Paul Trejo

Congratulations, Mark, you now qualify as the third person on this Forum for whom I've set my software options to "Ignore." You truly disappointed me, though. I once thought you were a fair-minded debater. Regards, --Paul Trejo

ANYWAY - let's get back to the purpose of this Forum, shall we, namely, the JFK assassination. I was talking about the present state of JFK research after 50 years, and the pitiful state that it finds itself wandering within. Too many researchers are willing to take pot-shots at President LBJ, at Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, at FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, and at former CIA Director Allen Dulles -- with nothing more than vague suspicions and sarcastic tones. The notion that the Warren Commission -- supervised by the sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Earl Warren -- should be respected with the title of a 'Legal Court' is regarded by a few loud members on this Forum to be a negative thing to say! Therefore we have this thread, dedicated to the mockery of this idea in JFK research. The idea that LBJ, Hoover, Warren and Dulles are great American heroes of the Cold War, because by means of the Warren Commission they sidestepped World War III, is also regarded by these same few loud members to be a negative thing to say! Yet these few, loud members are among those who have regarded accepted the 50 year-old prejudice that those who murdered JFK were also the same ones who covered up the murder! Well, this may be the very reason that they've spun their wheels for 50 long years! My theory, separates those two groups. My theory regards the killers of JFK to be the true criminals, the race segregationists led by ex-General Edwin Walker, Guy Banister and the John Birch Society, the White Citizens' Councils, the State Sovereignty Commissions, the States Rights Parties, the paramilitary Minutemen and the KKK. This group was obsessed with the idea that the USA should impeach Earl Warren, segregate public schools, invade Cuba and KILL FIDEL. My theory regards those who covered up the truth about the murder of JFK to be wholly separate from the JFK killers. Instead, those who covered up the truth, i.e. all those involved in the selection and management of the Warren Commision, were actually great heroes, because their goal was National Security. By their sacrifice of credibility, they used their authority to avoid a Civil War in the USA, during the Cold War, which would have led to World War III. Different people, different goals. Now, this is a new and fresh approach to JFK research -- after 50 years of wheel spinning. One might think that this creative solution to the murder of JFK might be met with some constructive discussion -- BUT NO. Instead, there has been a flurry of mockery, jeering, sarcasm, and threads like this one -- evidently terrified of new ideas. But I've only begun to share my new and fresh ideas -- I think we should ask a much wider array of readers on this Forum if they really want to censor people who insist upon rational argument and material evidence. If anything, my detractors only stimulate me to take advantage of the publicity -- because after all, my ideas are based on reason, logic, material evidence and reason. As Freud once said, "the voice of reason is weak, but it does not rest until it gains a hearing." Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Anyone skimming through your "exchanges" on the page linked in the quote box above would probably come away with the conclusions that you are perpetually in over your head and you've not been influenced since 2006 to change your SOP in the slightest, This was a thread about your ridiculous assertions related to the Warren Commission and the Supreme Court, but you have broadened it into a treatise on your able researcher, deep thinker, victimized by jealous critics, schtick. It is getting stale, Paul. Tom, you went back seven years to the Wikipedia entry on Friedrich Nietzsche to try to find dirt on me? I'm flattered. Of course, the fans of Friedrich Nietzsche were upset with me because I dared to criticize their darling poet from a Hegelian vantage -- according to Hegel's process of elimination for the history of philosophy, Friedrich Nietzsche doesn't qualify as a philosopher at all. They were very closed-minded and prejudiced about their views, and were not at all interested in hearing new ideas. They tried to ban me for pointing out new and fresh ideas. It's an old story -- it doesn't phase me a bit. Also, I'm happy to change my viewpoint -- I openly invite people to convince me of a new view of things. But they need to have better ideas, and not simply closed minds and loud voices. Hint: simply repeating yourself in another color is not a convincing argument. If you'd like to convince me of something, Tom, then you're well-advised to do so using well-formed arguments. Intimidation, insults, emotional outbursts and bossiness don't have much of an effect on me, as you may have seen. Reason, reason and only reason can convince me to change my mind. It's not that hard -- if somebody really tries. Regards, --Paul Trejo

ANYWAY -- back to this interesting thread by Jim Root! The Edwin Walker issue is central to solving the JFK assassination, IMHO, because the Warren Commission records name him more than 700 times, because Jack Ruby named Walker and the John Birch Society specifically as the leader of the JFK plot, and because the independent witnesses of Silvia Odio and Harry Dean combine to help make a cogent case against Walker. My banging the drum at www.pet880.com with Walker's personal papers is a useful source of evidence. Also, just minutes after Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested, Bernard Weissman, chairman of the American Fact-Finding Committee, said to Larrie Schmidt, "I hope he is not a member of the Walker group." Something like that -- "I hope he is not one of Walker's boys." Bernie Weissman was terrified because it was his name on the black-bordered ad that the John Birch Society put out inside the Dallas Morning News on 22 November 1963, That ad was clearly right-wing and inflammatory, accusing JFK of treasonous acts of Communist collaboration. That was what General Walker had preached for all of 1962, long after the day that he led a massive race riot at Ole Miss University, in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed. The John Birch Society joined the KKK and the White Citizens' Councils of the Deep South to blame JFK and the Communists for that race riot. Walker was a frequent speaker for the White Citizens' Councils, and even appeared on TV with them: Here's some actual footage...Part One: youtube.com/watch?v=ZeQKuJTJi48 Here's more actual footage...Part Two: youtube.com/watch?v=Y9yUW019xoA This video proves that rightists in high places blamed JFK for the Ole Miss riots: youtube.com/watch?v=YJ1CTuQgcMo This is what Bernie Weissman recalled under oath about those days before the JFK assassination: "...As a matter of fact, I was pretty worried about [Larrie's] brother becoming involved with General Walker, and I thought it might give us a black eye." Very astute -- Bernard Weissman was far more politically aware than CUSA founder, Larrie Schmidt. Bernie had arrived in Dallas only 18 days before the black-bordered ad appeared in the Dallas Morning News. He did not write that ad -- the John Birch Society wrote it. He signed his name to it because he believed in Larrie Schmidt. Bernie Weissman believed that Larrie Schmidt had organized the humiliation of UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson on 24 October 1963, so he moved to Dallas to help Larrie. But actually it was Walker who organized that humiliation, and Larrie was merely on the sidelines - taken by surprise. So Bernie was mistaken. Still, Larrie Schmidt convinced Bernie that his political career in Dallas would be "launched" by this ad, and Bernie was ambitious. Nor was Bernie Weissman the only American who suspected Edwin Walker of plotting to kill JFK on 22 November 1963. Lots of people did. The most vocal person in this category is Harry Dean, who is also a member of this Forum. Harry's eye-witness account claims that Walker and the John Birch Society met in Southern California to solidify plans to make Lee Harvey Oswald the patsy of their plot. Harry was present at that meeting. Harry was a member of the John Birch Society at that time, but more than that, he was also a member of the Minutemen paramilitary group -- widely considered the militant arm of the Birchers. Further, Harry was personal friends with three key people in the plot, namely, war-hero Guy Gabaldon, and two associates of Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran (Lorenzo) Hall, and Larry (Alonzo) Howard. These men were also present at that meeting. Here' a recording of a fund-raising 1963 speech by Loran Hall to the John Birch Society: Here is part two of that same speech by Loran Hall: Also present at that meeting was a man who is still alive and refuses to be named today, says Harry, as well as Congressman John Rousselot. Rousselot, like Walker, and the entire John Birch Society, was an avid segregationist, and demanded the impeachment of Earl Warren because of his Supreme Court decision on Brown v. The Board of Education Here is a speech by Rousselot that illustrates his segregationist politics: And here is part two of that same speech by Congressman John Rousselot: Harry Dean, Loran Hall and Larry Howard weren't race segregationists -- they were Anticommunists. However, they were not politically aware enough to recognize that racial segregation was a hidden agenda within the John Birch Society. (They denied racism, but they strongly opposed racial segregation of public schools.) So, Dean, Hall and Howard didn't put the pieces together in 1963 when they joined in this plot. Walker and Rousselot obtained a large supply of untraceable cash for Guy Gabaldon, who supervised Hall and Howard in making Lee Harvey Oswald into their patsy. IMHO, after Guy Banister, Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler were finished framing Oswald, the last step of their plot was to send Oswald to Mexico so that he could fail miserably in his attempt to get into Cuba. That was when they handed Oswald over to the Dallas team -- represnted by Gabaldon, Hall and Howard in Mexico. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Anyway, getting back to the theme of the JFK assassination -- my top ten innovations in the past year on this Forum have been: (1) the theory that the JFK assassination plotters were totally different than the JFK assassination cover-up plotters; (2) the theory that the funders are less important to the solution of the JFK assassation than the ground-crew; (3) the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald had and knew his accomplices in both the General Walker shooting and the JFK shooting; (4) the theory that resigned General Edwin Walker found out about Oswald's 10 April 1963 shooting, and hired Guy Banister to help him exact revenge; (5) the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald's fake FPCC chapter in New Orleans was conceived by Guy Banister, Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler; (6) the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald's futile trip to Mexico to use his fake FPCC credentials to fake his way into Cuba was planned by Guy Banister; (7) the theory that Silvia Odio's account of Loran Hall's involvement with Lee Harvey Oswald matches Harry Dean's account fully; (8) the theory that the New Orleans team of the Walker plot to patsify Lee Harvey Oswald, handed Oswald over to the Dallas team in Mexico City; (9) the theory that Interpen worked closely with ex-General Walker in Dallas, e.g. Gerry Patrick Hemming convinced Oswald to bring his rifle to the TSBD on 22 November 1963; and (10) the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald personally knew all the people who framed him and who killed JFK, and only realized he had been framed in the last 48 hours of his life. * It has long been claimed by others that Interpen was involved -- but Walker's central role was omitted from those accounts. ** Also, it has long been noted by others that Jack Ruby told Earl Warren that the central parties responsible for killing JFK were "General Walker" and the "John Birch Society," however, Jack Ruby was not asked to elaborate, and he volunteered nothing further on that topic. *** Harry Dean foresaw #7 above, albeit with less detail. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Mark, I agree with all the legal points you wrote in that response -- but can we tone down the personal attacks? I mean, the epithet, "xxxx," has been banned on this Forum by John Simkin since 2004. When you claim that I post LIES, that's really the same thing, as we all know. I'm sure I'm as welcome to my honest opinion as you are to yours. Just tone down the rhetoric a notch, and we should be able to co-exist here. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Gary, your sense of irony is classic. As for Tom Scully, I find it oxymoronic that anybody with the title of moderator could show himself to be so one-sided and biased. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Cute, very cute. Still, only a totally biased reader would attempt to ignore the fact that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1964 was also the head of the Warren Commission in 1964. The historical profundity of the fact is obvious to the casual observer. Yes -- I fully acknowledge the issues: (1) J. Edgar Hoover stated the verdict before Oswald was killed; (2) LBJ approved the verdict and created a Commission to approve what Hoover had already concluded; and (3) Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was obliged (with tears in his eyes, according to Jim Garrison) to be the head of the President's Commission, thereafter to be called the Warren Commission. All that is well known and need not be belabored further. It still remains historically profound that the head of the Supreme Court presided over the testimony of ~200 witnesses for ~8 months (all under oath) in order to achieve this prejudiced result. The outcome (that Oswald was a lone-nut assassin) was a lie -- and everybody in charge knew it was a lie. Yet the best lies aren't the most outrageous lies (Third Reich to the contrary), rather, the best lies are those comprised of 99% TRUTH. These sorts of lies will stand the test of TIME. So, the Warren Commission proceeded to use the power of the head of the Supreme Court to extract evidence from ~200 witnesses under oath (through biased questioning, and off-the-record discussions) to obtain 99% TRUTH and the 1% LIE. Tracing such a LIE should be like finding a needle in a haystack, and should take at least 50 years. It was a successful strategy. So -- is there any justification for LYING to the American Public? Of course there is, and everybody knows it -- it's called National Security. These great men -- LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, Earl Warren and Allen Dulles, guided the Warren Commission through its paces to blame Lee Harvey Oswald and him alone for the assassination of JFK for one very good reason -- National Security, i.e. (IMHO) to prevent Civil War in the USA during the Cold War which would have quickly led to World War 3. Since LBJ avoided World War 3 in his administration, I believe history will be generous with him, and show him to be one of the greatest Presidents in US History. And if this is correct, then it stands to reason that history will also be generious with J. Edgar Hoover, Earl Warren and Allen Dulles. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Mark, you misread my post. My point wasn't questioning the fact that there was no Federal statute against killing the President; that is bizarre, but still a fact. My point was about the moral question implied. That's where common sense comes in. It is possible and even likely that a bureaucracy might overlook (or just take for granted) a principle that common sense sees very clearly. Also, I find your tone counter-productive, Mark. Is the negativity really necessary? Regards, --Paul Trejo

Exactly: And your evidence, Karl, for your claim would be? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

As for as James Hosty not following up on Oswald, your suspicion, Mark, does not add up to a conclusion; it is just as likely that James Hosty was simply lazy and incompetent. It's not uncommon. --Paul Trejo Paul, apparently you don't understand how the police hierarchy works in America.The FBI does NOT concern itself with the enforcement of state and local laws. The concern of the FBI is the enforcement of federal law, and federal law alone. THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY to investigate state or local violations. So perhaps the SINGLE most important reason that FBI AGENT Hosty didn't follow up on the allegations of Lee Oswald beating his wife is: "It's not MY job." On humanitarian grounds, he might have had reason to report what he had discovered on the subject to local authorities. But that was not a LEGAL obligation, nor was it a requirement of his job. Generally, the FBI only gets involved in an investigation when there is a question as to whether FEDERAL law may have been broken...because that is the ONLY area under which the FBI has the AUTHORITY to act. In 1963, spouse abuse was not considered to have civil rights implications. There were no federal weapons violations involved. There was no interstate flight involved, as there was no attempt to prosecute Oswald by local authorities. Bottom line: Hosty and the FBI had NO JURISDICTION in domestic disputes, as there was NO APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTE involved. And therefore, any "police reports" of spouse abuse [or "wife beating, the term you seem to favor] made to the FBI were, for all intents and purposes, useless heresay. So your characterization of Hosty as "lazy and incompetent"--while that MAY or MAY NOT be true--has no basis in fact with regards to Lee Oswald allegedly beating his wife. It simply WASN'T HOSTY'S JOB to follow up. I would hope by now that you understand that. Mark, that's easy enough to understand. My point was targeted to one clause in your statement, that the FBI (Hosty) did not follow up on tracking Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas because "killing the President...wasn't a federal crime in 1963..." Now, I know you'll say that is a FACT, but it is a bizarre fact from the viewpoint of morality, because it suggests (as anyone can plainly see) that if the President of the USA is killed, the FBI need not take any interest in that action at all.. Most bizarre. Surely you can see the strangeness of your sentence when confronted with common sense, Mark. Now, John Newman wrote a well-known book, OSWALD AND THE CIA (1995) in which he lambasts James Hosty of the FBI for being lazy and incompetent insofar as Hosty was so slow in tracking the frequent address changes of Lee Harvey Oswald in 1962-1963. Now, I do agree that Hosty showed no interest in the "wife-beating" claims of Oswald's landlord -- and I can easily attribute that to an FBI attitude of, "that's matter for the local police." That's easy to understand. But the notion that Hosty would regard the killing of JFK to be a matter of the same magnitude as a local wife-beating complaint -- well, that's beyond common sense. Best regards, --Paul Trejo .

Tommy, I apologize for the ambiguity -- I thought I had stated clearly that Nagell followed Oswald to Mexico to kill him just in case Oswald won easy entry into Cuba. Anyway, as for my claim that Oswald had the task of "failing miserably to obtain passage into Cuba", I really should unpack that sentence. In my theory, Guy Banister and David Ferrie (aided by Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler) convinced Lee Harvey Oswald that officers of the FPCC received instant, no-questions-asked entry into Cuba. This theory is based partially on evidence by Harry Dean, who was a documented secretary of the FPCC, and Harry obtained fast entry into Cuba partly as a result of that status. In fact, that was SOP for Cuba -- the names of officers of the American FPCC were listed at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico, and those people on the list would be expedited through. So Guy Banister told Lee Harvey Oswald the truth -- to a point. But Guy Banister knew more than Lee Oswald. Lee Oswald also came to believe the nonsense that if he made himself infamous in New Orleans as an officer of the FPCC, by getting arrested on the streets of New Orleans for FPCC promotion, by getting his name in the papers for FPCC promotion, by appearing on the radio promoting the FPCC, and by appearing on TV for promoting the FPCC, that he could then fool the Cuban Embassy! We know from Marina's testimony (which I accept) that Lee Harvey Oswald gathered up all his FPCC street credentials and took them with him to Mexico. I thnk the purpose was clear, namely, that Lee Harvey Oswald was completely fooled by Guy Banister. Guy Banister knew good and well that the Cuban Embassy would never admit Lee Harvey Oswald into Cuba based on this handful of newspaper clippings! (I can practically hear Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler laughing their heads off, when Oswald drove to Mexico with Lorenzo Hall and Alonzo Howard.) Lee Harvey Oswald's task (in his own mind) was to get into Cuba and KILL FIDEL and then escape back to the USA to a hero's welcome, a parade, a big cash reward, and a chance to be elected to the office of "Prime Minister" of the USA. Lee Harvey Oswald's task -- in the mind of Guy Banister -- was to utterly fail to get into Cuba, and return to Texas with his tail between his legs -- a failure. And more than a failure -- an indentured servant because Guy Banister found out that Lee Oswald had tried to kill Guy Banister's very good friend -- ex-General Edwin Walker. And even more than that -- Lee Harvey Oswald was now totally sheep-dipped -- he was totally framed as a Communist of a most fanatic variety -- an officer of the FPCC! Ex-General Edwin Walker was represented in Mexico by three people -- Loran (Lorenzo) Hall, Larry (Alonzo) Howard, and their hero, Guy Gabaldon. They had lots of money from high-level JBS functionaries to be used to convince Lee Harvey Oswald that Gabaldon was a CIA Agent, and that Oswald was "hired" for a top secret mission in Dallas, Texas. He was to return there, lay low, and await further instructions. Lee Oswald was totally fooled by Guy Banister in New Orleans, and was totally fooled by Guy Gabaldon, Loran Hall and Larry Howard in Mexico City. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, Tommy, I'm glad to find agreement on a critical point of theory -- that Oswald (if he was there) was in Mexico to try to enter Cuba. We also agree that Oswald was being set up to look more Communist -- you say it was the CIA, but I say it was Guy Banister and Edwin Walker who set him up. My theory apparently has more material evidence -- i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald stamped the building address of Guy Banister on his FPCC flyers (544 Camp Street). I myself doubt the theory that Kostikov was part of that scenario -- I haven't seen enough evidence that I find believable. Now, I do accept Dick Russell's speculation on this -- that Richard Case Nagell, the double-agent, did follow Lee Oswald to Mexico. Nagell warned Oswald that if Oswald did succeed in getting passage to Cuba, that Nagell would kill him on the spot. Nagell knew that Oswald was working with right-wing Cubans in New Orleans (though Nagell mistakenly suspected that Oswald was too naive to realize that). Nagell's cover would have been blown if he let Oswald get away with a Cuban passage. Nagell had no choice but to protect his cover. But Nagell would have noticed Kostikov there in Mexico City, if he was there, IMHO. Also, the part that ex-General Edwin Walker plays in the Mexico City episode involves Guy Gabaldon, Loran Hall and Larry Howard. If we fold in Sylvia Odio's testimony (and grant that Leopoldo and Angelo were really Lorenzo [Hall] and Alonzo [Howard]), then we find confirmation, i.e. that Lorenzo and Alonzo drove Lee Harvey Oswald to Mexico. Oswald had lots of business in Mexico. He had to: (1) fail miserably to obtain passage to Cuba; and (2) meet with Guy "Gabby" Gabaldon who was posing as a fake CIA officer, in order to make arrangements to position Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas -- living alone in a room, and working at the Texas School Book Depository. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

OK, Tommy, I suppose we agree on the basic issue, then. Despite nuances, Oswald was ultimately a rightist pretending to be a leftist. I suppose that I should ask your opinion about the next level of my scenario, then. Does it not follow, based on the material evidence, that Lee Oswald was attempting to obtain easy passage into Cuba from Mexico, using his fake FPCC credentials? Best regards, --Paul Trejo P.S. As for Newman's book and Russell's book, I've read them both, and I find nothing in them that contradicts my own theory. Both those authors are willing to admit when they are merely speculating -- so I don't take every word they say as Gospel.

Tom, I agree with you in principle on most of your propositions, for example: (1) It is absurd that an under-age left-winger would push his way into the Marines during the Cold War. That was the typical behavior of the ultra-right wing. (2) It is equally absurd to imagine that the Marines would tolerate a Marx-imitating recruit in their ranks. The only rational explanation is that Oswald was getting ONI spy training. (3) The fact that Oswald studied Russian and even took a Russian exam in the Marines is material evidence of ONI spy training - nothing else. (4) Oswald was a radar operator at an intelligence base, and had a higher security clearance than most Marine personnel. (5) Oswald was a dabbler in left-wing literature -- he knew very little about it -- as much as one could get from newspapers on corner news stands during the Cold War. This is consistent with ONI spy training. (6) Oswald's performance art of FPCC flyer distribution was all an act -- which was finally proven beyond any reasonable doubt in New Orleans when he promoted an FPCC chapter there that *did not exist*. Even the membership was faked. (7) I especially liked your description: "Oswald was happy to do so because it fulfilled his Walter Mitty-ish, 'I led Three Lives' psychological needs to be a patriotic, Commie-busting secret agent." That, is an apt description, IMHO. However, Tom, I disagree with your conclusion. You propose that Oswald's Marxist performance art was for the benefit of famous people in the CIA. That remains to be shown. Also, you lumped togetther a low-level asset like Guy Banister (retired FBI, whisky-soaked rogue) with a high-level asset like James Jesus Angleton (young, high-ranking CIA professional). The distinctions are sharp-- Oswald's performance art was specifically for Guy Banister. Guy Banister, aided by his bankrollers (mainly Clay Shaw, but also Carlos Marcello), was the paymaster for Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans. That's why Oswald spurned his greaser job at the Coffee company. Oswald was drafted into Guy Banister's operations - and Guy Banister was well-connected with right-wing tyrants in Louisiana such as Leander Perez, Louis P. Davis, Kent Courtney and the Louisiana States Rights Commission -- for whom ex-General Walker was a frequent speaker. Now, Guy Banister also worked closely with Cuban Exiles like the DRE and Carlos Bringuier -- and Edwin Walker admitted his ties to the DRE as well. They all had one major common goal: KILL FIDEL CASTRO. The connection of the CIA in all this is their nominal bankrolling of the DRE and of Ed Butler's INCA propaganda organization. But they were funders, and yet the Cuban Exiles were motivated to be their own leaders. I say the CIA was observing Oswald, nothing more (unless I see material evidence). Further, Tommy, I think your theory errs when you hastily conclude that the right-wingers didn't "care who they burned" when they made Oswald into their patsy. I propose, on the contrary, that Lee Harvey Oswald was selected *specifically* because of infractions he committed, namely, his shooting at General Walker while under the influence of George De Mohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt (and their ilk). Finally, Tommy, I cannot accept your self-admitted "weird idea" that our rightist Oswald "figured out a way to get into Russia via Finland" as a free-lance agent-volunteer for the CIA to apply for the job of a double-agent." However, I think you're close -- the material evidence shows clearly that Oswald "figured out a way" to get into Cuba via Mexico. This is the best explanation for the Mexico trip, and for Oswald's frustrated visits to the Cuban and Russian consulates. Given this, we can easily guess what the rightist Oswald wanted to do in Cuba, namely, KILL FIDEL. What a shock to Lee Oswald's system when he learned the hard way that all his fake FPCC credentials would not get him instant entry into Cuba as Guy Banister had promised him. He lost his temper. Yet it was this very failure, IMHO, that freed Oswald to become the patsy in the radical right-wing plot to kill JFK. Perhaps in this way, thought the rightists, the USA will finally invade Cuba and KILL FIDEL. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., I think you and I might have a different idea of what it means to be a left-winger. You believe you see left-wing ideology in Lee Harvey Oswald's personal writings? I don't see evidence of that. I realize that Lee Oswald called himself a "Marxist-Leninist" on New Orleans television -- but he didn't sound like one to me in that interview. He sounded like a young Democrat -- maybe -- at best. He didn't sound revolutionary in the slightest to me. See, Paul B., I know something about the left-wing. I studied them for years. I know the Marxist-Leninist literature, and I've written hundreds of pages of criticism on it (none of which have ever been accepted by an American publisher, but that's another story). Also, I know something about American Communist behavior in the 20th century; e.g. I know they were social creatures who liked to associate with each other. They mingled with each other and their best friends were inevitably other Communists. They were a tight-knit group. Based on that, I know also that Lee Harvey Oswald had no Communist friends and no Communist associates in real life. (Letters through the post office do not count -- any wannabe spy can do that.) That's very strong evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald never identified with the left-wing (and probably he was a wannabe double-agent). Instead, the people Lee Harvey Oswald associated with in New Orleans congregated at 544 Camp Street. That was the hang-out of the most radical right-wing vigilantes in New Orleans at the time. They were linked with the Lake Pontchartrain paramilitary training camp. They were linked with Gerry Patrick Hemming and Interpen (key suspects in the JFK assassination). When Oswald was seen on New Orleans TV with Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler, that was no accident -- those were Oswald's known associates in New Orleans -- and the FPCC chapter Oswald was promoting on television was a fake FPCC chapter. Most researchers know that, Paul B., and you know that, too. So, in my opinion, Paul B., you should (1) explain why Oswald was promoting a fake FPCC chapter on television; and (2) identify what texts in Lee Oswald's personal papers you believe are "left wing." Then I'll compare those texts with actual text from Marx and Lenin, and see if we can find a match. What do you say? Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Mark, you're right, Jesse Ventura said he was a trained NAVY Seal. I've been sleep-deprived since last week which was the final semester of the year, and final papers were due at UT Austin. My apologies for my mistake. As for as James Hosty not following up on Oswald, your suspicion, Mark, does not add up to a conclusion; it is just as likely that James Hosty was simply lazy and incompetent. It's not uncommon. Also, I have no burning desire to portay Lee Oswald as a wife-beater, Mark. I'm mainly concerned to defend myself on this Forum from people who use weeks of vulgar insults to try to silence me, simply because I stand up for what I believe -- namely -- that Marina Oswald told the TRUTH. Now, Marina Oswald said that Lee Harvey Oswald was a wife-beater. (She has one eye-witness to the striking, Alex Kleinlerer, and seven witnesses to the bruises, already named today in the "Phone" thread, and three witnesses who confronted Lee Oswald about it, who did not deny it.) Besides her eye-witnesses, I say Marina Oswald never contradicted her sworn testimony. As I've repeated so often, Mark, I don't care about Marina's marital problems 50 years ago -- but it matters a great deal to me whether or not Marina Oswald told the TRUTH. I'm certainly not the only person on this Forum who has defended Marina Oswald's credibility, but lately there aren't many who have been willing to step up for her -- at least not in these threads. And it's not because of me or my methods, I'm convinced, rather, it's because of the rude manners of my opponents. Decent people don't like brawls. (Anyway, I was the target of last week's brawl, so I felt morally obligated to defend myself -- and I'm not complaining. I gave better than I got.) Now you should recognize what this has to do with Walker, right, Mark? Marina Oswald (say most authorities) is the first and only witness who claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald tried to kill ex-General Edwin Walker on 10 April 1963. It is important for my theory that this accusation be true and correct. Therefore, I rely a great deal (but not exclusively) on the testiomony and credibility of Marina Oswald. Therefore, whoever calls her a xxxx -- or questions her veracity -- must provide evidence -- material evidence -- for their claims. I will demand it publicly. Now, in cases where such charges rest on mere personal hunches, intuition, and so on, I often find that such claimants might become irritable when confronted with their lack of material evidence. I can't help their reactions -- but I will continue to defend the truthfulness of the testimony of Marina Oswald. Unless somebody can provide convincing arguments (and not just personal hunches) then I will stand my ground. And I won't back down. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Don, Three possibilities (so far): 1) He was told to monitor some kind of activity inside the TSBD 2) He was waiting for a phone call 3) He was waiting inside to be paid for his rifle he'd brought to work. "I'll pay you in the lunch room, Lee, right when JFK is going by. That way all the attention will be on JFK and Jackie and no one will be paying any attention to us." --Tommy edited with #3 added I'd add a #4. I agree that Gerry Patrick Hemming did as he confessed to A.J. Weberman that he did, namely, entice Lee Oswald to bring his rifle to work on 22 November 1963. Hemming promised Oswald double the value of the rifle, and told Oswald that it was for his friend, who didn't want to be identified -- i.e. it was obviously for a shady purpose. Hemming also confessed that he told Oswald to leave the rifle between boxes on an upper floor and walk away -- the buyer wanted to pick it up unseen. But I don't think Oswald was waiting for payment at that time. Rather, I think that Oswald remained in the building because he was too slow in putting the pieces together. That is, Oswald knew he was outside the inner loop -- he knew there was a plot, but he probably expected it at the Trade Mart -- and he didn't believe he was involved at any lower levels. So, he just laid low and played dumb -- as planned. In other words, Lee Harvey Oswald had absolutely no clue that he was going to be the patsy of this plot until the hour when he screamed that out in the Dallas Police Department hallway, surrounded by reporters. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Robert, that quotation from Marina may support your hunch, but it remains a hunch. Marina did not say anything like, "If I tell you the truth the CIA will kill my children." Also, as I remember Jesse Ventura's reply to Marina Oswald Porter, he replied: "Marina, I'm a trained Navy Seal -- and Seals aren't afraid of anything or anyone." For that answer of courage, Marina granted Jesse Ventura the interview he was seeking. Also, as I remember Jesse Ventura's report -- Marina did not give him one new fact that wasn't already in the Warren report. All she did was confirm her older testimony, and add her new opinions based on new information she received in the past 50 years, namely, that Lee Harvey Oswald HAD ACCOMPLICES. In my view, Marina Oswald was RIGHT, and so were Sylvia Odio and Harry Dean and Gerry Patrick Hemming, all of whom said exactly the same thing: Oswald HAD ACCOMPLICES. It is up to us today, IMHO, to identify those accomplices with material evidence. It's been fifty years -- the days of hunches are officially over. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos, with thanks to Mark Knight>

Paul B., the distinction between sworn and unsworn testimony is a legal distinction. People can be charged with perjury for false statements made under oath -- and the penalties are severe. These penalties don't apply to unsworn statements. From a legal standpoint, therefore, statements that have have not been found to be perjury are treated as facts by the court. The court refuses to treat unsworn statements as facts. That's my understanding of how our legal system works. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

The explanation, Paul B., is that the Deutsche Nationalzeitung printed its story in its Friday 29 November 1963 issue. (This would have been its weekend issue, I believe.) Yet Walker's story was taken from a conversation around 7AM on 23 November 1963, because the full story reported that as the date and time of the interview. (The full story can be read today on the Mary Ferrell Foundation web site). Even so, this account of Lee Oswald being Walker's shooter precedes Marina's report to the FBI on the 2nd of December, 1963. That's why the Warren Commission asked ex-General Walker about it. The FBI had even traced the phone records of this call. (The German equivalent of the FBI got involved in Germany, as well, and fully grilled the reporter. That is also found in the Mary Ferrell Foundation web site.) Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Robert, you're well-read on this topic, and I agree with much of what you write -- and yet you remain biased about some key elements and we agree to disagree on those issues. The two key issues about which we disagree are: (1) that Marina Oswald told the truth when she was under oath; and (2) that although LBJ masterminded the coverup of the JFK murder, nevertheless he did not lead the conspiracy to kill JFK. You were kind enough to invite me to this Forum, and I'm grateful for that -- and I'll continue to show my gratitude in honesty about our disagreements. I will always share my honest opinion, as you will share yours. So, let's look again at your rationale for calling Marina Oswald "an epic xxxx." You reason that Marina was "scared, terrified" and that she was a "controlled tool of US intelligence who had enveloped her." Yet in actual fact, when the FBI and Secret Service "enveloped" Marina, her first response was simply to deny everything -- everything. No this. No that. No the other. No, no, no. Of course, Marina wasn't under oath when she was bombarded with a hundred questions from the FBI and Secret Service. But she wasn't their "controlled tool," either. In fact, it was precisely all these denials that formed the core of the HSCA document of ~100 places where Marina allegedly "contradicted herself." But that document is a living joke. That lame HSCA document made famous by Tom Anderson was largely a comparison of Marina's sworn testimony (in which she told the truth) with places where that sworn testimony directly contradicted her blanket denials that she told the FBI and Secret Service when she was first detained. Then, a secondary source of so-called "contradictions" in Marina's testimony, said the HSCA, was the novel written by Priscilla Johnson, Marina and Lee (1977), which told Marina's Warren Commission story in the melodramatic and romanticized prose of Priscilla Johnson. That's a totally lame-ass comparison; completely bankrupt. Using a novel written by a third party to find "contradictions" in Marina's sworn testimony? C'mon! My claim -- and I've studied this for a long time -- is that when we only take Marina's sworn testimony, that she made under oath -- Marina is fully consistent. Furthermore -- and this is important -- Marina never contradicted her sworn testimony to this very day. Now -- one might try to claim that she said in 1964 that Lee Oswald killed JFK, but today she says Lee Oswald didn't kill JFK -- so isn't that a contradiction? No, because that abstraction leaves out the nuances. What Marina actually said in 1964 was (I paraphrase) based on the data she was allowed to see in 1964, she had to conclude that Lee Oswald killed JFK, but if she had more information she might have a different opinion. That's what she really said. That's why, all these decades later, after Marina Oswald Porter was able to recieve lots more data, she came to a different conclusion. So, you see, there really is no contradiction at all in Marina's story from 1964 until today. Robert, you somehow believe that Marina was a terrified little mouse who didn't want to be deported, so she would be motivated to lie without shame. But this is only your hunch. You haven't provided any material evidence. I know that many on this Forum who push the "Marina lied" theory will cite that pathetic HSCA document as their "solid" evidence -- but that document is as wispy as a dandelion. One little touch and it crumbles. Marina told the truth. That's what the material evidence -- the sworn testimony -- shows over and over. Now -- what does this have to do with Edwin Walker? Everybody knows this one -- Marina is our principal source that Oswald was the shooter at ex-General Edwin Walker on 10 April 1963. Right? Now -- just like the "innocent victim" theories of Lee Harvey Oswald have violently rejected the idea that Lee Oswald beat Marina, they will at least as violently reject the idea that Lee Oswald tried to kill General Walker. They mistakenly believe that it lends credence to the claim that Lee Oswald killed JFK. But that is simply an error. There is no material connection. Besides -- as the Briscoe Center's personal papers of Edwin Walker show -- Edwin Walker announced that Lee Oswald was his shooter only 18 hours after JFK was killed. This was in his phone conversation to the Deutsche Nationalzeitung on the early morning of 23 November 1963. Here's a URL: pet880.com/images/19631129_Deutsche_NZ.jpg That's material evidence. And now compare that with this well known fact: Marina Oswald announced it to the FBI ten days later. The material evidence against Edwin Walker continues to mount. And coincidentally, it actually supports the testimony of Marina Oswald. Robert, I know that you and I also firmly agree that H.L. Hunt along with the right-wing in Dallas were up to their necks in the JFK assassination. This is one of the issues upon which we have amiably agreed for a long time. But I will continue to struggle to show that Edwin Walker was the center of that cyclone -- not LBJ. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Not so, Tom. Lots of people give me positive encouragement on this Forum. Lots of 'em. Only a few bunch together and spit spitballs. ANYWAY -- back to this interesting thread by Jim Root! The Edwin Walker issue is fascinating because the Warren Commission records name him more than 700 times -- and yet Edwin Walker is all but forgotten today. Only Jim Root's thread, Harry Dean's memoirs, and my banging the drum at www.pet880.com with Walker's personal papers seem to keep the topic moving these days. Yet in 1963, just minutes after Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested, Bernard Weissman, chairman of the CUSA Dallas front group, American Fact-Finding Committee, said to Larrie Schmidt, "I hope he is not a member of the Walker group." Something like that -- "I hope he is not one of Walker's boys." Bernie Weissman was terrified because it was his name on the black-bordered ad that the John Birch Society put out inside the Dallas Morning News on 22 November 1963 that began with the snide remark, "Welcome MISTER Kennedy," followed by 12 insults disguised as questions, and signed by "Bernard Weissman, Chairman, American Fact-Finding Committee." That ad was clearly right-wing and inflammatory, accusing JFK of treasonous acts of Communist collaboration. That was what the John Birch Society preached. That was what General Walker had preached for all of 1962, up to the day that he led a massive race riot at Ole Miss University, in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed (just to keep one Black American student, James Meredith, from attending). For the John Birch Society, it was JFK and the Communists who were responsible for that race riot. Their hatred of JFK was matched only by the hatred of the KKK and the White Citizens' Councils of the Deep South. In fact, ex-General Walker was a frequent speaker for the White Citizens' Councils, and even appeared on TV with them: Here is some footage...Part One: youtube.com/watch?v=ZeQKuJTJi48 Here is more footage...Part Two: youtube.com/watch?v=Y9yUW019xoA This is what Bernie Weissman recalled under oath about those days before the JFK assassination: "...As a matter of fact, I was pretty worried about [Larrie's] brother becoming involved with General Walker, and I thought it might give us a black eye." It appears to me that Bernard Weissman was the most politically astute member of CUSA -- far more than the founder, Larrie Schmidt, who today appears to me to have been a political neophyte. Readers seem to forget that Bernie had arrived in Dallas only 18 days before the black-bordered ad appeared in the Dallas Morning News. Before that he was a starving Encyclopedia salesman in New Jersey. He came to Dallas because Larrie Schmidt had boasted about how powerful he was becoming in Dallas politics. It seemed to Bernie that Larrie Schmidt had organized the humiliation of UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson on 24 October 1963 (but actually it was ex-General Walker who organized that humiliation, and Larrie was merely on the sidelines - taken by surprise). Also, Bernie was talked into signing his name to the ad -- he didn't write the ad (although he did approve it, and he did select a thicker black border). Larrie Schmidt convinced Bernie that his political career would be "launched" by this ad. Nor was Bernie Weissman the only American who suspected Edwin Walker of plotting to kill JFK on 22 November 1963. Lots of people did. (I remember now that Michael Hogan did submit a useful post naming one news reporter in Dallas who, just minutes after the JFK killing, made a bee-line to Edwin Walker's home in Dallas for immediate questioning. Walker was in Louisiana at the time.) So -- these are only a few of the issues that bring Edwin Walker front and center for our questions on this, the 50th anniversary year of the murder of JFK. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Michael, nobody cares about your personal issues. This is a thread about Edwin Walker. Do you have anything at all to say about the role of Edwin Walker in the assassination of JFK? If so, please make that contribution. Please. Pretty please. Regards, --Paul Trejo

If Mike Hogan had claimed this I wouldn't believe it either. But he hasn't. I guess when you create "TRUTH in YOUR JUDGMENT" it comes in real handy when you continually make stuff up to pass judgment on? We are. These threads are now focused firmly on your outright deceit, dishonesty and unbelievable ignorance. Every which way we turn we are presented with more and more of it. Lee Farley, this isn't your thread, this is Jim Root's thread and you're not making any positive contributions to it. Just go away. Regards, --Paul Trejo