seen in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald. 2. That Loran Hall and Lee Harvey Oswald were also connected with the Minutemen in Southern California. That is a crucial observation -- it confirms the crux of Harry Dean's account of the JFK murder. Now -- one can split hairs to argue that the Minutemen is completely separate from the JBS (John Birch Society), however, one can more easily make the case that the MInutemen and the JBS were very closely related, not only by ideology, but by personnel. The key to their relationship was roughly as follows: the members of the JBS tended to be upper-middle class professional men and women, well-to-do, living in upscale neighborhoods like Pasadena, the Hollywood hills, Beverley Hills, and so on. Often they were doctors, dentists and lawyers. They had expendible money, and they would often make generous donations to political causes. The members of the Minutemen, on the other hand, tended to be lower-middle class working men and women, often military veterans, comfortable, living in middle-class neighborhoods, and accustomed to hunting for food and sport. They were raised with firearms, and very comfortable with them. When it came to politics, they would more likely pick up their weapon than make a cash donation. It was well known that members of the JBS would finance raids on Cuba. Doctors, lawyers and dentists from Southern California (and other places in the USA) would donate firearms and medicine (often amphetemines, which were helpful in combat situations). Harry Dean and Guy Gabaldon, both active members of the JBS, had a circuit in Southern California in which they would collect firearms, cash and medicines to supply paramilitary adventures in Cuba. Minutemen supplied the manpower. The politics of the teams were the same. It has always been the contention that the Minutemen and the JBS acted in concert -- not with separate causes, but with one unified cause -- to do anything and everything to oppose Communism in Cuba. These claims by Keith Gilbert go a long way toward confirming the allegations of Harry Dean. Regards, --Paul Trejo

It's been a long time since I've reviewed your question, Ian, yet I would answer it differently today. I agree today that Ex-General Edwin Walker could not have contained the entire JFK murder operation, and surely not even a part of the vast cover-up that included manipulation of the autopsy and the standing down of US Army protection for JFK. To maintain my theory that Walker was far more important in the JFK murder than history has so far ascribed to him, I would still attempt to maintain that Walker controlled the Dallas portion of the operation with an iron fist, and that he delegated the sheep-dip of Oswald to Guy Banister and Ed Butler (who had plenty of help in NOLA, including David Ferrie, Carlos Bringuier, Loran Hall and Larry Howard -- and even Gerry Patrick Hemming). Many patsies were sought during the months leading up to November 1963 -- but when Walker had the bright idea to make a patsy of Lee Harvey Oswald -- and when Walker got expert help from Banister and Butler in NOLA -- the pieces then flew together like magic. Everything came into focus once Lee Harvey Oswald was put into a perfect position to be the patsy. This was the brain-child of Ex-General Edwin Walker. Walker's main motivation was his belief (whether warranted or not) that Lee Harvey Oswald had been his shooter on 10 April 1963. His personal papers now on display at UT Austin (Briscoe Center) provide ample proof of Walker's beliefs on this topic. Naturally there were back-up plans. Nothing this big could be left to the possibility of accidents. There were back-up patsies. Double-agents were first on the list. This is why R.C. Nagell panicked and got himself arrested on 20 September 1963 -- he didn't want to become a back-up patsy. Hemming also thought he was a back-up patsy. So did Loran Hall. Harry Dean has some evidence that he was considered as a back-up patsy. But everything went smoothly with Lee Harvey Oswald. He could be manipulated precisely because he wasn't a CIA Agent (or an FBI Agent) but he knew he was under consideration, and he desperatedly wanted to be one, and he believed he was being tested for the job. Like most underlings in the JFK murder plot, Oswald got started with the mistaken belief that this was one more plot to kill Fidel Castro. This is the key clue to explain the Mexico City episode. Lee Harvey Oswald didn't know he was making a fool of himself in Mexico City -- but his sheep-dippers knew very well that he was. R.C. Nagell and Harry Dean agree on another key point -- that Lee Harvey Oswald believed that he would receive $500 from some Intelligence Agent in Mexico City. (Remember that, adjusted for inflation, $500 in 1963 was like $5,000 today). So, nothing was going to prevent the poverty-stricken Oswald from Mexico City -- or from making deals with people he presumed were in the CIA. An elaborate charade had been prepared for Oswald. I still don't see the CIA directly involved -- I will give them the benefit of this doubt. The players in the CIA who played ball with Guy Banister and Ed Butler were David Atlee Phillips, William Harvey and David Morales -- but this was all on their own time. Their activities were unofficial, as they had become wild card rogue radicals. Perhaps James Jesus Angleton, Richard Helms and E. Howard Hunt became directly involved when they found out later (rather than as accomplices after the fact, as I currently suspect). The problem with the CIA in 1963 is that the culture of high secrecy gave the top agents far too much freedom to do anything they wanted -- including a plot like this. Those close to the Bay of Pigs survivors had become emotionally involved. So I can't feel certain about each and every player -- yet. Within the Pentagon, I believe we can be certain that General Lansdale was directly involved -- perhaps he was the highest ranking US official involved -- and we have this directly from Fletcher Prouty, a former CIA operative. This information is rock solid, I'm sure. Still, I maintain that this was unofficial -- it was a rogue action and known only to a very few people. General Lansdale was trusted, and he was used to top secrecy, since he dealt so closely with the CIA for so long. Nevertheless -- nothing at all could have proceeded until the patsy was completely ready -- and the status magically transformed when Lee Harvey Oswald returned to Dallas, hat in hand, humbled, and finally ready to follow orders and be a team player. It was too late for him -- but he didn't know it. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

I myself chafe when speaking of conspiracy theories at this level. The problem with Secret Societies is that they are secret, and so our imaginations can run wild when guessing what they might be up to. Yet, as Evan Marshall suggests, the Masons can't be all that secret because there are so many books about them, exposing their beliefs and so on. Yet when we get right down to the nub, the USA is full of private cabals of citizens who conspire to improve their own wealth at the expense of others -- they are called Corporations. (The Law requires Corporations to make their activities public -- but that only goes so far. There are always secrets, and they can be privileged under the rubric of Industrial and Trade Secrets.) So there is no way around this. There will always be gung-ho boys out there who will try to take over the world. The beauty of the Free Enterprise System is that the vast majority of them are defeated quickly in Free Competition. Those who are left standing after the melee of Free Competition are clearly the best and the brightest, and we let them rise as far as they can. Theoretically, the highest anybody can rise in the USA is to be President of the USA. Well -- that was true until JFK was murdered -- and now we're not so sure anymore. Many Americans believe that even the President is a puppet of larger forces. For example, those of us old enough to remember the early years of the Reagan presidency remember how inept he was at public press conferences. He was no intellectual. He was a great actor and a great reader. Whenever he had a great speech to deliver (which was written for him by a Committee, most likely led by George Bush Sr.) he did a great job, because he had trained for a lifetime as an actor. For this performance Ronald Reagan became one of the most beloved Presidents in US History. But who controlled this mediocre intellect? In my humble opinion, George Bush Sr. was the controlling force of Ronald Reagan, and Bush ran the USA indirectly although he was only the Vice President. In my opinion, George Bush Sr. ran the country directly for only the four years in which he was President. In my opinion, George Bush Sr. continued to run the USA indirectly through his son, George W. Bush, who again was no intellectual, and whose early years as President also showed an inept performance. Like Ronald Reagan, once Dubya learned to stick with the script written by the Committee (most likely led by his father), he came off much better. So, in my opinion, George Bush Sr. really ran the USA for the 8 years of Ronald Reagan, the 4 years of his own Presidency, and the 8 years of George W. Bush -- for a total of 20 years. Why was George Bush Sr. so successful? I don't think it was because of the Skull-and-Bones fraternity to which he belonged -- rather, I think it was because he was an early member of the CIA, and became CIA Director. As we learn in private industry -- INFORMATION is the key to all success. There is no greater Information Source in the USA than the CIA, and nobody is more privileged in that Agency than the Director. Although I was dead-set again the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and I think most Americans were against it then, I was flabbergasted when George W. Bush won a second term in office -- as the American People had finally accepted the idea of a war in Iraq. I had to re-evaluate the entire scenario. I finally concluded that invading Iraq was decided, not based on Information that the USA shared with CNN and the United Nations, but based on Information known only to the CIA. So, I'm not interested in the Masons -- I'm interested in the CIA. Has the CIA finally become benign? In the days of JFK, the CIA was fighting for its life, and it was green and impulsive, especially when faced with its greatest failure -- the Bay of Pigs. Today, the CIA is entrenched. It is the Secret Government, IMHO. It might be that the CIA made the correct decision about Iraq, after all -- I mean, after 9-11 there was never another terrorist attack on US soil. So -- is the CIA under control of the President, or is the President under the control of the CIA? During the Reagan and Bush years, they were one and the same. What is the status today -- that's what I want to know. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Jim, it seems to me that the JFK murder, now over 50 years old, is no longer a matter of politics, but now a matter of US History. The participation of the Masonic Order in US History is well-worn by historians. The Masons were also active in Europe for centuries before their USA upsurge. Their motivation for existence was from the start the same -- suppression by the Catholic Church of alternative voices. They had to operate underground to survive. Then, they learned to adapt to the underground as a way of life. I am not personally worried about the Masons, insofar as they represent just one more man's club, such as the Lions Club, the Kiwanas or many others. Like any secular organization, they want to expand their influence. The Masons do have secret handshakes and a common set of moral values -- nevertheless, anybody can join them or quit them if they choose. They are not under oppression in the USA as they were in medieval Europe. It is interesting, from the historical perspective, that Masons might be motivated into unusual action by the election of America's first (and only) Catholic to the Presidency. The tension between Catholics and the Masons is historically infamous. From the viewpoint of secular history, the men's club membership of top Pentagon and CIA officials is less important than their material behavior. We don't generally inquire into the religions of political figures -- and IMHO membership in the Masons amounts to a religious membership. It is therefore a side-note in history. I admit that such clues can be useful in hinting at political connections, alliances and enmities. IMHO, what is most interesting about your claims, Jim, is that you're finding US Generals and other high officials acting together in unusual ways regarding the murder of JFK. I'll take clues from your speculation, Jim, although I'm not willing to suspect the Masons as a group of treachery, or to deny their First Amendment Rights on the basis of suspicion. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., surely we can disagree on politics and still make progress on the presentation of material facts. Every General of World War 2 was, in my opinion, a hero of our greatest generation. America was transformed by their leadership -- we left behind our isolationism (in practice if not always in theory). So, I'm willing to give our Generals every benefit of every doubt that I can. You are free to respond differently, of course, and you might -- yet that doesn't diminish my respect for your intuition or for your sense of reason regarding dealing with material facts. I appreciate that you admit that you find "no proof of his involvement" in the JFK murder -- still, I appreciate your willingness to offer a specific focus of the material behavior of General LeMay for discussion. You cite the presence of LeMay at the JFK autopsy, which most researchers agree was grossly manipulated. This is clearly suspicious behavior, and I'm willing to take a deeper dive into it. To justify this detour on a thread about "Leopoldo and Angel," I will show that the linkage between a few over-zealous US Generals and the CIA Cuba Desk, provides a direct connection to "Leopoldo and Angel," whomever they may turn out to be. Richard Case Nagell, a CIA operative, claimed that he knew "Leopoldo and Angel" as well as Lee Harvey Oswald, and claimed that he had a tape recording of all them them around a single table. Jim Garrison tried his best to appropriate that tape recording. Insofar as rogues in the Pentagon were also involved in the JFK murder, then it is my opinion that they were the leaders, and that the CIA was subordinate to these Pentagon rogues, just as "Leopoldo and Angel" were subordinate to the CIA in this operation. I will dig deeper into this specific allegation about LeMay (and his attendance at JFK's autopsy) and will reply to this thread, Paul B. Again, I appreciate your discussion. Oh, and by the way, it was certainly your Forum posts that caused me to seriously reevaluate my notes on General Lansdale. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, Paul B., I welcome the discussion. I'm really open to new arguments. In my view, Ex-General Edwin Walker was once a great US General who became infected by the John Birch Society. At that point he transformed from a hero into a villain. He opposed JFK with more energy than any single individual in 1962-1963, in my opinion. I'm still undecided, however, about J. Edgar Hoover. I see two main possibilities; either: (1) Hoover was an original part of the plot to murder JFK, in which case he played a leading role as well as a ground-crew role; or else (2) Hoover was the hero who prevented the JFK plotters from moving forward to Stage 2 of their plot, namely, to invade Cuba, assassinate Fidel Castro and restore the Cuban Exiles (and thus move the USA to the brink of World War III). I still haven't decided about Hoover because I haven't seen enough information to convince me that he was aware of every aspect of the plot to murder JFK before 11/22/1963. I appreciate your viewpoint, Paul B. For one thing, you convinced me to take a fresh look at General Edward Lansdale, and I'm finally convinced that he became a villain. I'm not sure if Lansdale turned the heads of CIA rogues, or if they turned his head, but his manipulation of the ground-crew itself was proven by Fletcher Prouty -- and there is no way that I can bend Prouty's story to exonerate General Edward Lansdale. As for General Curtis LeMay -- I need more information about him. It was not a crime to dislike JFK, nor even to hate JFK. We know the actions of General Lansdale were harmful to JFK on 11/22/1963. What were the actions of General LeMay that you have in mind? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

OK, so Greg Burnham won't further elaborate on his comment from two days ago, namely: "Why do you think there are files being withheld? Because the American People will scream about us NOT attacking Castro. Watch how fast the files are freed once Castro passes away. Tick tock tick tock..." So, I'll turn the topic back to Gerry Patrick Hemming and his various and sometimes contradictory opinions. One of those contradictory opinions was stated in the context of this thread, namely, the Plotters would never use hot-headed Cuban Exiles or rightist mercenaries when they had impartial professionals at their disposal. In other words, to identify the shooters themselves, we should look away from Cuban Exiles and rightist mercenaries (who would have been too emotionally involved to be trusted) and look toward paid professionals only, presumably those without a political position on JFK. In that regard we should also recall that Gerry Patrick Hemming was the leader of a mercenary organization named, Interpen, which consisted largely of hot-headed Cuban Exiles and rightist mercenaries. But what is most important in this context is the fact that Gerry Patrick Hemming contradicted his 2001 statement in his 1974 interview with Dick Russell (ARGOSY Magazine). Here's an excerpt from that interview: --------------------------- BEGIN Excerpt - 1974 ARGOSY Interview -------------------- ARGOSY: Do you think it's possible that the Kennedy killing involved some of the Cuban exile community? HEMMING: Yes, very possible. It wasn't that hard a job. I've seen and been on the scene for harder jobs than what happened in Dealey Plaza. You had a hard core of characters in the Dallas Police and County Sheriff's Department that would blow somebody's head off at a whisper. When you've got people running around who have friendships with organized crime, Federal agencies, and have been in bed with so many people – well, when the assassination goes down, everybody's covering their tracks. 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. ARGOSY: You told the Senate investigators that you believed in 1963 that Loran [Lorenzo] Hall was somehow involved. [Hall, an ex-CIA contract employee, right-wing politico and trainer of Cuban exiles for a Cuban invasion, was named by the Warren Commission as one of three men who may have been in Dallas with Lee Harvey Oswald in September 1963.] HEMMING: Yes, the day of the assassination, I made a call to Texas from Miami. And I pointedly asked, is Lorenzo Hall in Dallas? I made the call about 1:30 or 2:00 in the afternoon. He was there. My contact had seen him in Dallas the day before. ARGOSY: Why were you suspicious of Lorenzo Hall? HEMMING: Because he left Miami with the stated intent to get Kennedy. And he had my weapon, a Johnson 30.06 breakdown rifle with a scope on it that had been prepared for the Bay of Pigs. I'd left it with a private investigator who had previously worked under CIA Agency auspices on the West Coast. Hall got the weapon when we ran short of funds on a return trip from L.A. to Florida, and we ended up using Hall's car. ARGOSY: You were working closely with Hall? HEMMING: He came out to work with our group in 1963. Then he ran afoul with some people, and immediately went to work with a group that I thought was infiltrated by Castro's agents. Hall ignored this. He siphoned off a couple of people who had worked with me in the past, and started organizing his own operation with Frank Sturgis and some other guys. ARGOSY: Hall left Miami again shortly before the assassination? Could you be more specific about his plans? HEMMING: He was gonna stop and look up a number of people. Some he'd met through me, others when he was in Cuba in 1959. One was Santo Traficante's brother in St. Peter, and some others who operated under Meyer Lansky's auspices. And there were still other connections in Louisiana and Texas that had expressed an interest. ARGOSY: In eliminating Kennedy? HEMMING: Yes. ARGOSY: And you believe Hall was directly involved...? HEMMING: He knew how to do the job. We'd discussed various techniques as part of our schooling-techniques required for Havana, Port-au-Prince and other Latin American jobs. But I think somebody was trying to put him there [Dallas] so he'd be one of the patsies. --------------------------- END Excerpt - 1974 ARGOSY Interview -------------------- Knowing that Loran Hall was a rightist mercenary, working closely with Cuban Exiles inside Cuba at first, and then in several paramilitary raids on Cuba after he escaped from a Cuban prison, we see the obvious contradiction. Obviously, the direction of this interview points in the exact opposite direction of the interview that Gerry Patrick Hemming gave Greg Burnham a quarter-century later. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Yes, Tommy, I already admitted that I over-spoke on that point. As you say, it was mere rhetoric. I retract that statement -- it was not an "immediate" jump from Sylvia's testimony to picking up Loran Hall. That was a gross exaggeration. It was two months as measured from her Warren Commission testimony, and it was nine months as measured from her first FBI interview. I was mistaken. I admit it. So -- can we please return to my main two questions regarding the "Leopoldo and Angel" episode: (1) Why did the FBI pick up Loran Hall in the first place? (2) Why did Loran Hall confess at first? Do you have an opinion about that, Tommy? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Tommy, what scrambled my time track was that I was measuring time using the official Warren Commission Hearings. Sylvia Odio was among the last witnesses for the Warren Commission -- during the final week of July 1964. It was during the final weeks of the Warren Commission hearings that Commission members demanded follow-up questions about Sylvia Odio, before they would sign off on the final results. Therefore, the FBI scrambled to get the answers -- and why they picked up Loran Hall is still unexplained. Anyway, they did, and he confessed to being at Sylvia Odio's doorstep during the final week of September 1963 with Larry Howard and an American (William Seymour). However, when the FBI asked Larry Howard and William Seymour to confirm that story -- both men loudly objected and denied everything. (There was a rumor told around Jim Garrison's investigation that Howard and Seymour threatened to kill Loran Hall.) A few days later, Loran Hall reversed his own story to the FBI. Even though J. Edgar Hoover knew all this, he still took Loran Hall's first story to the Warren Commission, claiming that Sylvia Odio's testimony was merely a case of "mistaken identity" -- of mistaking William Seymour for Lee Harvey Oswald, and therefore the case could be closed out. Based on Hoover's deliberately false memo, the Commission members accepted this story, and it is the story we find in the Warren Report today. That was the time-track as it actually happened. Sorry about my mis-statement above. Still -- I have exactly the same questions. Why did the FBI pick up Loran Hall in the first place? Also, why did Loran Hall confess at first? Do you have an opinion about that? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

So, Greg, let's see if I understand your viewpoint. If you disagree that Cuba had been the prize for the murder of JFK, then you must be saying that Vietnam was the prize, correct? Certainly you overspoke when you claimed that "There were no plotters seeking to gain Cuba. That is myth." We know, for example, that the Mafia wanted Cuba back as a casino island, and they donated millions to somebody for the murder of JFK. Now, perhaps they wasted their money and simply paid some big-mouth swindlers (as Gerry Patrick Hemming alludes) in one of the 200 plots against JFK that existed out there. I admit that is possible. But to say that these anti-Cuba plotters did not exist is to overstate the case. Probably what you meant was that there were no successful plotters seeking to gain Cuba -- that is, the plotters who successfully murdered JFK were those who sought to gain victory in Vietnam. Am I correct about that, Greg? You're also arguing that since Oswald was framed so well as a Communist, that the case against Cuba was already granted, and Cuba persisted in its Communist condition only by the grace of the patience of the American People. Perhaps. Nobody ever doubted for a minute -- before the JFK murder or afterwards -- that the USA could overwhelm Cuba with superior military force if it chose to do so. The only question had been about the willingness of the USA to do so, because the Bay of Pigs disaster expressed the exact opposite of such willingness. Anyway -- it comes down to this, I believe -- you are saying that the entire motivation for the Plotters of the JFK murder was the goal of victory in Vietnam -- do I have that right? Then, Greg, you end with a zinger: * Do you really believe that Fidel Castro was behind the JFK assassination? * Do you really believe that this fact is the main reason that Oswald's CIA 201 file is still being withheld? * Do you really believe that when Fidel Castro dies (probably soon) that all secret files on Oswald will be released? If so, then that's very interesting -- and controversial. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

When speaking of Gerry Patrick Hemming -- who confessed to A.J. Weberman that he directly participated in the plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of JFK (by offering to pay Oswald double the market value for his rifle if he would only bring it to work on 11/22/1963) -- we do well to review his direct associates. As a highly trained U.S. Marine, Gerry Patrick Hemming was widely connected with miltary and paramilitary forces. As an active participant in the Cuban Revolution, he was also widely connected with the big losers of that battle, namely, the Cuban Exiles who had congregated in Florida, Louisiana and Texas. As a passive participant of the Bay of Pigs, Hemming knew many CIA operatives -- some at a high level (e.g. Hemming made CIA contacts at a time when James Jesus Angleton, for example, was still reporting to William Harvey, as he noted in his interviews with Greg Burnham). Among these contacts were David Morales and E. Howard Hunt. Yet it appears that as a man of action, rather than as a desk jockey, most of Hemming's contacts remained in the field, foot soldiers, whom he formed into his mercenary force, Interpen. Here Hemming led Roy Hargraves, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, William Seymour and many others. In this capaity Hemming also dealt with CIA contract assets (not CIA Agents) like Frank Sturgis, Eugenio Martinez, Virgilio Gonzalez, Rolando Masferrer and many others. Actually -- all this is well-known, but I recap all this to introduce a connection of Gerry Patrick Hemming who is hardly known, namely, Ex-General Edwin Walker. Hemming spoke of Walker only a little bit in interviews I've read. (I'm interested in learning about every mention of Walker that Hemming ever made.) When I explored Ex-General Edwin Walker's personal papers at UT Austin in 2012 and 2013, I was surprised to find written correspondence there between Walker and Hemming -- precisely in 1963. Listening to the tape of Hemming that Greg Burnham shared with us yesterday, I noticed how freely and how many times Hemming used the "N" word in his conversations. This reminded me of Ex-General Edwin Walker, who in 1957 led Federal Troops to racially integrate Little Rock high school, yet then turned to the other side in 1962 and opposed Federal Troops seeking to racially integrate Ole Miss University with its first Black American student, James Meredith. Hundreds were wounded and two were killed in those riots on the night of 30 September 1962. Still -- the times being what they were in the South -- a Mississippi Grand Jury acquitted Walker of all charges in January 1963, and Walker and his lawyers (Robert Morris and Clyde Watts) went about to sue every American newspaper that had printed the truth about Walker in October 1962. Walker won case after case, and had amassed $3 million in winnings at one point (all pending appeal). Walker would then promise cash and support to Cuban Exile radical groups like the DRE "when his ship came in". Walker was very much interested in the Cuban situation. In his opinion, it was the weakest link in JFK's political platform. (Though he lost his bid for Texas Governor in 1962, Walker was still very much interested in political engagement.) Gerry Patrick Hemming and Ex-Generl Edwin Walker therefore had a written correspondence because they had quite a bit in common. They both wanted Fidel Castro out of the way; they both suspected JFK of being "soft on Communism," and where Walker would be rich, Hemming would seek funds for Interpen. It is in this context, therefore, that I share one of personal papers of Edwin Walker on this thread. Walker wrote this soon after his acquittal by the Mississippi Grand Jury. It is a short article entitled: Operation Cuba -- Operation Mississippi -- Operation Press Control. ----------------------- BEGIN FEBRUARY 1963 ARTICLE BY EX-GENERAL EDWIN WALKER -------------------- Operation Cuba, Operation Mississippi and Operation Press Control are all inseparable. While Khrushchev moved troops and weapons into Cuba and took control, Kennedy moved troops and weapons into Mississippi and took control. The press was controlled and muzzled, which means censorship of public information and public reaction. The secrets of the Kennedy-Khrushchev operations and plans could not be disclosed. The fate of the nation had to hang in the balance with publicity and propaganda while the President was on a stumping tour for 1962 and '64. The nation had to be saved from destruction by a quick jump from the stump, to gain the votes for 1962 and '64. Khrushchev was assisting the vote campaign with a threat of missile-based destruction; a crisis with exact timing, all "fixed" for the liberal socialist Democrats to solve. Khrushchev had assisted before when he said he did not release the captured American flyers before the elections in 1960 because it would have helped Nixon. He waited until after the election, to help Kennedy. Khrushchev did not mind having his professional liars accused of lying, as long as he came out on top with control of Cuba. Khrushchev has Cuba -- Kennedy has Mississippi. Both should be charged against campaign expenses but no such luck for the American tax payer. The two operations went according to plan which could not have been otherwise since both were carried on under the operating requirements and directions of The Hidden One World Government plan, fronted by the U.N. The Hidden World Government working through the U.N. took control of Cuba through Moscow and took control of Mississippi through Washington D.C. Its control of Cuba is a lesson to all 110 nation members of the U.N. that they cannot stand in the way of, or oppose, the Hidden World Government's sovereign power behind the U.N. The Hidden World Government's control of Mississippi came through Washington D.C. It is a lesson to 50 states, our Constitution and anything else, that nothing can stand in the way of the Hidden World Government's sovereign power emanating through the U.N. Kennedy and Khrushchev each got their direction, clearance and protection from the Hidden World Government (HWG). Khrushchev's missiles were exposed to make the crisis which, when solved by Kennedy, would get the votes. Military forces were used in Mississippi in the name of the law -- which could only mean U.N. Law. They were perfectly timed to include the registration of James Meredith to effect the 1962 elections with the big pay-off intended for 1964. The Kennedys’ position as President and Khrushchev's seat on top of a volcanic empire, which could erupt at any moment it was allowed to, were further secured and stabilized by the controls and power of the Hidden World Government. The military forces of both countries are being played in complete unison and accord in the interest and development of the Hidden World Government. So guided and directed, it would be unnatural and inconceivable for U.S. military and Russian military forces to fight each other. U.S. military forces were directed to guard and protect Russian military vehicles going into West Berlin. The only place in the world, ever, where American troops faced Russian troops was in Berlin. The latter have withdrawn here turning over to East German command. Through this method of the establishment of a coalition military or civil government control, the U.N. localizes each incident or conflict, thus making any U.S. or Russian conflict in military purpose or action inconceivable or impossible. American troops are sent into each foreign country in turn for propaganda effect and to lead the way for Russian diplomats and agents to enter the same area -- as in Korea, Laos, Berlin. Then the coalition plan of Washington and Moscow arranges for local continuing disputes and controversy in the areas under U.N. domination. We see Myhoyen, the Russian representative, acting for the Hidden World Government, Moscow and Washington D.C. in his three week visit to Cuba. There he arranged with Castro for the continued spread of subversion, intimidation and weapons throughout central and Latin America. Edwin Walker 2/2/1963 ----------------------- END FEBRUARY 1963 ARTICLE BY EX-GENERAL EDWIN WALKER -------------------- It is very likely that this was delivered in one of Walker's speeches on his Midnight Ride coast-to-coast speaking tour with the segregationist Reverend Billy James Hargis from 2/14/1963 through 4/8/1963. It largely reflects the thinking of the John Birch Society in those days. I hope that this 1963 article may shed some light upon the relationship between Gerry Patrick Hemming and Edwin Walker -- and upon the politics of both men, and upon the U.S. ultra-conservative politics of 1963. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., you refer to Peter Dale Scott and John Newman, who both highlight Lee Harvey Oswald's connections with the CIA. I would counter that Oswald's connections with the CIA are also paper thin. Oswald simply was not a CIA Agent -- although he was a prospect at one time. But he was never hired full-time because he had many flaws. Of course, I agree that Oswald was a "tool" of the CIA -- but who wasn't in 1963? (Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, David Ferrie, Carlos Bringuier, DRE, Ed Butler, INCA, Antonio Veciana, Alpha 66, Loran Hall, La Sambra, Larry Howard, Interpen -- and many more -- these were all "tools" of the CIA.) Greg objected to my questions on the grounds that they were speculative. On the same grounds I could object to citing Scott and Newman as conclusive -- because they both admit that without the CIA 201 file on Oswald in our hands, everything we say about Oswald in this context is speculative. Fletcher Prouty seems absolutely certain that the Vietnam War was the prize for those Plotters closer to the Pentagon. But this is also speculative, IMHO, and it paints a wildly speculative portrait in the imagination, rather than dealing with material facts and the ground-crew (as identified by Jim Garrison and Mark Lane, for example). If we believe we have enough facts today that we can step away from speculation, then let's be consistent about it. Let's, for example, use the most modern techniques to analyze the photographic evidence of photos taken at Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963, and identify each and every person there. Former FBI Agent Don Adams finds John Milteer there -- and Milteer predicted the very modus operandi of the JFK murder, months in advance. He was not a CIA or Pentagon agent -- he represented the far right, politically. The problem I have with the Scott/Newman speculations is that they remain politically oriented. They cast doubts upon the Pentagon, actually -- and I'm not willing to do that without a preponderance of material evidence. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

That's fine, Greg, that's actually a secondary point. I will stipulate for the sake of argument that the executioners (or mechanics) involved in the JFK murder were dispasstionate professionals without any particular hatred for JFK. But let's return to my main point, if you're willing -- and attempt to address why the Plotters were so keen to frame Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist, in the context of 1963 politics, which were so focused on Cuba and Fidel Castro. Do you disagree with Larry Hancock (SWHT/2010 End Game) that Cuba was the prize? The Lone Nut theory cuts both ways. It undermined any reprisal against Communists, and it undermined any reprisal against Fascists. In other words, it was the obvious non-violent solution. As the Warren Commission declared -- the truth was a matter of National Security. So, if Cuba was the prize, then why did the Warren Commission deny this prize to the Plotters? Do you have an explanation for that? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Thanks, Greg, for sharing that taped interview with Gerry Patrick Hemming. Because you're such a good listener, it seems to me that Hemming was more open and lucid in interviews with you than in most I've heard. In this particular interivew, I believe historians heard from an eye-witness real details about how the Eisenhower administration interacted with the Cuban Revolution -- there at the ground level. Gerry Patrick Hemming was a man of action. He was shrewd, with tremendous confidence and common sense -- and yet it seems that the events of history overtook him and robbed him of a noble place in history. Such was the Cold War. It was unclear to me until this interview that anti-Batista forces -- even militants within the USA -- were already opposing Batista in Cuba before Fidel Castro arrived on the scene. That is an exciting historical narrative. As for your own comments that you wrote below the Hemming link, Greg, I have some critical comments, if that's all right. First, I agree that the Cover Story is a major tell-tale sign, and that the Secret Service would hardly be persuaded to misbehave by mere civilians of any rank, and that no civilians of any rank could have seized the corpse of JFK, much less altered the autopsy findings. I agree with all that. Yet I think that you’ve missed a key point with regard to those who planned and executed the murder of JFK, and their relationship with the Warren Commission. It seems that in your opinion, the Warren Commission merely supported the Cover-story of the Plotters, but I find reason to disagree. The Cover Story made a Communist into the murderer of JFK, and they hoped that all Communists would be blamed, and that Cuba would be invaded. I think this is clear based on your interviews with Hemming (the few I’ve heard so far) as well as other interviews with Hemming, and with recent writings that have appeared after the Mexico City Consulate papers of Edwin Lopez. The Plotters wanted to invade Cuba and kill Fidel Castro. That was the prize. Yet everything the Warren Commission did was to oppose that result. Lee Harvey Oswald may have been an amateur Communist, but not a Party Communist, said Hoover. Rather, Oswald was merely a malcontent, that is, a “lone nut” If the Warren Commission worked for the Plotters, the Commission would have handed Fidel over to the Plotters. Instead, the "lone gunman" theory undercut and undermined the most important thing that the Plotters hoped for in their murder of JFK. So, the Cover Story does not tell the entire story. The Cover Story theory goes back to Fletcher Prouty (Mr. X in Oliver Stone's JFK). It is undeniable evidence of wildman rogues in the Pentagon and the CIA, with vast powers over US media. Yet the Cover Story theory still fails to explain why these powerful people still failed to accomplish the second phase of their Plan, namely, to inspire the USA to invade Cuba and kill Fidel Castro. It was precisely on that point that they failed, and it was precisely LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover and the Warren Commission who formed the powerful obstacle to their ultimate success. There is one other point that I think you might have also mistaken. Like Larry Hancock you see the Plotters and their Mechanics as consummate professionals, at the very peak of their youthful powers and careers. It was this professionalism that you credit with the calm nerves needed to accomplish their world-historical deed. These mechanics had no feeling one way or another toward JFK, you propose. However, I think you have overlooked a key point, namely: where in the world would one find any militant mercenary in 1963 who did not hate JFK vehemently? Young, ex-Marine sharpshooters were not really in short supply. One could find volunteers – even confidential volunteers -- with very little effort in 1963. SO – did these shooters really need to be without emotion? Would it not make more sense to ensure that there were more radio operators in Dealey Plaza than shooters, and that the plan was coordinated with precision – rather than rely on the political feelings of any given shooter? Best regards, --Paul Trejo