Paul Trejo

Here are my posts on this thread that tried to help you with your research on Edwin Walker. How many of them were negative to you? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=248053 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=249314 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=265821 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=265913 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=269137 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=269549 Paul, I've made exactly one post on this thread that criticized you. It was for your failure to acknowledge a gross error of your own making, after it was pointed out to you by Robert Charles-Dunne. If you really cared so much about sound arguments, you would not have responded as you did. Michael, it's well known that you've joined the BLOCK TREJO team on the Forum, so why not admit it? As for your past posts -- do us all a favor and summarize them for us, won't you? And nobody believes you've criticized me personally only once. WOULD PEOPLE *PLEASE* GET BACK TO THE THEMES OF THESE THREADS?! Regards, --Paul Trejo

Tom, it doesn't matter to me at all if a "bunch" of you gang up on me, insult me and try to shout me down -- it's water off a duck's back. The only thing I care about in the Forum are sound arguments. The Lee Farley Gang has provided lots of negative junk for the past several weeks, but is severely lacking in sound arguments. Michael's post on this thread is a case in point -- it's negative. He's got nothing positive to offer in response. He's playing hall monitor here, and it's absurd. To have a productive, creative Forum, I believe it is proper to stomp on negative and cantankerous talk -- and a duty to do so. My posts (when they aren't defending against negative rock throwers) are positive, creative and constructive of theories that criticize the Warren Commission conclusions. My opponents' theories tend to be one-sided affairs that go too far in the other direction -- for example, proposing an "innocent victim" portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald. Now, it is clear that six or seven people in the past two weeks (including yourself) have tried to disagree with every sentence I write. But there are hundreds of people on this Forum -- surely you don't think you represent them all, do you? Surely you can't believe that all members of this Forum agree that Marina Oswald was a xxxx? I know that's not the case -- I can name several heavy hittlers on this Forum who will go to bat for Marina Oswald. I consider myself free to criticize such unfounded theories as an "innocent victim Oswald," as well as to respond to insults and name-calling as appropriate, within the bounds of decency. Would you, as a moderate on this Forum, agree? I hope so. Regards, --Paul Trejo

No, Michael, actually Lee Farley makes far more mistakes than I do. For example, Lee absurdly believes that he can ignore all the 20 sworn statements in the Warren Commission volumes -- plus an FBI report -- that affirm that Lee Harvey Oswald beat his wife Marina. Lee is emotional about this point, and he will go to almost any lengths to publicly beat his head against this brick wall. Well, all reasonable people can see the flaws in his nonsense. Yet you, Robert Dunne, Martin Hay and a few others remain as biased as Lee. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Robert Charles-Dunne corrected this error and offered a link to CIA's website: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=270023 This was Paul's reply: Revisit his sources? Paul could have checked the link provided by Robert, or he could have spent a minute with Google. Instead, he elected to furnish an oblique and meaningless reply. The above exchange serves to illustrate why so many members have taken issue with Paul's posts and declarations. Even in such a clear cut instance Paul Trejo could not bring himself to own his mistake. This has been part of a recurring pattern in his posts. Honestly, Michael, you nag more than my grandmother. All right, I saw Robert's link and I accept his correction. There -- are you finally happy? I doubt it. Regards, --Paul Trejo

John, I believe my theory is fairly close to your own -- LHO was an extreme rightist who hung out with Cuban Exiles (like Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler) and ex-military men serving the John Birch Society -- men like Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Gerry Patrick Hemming. These men, in turn, were seen in proximity to ex-General Edwin Walker in the summer and autumn of 1963. All of these men had napoleonic complexes, as do most rightists, IMHO. Yet what distinguished LHO from Walker was not merely his stature, but their spider-and-fly relationship -- Walker was the spider and Oswald was the fly. Harry Dean reported that the John Birch Society identified Lee Harvey Oswald as a pesky Communist FPCC officer in New Orleans in late August 1963, and General Walker flew into Southern California to tag Lee Harvey Oswald as the patsy to their plot for the "last resort" salvation of the USA from the Communist-dominated JFK Administration. A sacred oath was ceremoniously adopted by the spider and his quislings, and the fly was doomed from that point forward. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

John, I can appreciate your hypothesis today. I also appreciate that you refer to it as a "hypothesis." I also refer to my theory as a "theory." I think we agree on several aspects -- the hourglass structure of organization, for example, where the true leadership was invisible to the foot-soldiers. To reconsider your theory, however, that Hoover belonged in the upper-level of the JFK assassination conspiracy (because of his alleged attempt to kill MLK), I must see the article by the Newsweek writer that you've mentioned for several posts. I've Googled the topic, and can find nothing anywhere to point me to this author. Do you remember the author's name? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Jim, I think you've hit on an important point -- that Lee Oswald was selected as the patsy for the JFK murder mainly because he had lived in the USSR. As a secondary confirmation of his Communist affiliation, we also have Lee Oswald pretending to be an FPCC officer in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. This charade was so visible that we find evidence today in newspaper clippings, police reports, radio recordings and television recordings. We know it was a charade because the FPCC never had a chapter in New Orleans. Also, we know that Oswald lied about having members in this fake chapter of the FPCC in New Orleans -- the only member was his own alias, Alek J. Hidell. It seems to me that the fakery of the New Orleans FPCC is so blatant, yet even today people speak about Oswald as being a genuine Communist and a genuine exponent of the FPCC. They use his fake posturing in New Orleans as their main evidence of this. In any case -- my theory holds that Lee Oswald's stay in the Soviet Union, plus his posturing as an FPCC officer in New Orleans, marked him as the patsy, especially to people for whom any contact with Communists was considered contagious. This, then, leads me to Harry Dean's account -- he claims that ex-General Walker, along with Loran Hall and various members of the John Birch Society, identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the patsy of their particular plot to kill JFK (one of many such plots) immediately after Lee Oswald's FPCC charade in New Orleans. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Terri, I started reading JFK conspiracy books back in 1991 after I saw Oliver Stone's movie, JFK. I'd seen people selling books about the JFK conspiracy at airports before that, and I always thought they were UFO-believers and kooks like that. But after seeing JFK, I took another look, and I found a ton of books already written. Perhaps the most influential ones were those written by Jim Garrison and Mark Lane, but also by Harold Weisberg, Ed Epstein, Robert Groden, Jim Marrs, Fletcher Prouty, Gaeton Fonzi, Peter Dale Scott, John Davis and so on. Jim Garrison led the field, IMHO, when he boldly announced that the CIA was the top authority in the JFK conspiracy. Mark Lane tended to agree. Most did. A few diverged, like John Davis, who believed that the Mafia did it. It was all exciting -- but there were contradictions in their theories. Final proof was lacking. So the books just kept coming out. Only in very recent times has anybody devoted a lot of energy to the theory that right-wing fanatical civilians in the USA (including the KKK) did it. Why didn't this topic capture the imagination of Jim Garrison, Mark Lane or Oliver Stone? It is a rare theory -- but it has a lot of weight as far as I can see -- more weight than most other theories. Can I consider that the FBI and the CIA were involved? Actually, Terri, for most of the past 20 years that's exactly what I did consider. Yet the details did not come clear -- and some conspiracy theorists flew way out in outer space. (Some of your critics should be ashamed to tell their own theories about the JFK assassination.) After 50 years of theories about the JFK killing, most of which included the CIA and the FBI, the case was never satisfactorily solved. Jim Garrison was wrong, IMHO, when he said words to the effect that, "this is just another murder, and we should prosecute it just like any other murder." That's incorrect. This is not like the Boston bombing. This is the murder of a President -- the head of State -- it was a profoundly political act. It was meant to change the course of American politics forever. In the same way, the killing of Abraham Lincoln was intended to change the course of American politics forever -- but it failed. The USA just plodded on as usual, according to the US Constitution. And when JFK was killed, the USA just plodded on as usual, according to the US Constitution. Covering up the killers of JFK is not the same as covering up criminals in other crimes. Those criminals only matter to their friends and family, and to the friends and family of their victims. The killers of JFK, however, would matter to hundreds of millions of people. As for the Secret Service men, Terri, we have a documented list that 300 of them were at the Trade Mart center where the JFK luncheon was scheduled to be held. When Harry Dean tells his version of the JFK plot (which I believe is authentic) he was told that JFK would be killed at the Trade Mart -- and that is what he told the FBI. It was a total surprise to Harry that JFK was killed in Dealey Plaza. (But it was not a surprise to Harry that Lee Harvey Oswald was named as the patsy.) Anyway -- the CIA knows a lot -- but they aren't gods. They don't know everything. And they can't predict the future. It was the CIA that made a total mess of the Bay of Pigs. That is proof positive that they don't know everything. If there were some traitors inside the CIA or the Secret Service -- perhaps secret members of the KKK or the Birchers or the Minutemen -- they were acting against the rules of the CIA and Secret Service. Membership in those non-patriotic groups was off-limits to government personnel. It is not impossible that some rogue agents betrayed this country for their right-wing politics -- but I don't want to make that horrible charge without some material evidence in my hands. It's a major deal for me. These are real people, too. Again -- I believe that Earl Warren knew that the Warren Commission conclusions were bogus, despite the tonnage of legal work that went into them. It is embarrasing, but orders are orders. When loyal Americans get military orders from high authority -- we are willing to lay our very lives on the line that very day for those orders. That's how it's always been. Well, an order from the Supreme Court is accepted much the same way by lower-level government workers. This high authority, Earl Warren, said that this must be our conclusion, and nobody can see the Lee Harvey Oswald CIA 201 file for 75 years after the JFK killing. Most government workers, from the FBI on down, simply accept those as orders. Warren told us why: National Security. So, it's a quasi-military order. As for Civil War -- this was not about the Black Panthers or even about the KKK itself. The killing of the President of the USA would have started a Civil War between much larger groups than the Black Panthes or the KKK (who only amounted to a few hundred thousand people). Instead, the killing of JFK pitted the far-right in the USA -- millions of people -- against the center and left in the USA -- millions of people. The far-right in the USA grew several times larger than it was under Eisenhower, mainly because of Cuba, and partly because of the Civil Rights movement. During the Ole Miss riots of 30 September 1962, the far-right, led by ex-General Edwin Walker on campus, spoke not only about race integration of public schools, but also about Cuba in all the speeches of that day. Millions of Americans followed the far-right in those days. Who were the Birchers? They were doctors, lawyers, dentists, professors, retired military men, and countless "little old ladies in tennis shoes." A few Birchers supported George Wallace for President, but most Birchers supported Barry Goldwater for President. It was mainstream. If, then, the far-right (including the KKK) was found to be guilty of killling the President of the USA, then there would have been far greater riots than anything we saw at Ole Miss. The center-left would have attacked the far-right and a Civil War of millions might have been the result. If that was the case, then the USSR would have been tempted to interfere. They would write newspaper articles, magazine articles, and might even send spies and subversives from Moscow to take part. When the first USSR spy would be caught, the extreme-right would have gone ballistic, and accused the center-right of Treason, and would have called for World War Three on the spot -- and Barry Goldwater might have pushed his way to the White House -- and pressed the nuclear button. This was all in the realm of possibility in 1963-1964. By the way, Terri, I like your speculation that the Vietnam war might have been promoted as an outlet for the far-right. It's interesting. Finally, if, as I believe, the JFK murder cover-up was intended to avoid a Civil War in the USA, it worked like a charm. Also, it wasn't a felony -- it was a Presidential mandate. A President has the power to stay an execution if he wants, or even to pardon a felony. A President (along with Congress) has the power to declare war in which countless thousands or millions of people might be killed. The power of life and death is a legal power above the power of a given felony. Now, I think we must admit, at the very least, that the FBI and CIA were involved in the JFK murder cover-up, through their support of the Warren Commision conclusions. However, the FBI and CIA had rules against membership in the far-right -- so if the far-right killed JFK (as I believe) then the official FBI and CIA did not kill JFK. If this is correct, then those who killed JFK and those who covered-up the killing were two very separate groups of people, with two very separate goals. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Once again, Lee, you seek to find irony or contradiction by snipping portions of my posts. Yet you've really only shown so far that you're uncomfortable with nuances. It's possible for Harry Dean to be right sometimes, and mistaken at other times. It's possible for Gerry Patrick Hemming to make sense sometimes, and relapse into nonsense at other times. Further, you continue to fail to distinguish between a conclusion and a theory. Discernment is necessary in complex intellectual research. People who are uncomfortable with nuances are poorly suited to master the discrernment required. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Gary Shoener recently promised me that he would try once again to find his copy of the Jack Martin Film in his garage. Gawd, I hope he finds it. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

John, I will admit that I have more than a little doubt about Hoover's total innocence in the JFK assassination itself. I say this even though I completely separate the JFK assassination from the JFK assassination cover-up. My first doubt begins with Hoover's super-fast identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone-nut assassin of JFK. That, to me, is the most suspicious fact of all. My second doubt begins with Gerry Patrick Hemming's claim that J. Edgar Hoover was the mastermind of the JFK murder plot. Now, Hemming was not under oath when he made this claim, and Hemming is also well-known for his wild-goose chases. So, this is not "material" evidence, although it is worth discussing. Gerry Patrick Hemming claimed that after J. Edgar Hoover presented RFK and JFK with sex photographs of JFK commiting adultery -- and threatened to go public with them, RFK immediately hired inside people with a request for sex photographs on J. Edgar Hoover. Those people hired Gerry Patrick Hemming for the job, and gave Hemming a lot of money to begin. Hemming claimed that his first act was to buy a huge quantity of high-grade marijuana and then go underground to work with drug addicts and other underground people. He used the drugs to bribe people for his contraband -- actual photographs of J. Edgar Hoover engaged in homosexual acts. Hemming claimed that in only a few days they were successful, and delivered these photographs to RFK, who immediately showed them to J. Edgar Hoover, who sat down in his chair with his jaw open, completely stunned. Of course, J. Edgar Hoover turned over his compromising photographs of JFK, and slammed the door. Hemming further claimed that Hoover (1) plotted to kill JFK after that; and (2) plotted to make Hemming and Interpen into the patsies of this plot. This was to occur at the Miami airport (as I recall) and Interpen was paid a lot of money to show up at the airport. Hemming told his crew to show up -- but without any guns at all. FBI men arrested the Interpen guys, but when they learned they had no guns, they had to let them go. At that point, claimed Hemming, J. Edgar Hoover swore personal vengeance against Gerry Patrick Hemming. If I got some of the details wrong, I believe he told this story on this Forum in 2007. So -- Hemming offers a portrait of J. Edgar Hoover that might be biased or might be true. If true, it certainly implicates Hoover far more than I have ever implicated him. Yet we have no confirmation of Hemming's story -- and he was capable of making up stories, too, as Noel Twyman admitted in 1997. As for Hoover's super-fast identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone-nut killer of JFK, that can also be explained as a think-fast strategy to avert a Civil War in America. So, I don't think this has been proved one way or the other yet. I will keep my mind open about J. Edgar Hoover. I seek the dirty characters -- the ones who were open and outspoken in favor of racism, segregation, and the riots at Ole Miss in 1962. That includes ex-General Edwin Walker and Guy Banister, and it doesn't include J. Edgar Hoover. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

So, what I'm hearing John, is that you don't really have anything but rumor to the effect that J. Edgar Hoover tried "at least once" to murder MLK. Is that right? I certainly don't want to nitpick your work, John, because you've struggled for years in this Forum advocating a minority opinion that I believe is totally correct -- i.e. that the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission and related racist organizations in the South bear the greatest weight in the assassination of JFK. I want to recognize you for that important research. Yet if you claim that J. Edgar Hoover tried to kill MLK, I think that may be overstating your case -- especially if you have no material evidence for the claim. It is perfectly possible to separate the JFK killers from the JFK cover-up team. It is also possible to separate the KKK from the FBI. If you have further evidence to share that implicates Hoover, I'm all ears. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Tom, as you know this is a link for the 2012 book, Mary's Mosaic, by Peter Janney. In his fairly thorough book about the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer in October, 1964, Janney offers evidence that Ms. Meyer was murdered by the CIA insofar as she had been: (1) a mistress of JFK; and (2) the former wife of a CIA agent. (E. Howard Hunt also names Cord Meyer as a member of the JFK kill plot.) Janney then attempts to link his ample research on the murder of Ms. Meyer to the well-known research on JFK that tries to show that the CIA, Secret Service and FBI killed JFK in what is widely known as the coup d'etat theory. Such theories are common today. It reminds me of the 1997 book by Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason, which carefully accumulates lots of evidence involving Interpen with the killing of JFK, yet does not think twice about combining the killing of JFK with the cover-up of JFK. The Twyman also falls into a coup d'etat theory. This is the one, major weakness of what could have been our best JFK research book to date. If only Twyman had the insight to separate the JFK assassination plot from the JFK assassination cover-up plot, he would not have wound up with so many doubts. That is, Twyman, seeing so much evidence that Gerry Patrick Hemming was involved in the details of the JFK assassination, could not find enough evidence that Hemming was the "mastermind" of the whole JFK plot -- Hemming did not have the power to cover up the JFK assassination plot. Thus he made no conclusion. I find Peter Janney in the same boat. He does not even look at the possibility that the JFK killing and the JFK plot cover-up were accomplished by two separate groups with completely different goals. Perhaps I'm the first person in JFK research to propose this more likely scenario as well. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ian, I appreciate your interest in this theory -- I think it will finally crack the JFK assassination conspiracy case. I love your question -- what are the odds of filming these two related events randomly? I'd guess more than a million to one. Now -- you may be correct -- that John Martin could be culpable as a part of the plot to kill JFK. I admit that's possible, but it's not guaranteed. For example, if Martin was simply respectul and obedient to his former US Army General, he could have simply been following orders when he flew to Dallas, took film footage of Walker's home bullet holes, and then flew to New Orleans to film Lee Harvey Oswald being arrested. In other words, it is at least possible that John Martin had no idea why he was making this film -- he was just obeying orders. Now -- it is also possible that Walker told John Martin all about it. Harry Dean says that Walker told Congressman John Rousselot, war-hero Guy Gabaldon, and Interpen mercenaries, Loran Hall and Larry Howard all about his Lee Harvey Oswald plot in Harry Dean's presence. So, it is possible, perhaps probable, that Walker would confide in people he believed he could trust. So, if John Martin knew exactly why he was taking the "John Martin Film," then to some degree he was part of the JFK assassination plot. Why would he stick his neck out today? Well, there is at least a ghost of a chance that John Martin was "born again" and completely changed his politics. This chance has some weight because as Gary Schoener told me, John Martin explained to Harold Weisberg that he was handing over this film because he'd experienced a change of heart. He had quit the John Birch Society and the Minutemen. Weisberg and Schoener happened to be in Minnisota giving a lecture about the JFK case, and John Martin was in the audience. He was moved to hand over his film. Schoener said nothing about striking any deal with John Martin. Some years later he wrote to Weisberg, lamenting that they lost track of John Martin. There is indeed a strong motive for people who knew about intrigues of ex-General Edwin Walker during the summer of 1963 to hide in the shadows for the rest of their lives. Nevertheless, Harry Dean came forward, despite a ton of criticism, simply because he is an honest man. So, I think there's at least some small chance that John Martin might one day come forward. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ian, Weisberg and his young friend Gary claimed John Martin approached them in !968 and that they were able to make and keep two copies of his film. The two examined the frames closely and found nothing recognizable on them. FBI claimed it was only personal film of John Martin's summer vacation but Martin claimed he gave the FBI his only print and they returned it to him missing key segments. Paul is not swayed by Weisberg's lack of interest which was high because Weisberg believed his luggage was intercepted and wrecked when he was taking a flight home from Minnesota just after Martih gave him a copy of the film. Weisberg thought the sabotage was an attempt to steal the film. This surely influenced Weisberg and Gary to examine the film meticulously. Both men lost interest in the film's potential to be of value. Paul considers the film in his own, unique way. Everyone has overlooked Walker's role, the desparate need to avert civil war, and the firm jello that the John Martun film is the Rosetta Stone. How could Gary conceal it in the clutter of his garage for 46 years. Gary is no Great American. Dulles and Warren had uncluttered garages and did whatever was required to avert civil war.... Tom, thanks for recognizing that my theory about the Jack Martin film is unique. I've never seen it in any book or thread before my posts on the Forum. As for Harold Weisberg and Gary Schoener, I was able to contact Gary Schoener myself last year, and he explained to me why he and Weisberg found "nothing of interest" in the film, after examining it for some weeks. Namely, they were completely focused on the segment of Lee Harvey Oswald -- they carefully examined each and every face in the street during the period before, during and after his arrest on 9 August 1963. They recognized nothing new or "interesting" to them in the faces there -- and actually they recognized almost none of the faces in the crowd. Yet Gary Schoener also admitted to me that it did not occur to Harold Weisberg or himself that this film footage of Lee Harvey Oswald being arrested in New Orleans was contained in the same home movie that contained footage of buttet holes in General Walker's home in Dallas. These bullet holes would -- in December 1963 -- be blamed on Lee Harvey Oswald by Marina Oswald. Somehow they simply overlooked the fact that the bullet holes were materially linked to Oswald in this very film. So, you're right -- I seem to be the first person in JFK research to recognize that the John Martin film is the material link between Oswald and Walker before the JFK assassination. Now -- before Marina told the FBI this fact on or about 1 December 1963, we have documented proof that ex-General Edwin Walker held a telephone conference with a German weekly newspaper called the Deutsche Nationalzeitung, and he told that news reporter that Lee Harvey Oswald had been his shooter on 10 April 1963. Here is the front page headline of that weekend's news article: http://www.pet880.com/images/19631129_Deutsche_NZ.jpg Now, how did the Deutsche Nationalzeitung know that Oswald was Walker's shooter before the FBI knew that? Wesley Liebeler asked Walker that very question -- and Walker's answer was, "they guessed it." Liebeler accepted that answer and moved on. I don't accept that answer. I'm convinced that ex-General Walker perjured himself before the Warren Commission multiple times. Why not? He had already perjured himself before a Mississippi Grand Jury and got away with it, and in fact was suing multiple American newspapers in an extention of that same perjury! In fact, ex-General Edwin Walker repeated that story for the rest of his life -- that Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested on 10 April 1963 and released that same night by Federal authorities. (In some versions of the story, as in the Deutsche Nationalzeitung, Oswald was released by RFK himself.) He stuck to that story and had it re-printed in the year before he died. Here's a URL to that 1992 newspaper article: http://www.pet880.com/images/19920119_EAW_Oswald_arrested.pdf In addition to this, H.L. Hunt also repeated this same story in his own Playboy interview in 1966. So did the John Birch Society. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Terri, I'm glad that at least this bit of your quandry was cleared up with the FBI. When I first advised you to contact the Washington FBI, I assumed at that time that you were going to speak only about the case of your friend, Junior. Yet it appears that you started with case about JFK. In that case, since it was 50 years ago, I'm not surprised that somebody who would answer the phone at the FBI today would be unfamiliar with the JFK case, except the official FBI conclusions (the Warren Commission) which the FBI still maintains today. In other words, they truly believe the case is closed -- and that only UFO-believers call up with fresh evidence about JFK. I'm not surprised to learn this about FBI clerks. At least, as you said, he didn't laugh at you (although he did hang up on you). I believe this is still the official CIA position as well -- that "there is sufficient evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed JFK." They are unwilling to talk further about it, and unwilling to re-open the case. Even if thousands of JFK researchers demand to re-open the case, the FBI and the CIA will simply dismiss us all as UFO-believers. It's just not something they are willing to talk about. And yet, it sounds as though you called the FBI a second time, and inquired about the lynching case involving your friend, Junior. I'm very glad that you did that. As you report today, the FBI did look into the case, and did seek witnesses among his family -- and they were terrified to testify. This comes as little surprise. I believe that most normal people who lived in a county in which the KKK played a dominant role in the city councils, in City Hall, in the police department, in the Court house, on the Judge's bench, in the schools, in the banks and among the employers of the county -- most people in that situation would also be afraid to complain to the FBI about a lynching case. I applaud that you're willing to testify, Terri. But by tradition at least two witnesses are needed to make any case. Still, I'm glad that you now recognize that the FBI is not necessarily in partnership with the KKK. That, at least, is one positive step forward. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

You wrote: "Because so far I've seen from you and your kind only guesswork amassed over decades that the CIA did it. Guesswork based on hunches...." (Bold added) Because so far I've seen from you and your kind only guesswork amassed over decades that the CIA did it. Guesswork based on hunches...." (Bold added) Do you ever have anything positive to say, Michael, or will it be all negative forevermore? Regards, --Paul Trejo

In my humble opinion, the solution to the JFK assassination will tumble forth when we can obtain material proof that ex-General Edwin Walker perjured himself before the Warren Commission in 1964, when he claimed that he never spoke about Lee Harvey Oswald before the JFK assassination. Reverend (now Bishop) Duncan Gray of the Episcopalian Church says that ex-General Walker perjured himself before a Mississippi Grand Jury when he claimed that he was at Ole Miss University on 30 September 1962 merely to calm the crowd and avoid group violence. Instead, hundreds were wounded and two were killed, and Duncan Gray was an eye-witness to the fact that Walker did indeed incite to riot and led charges against the Federal Marshals sent by JFK. Having won acquital in January 1963 from charges of insurrection at Ole Miss, based entirely on this perjury, Edwin Walker and his two lawyers, Robert Morris and Clyde Watts, set about suing every American newspaper that had printed the truth about him -- claiming libel, since after all a Grand Jury had found Walker innocent of those charges. They expected to amass tens of millions of dollars in these lawsuits which they pursued from 1963 through 1967 -- again, all based on on Walker's perjury. Thus says an Episcopalian Bishop to this very day. Now, given that material evidence, are we to expect that ex-General Walker would hesitate to perjure himself before the Warren Commission? Before you respond, consider that since 1959, when General Walker joined the John Birch Society and submitted his first resignation to the US Army (on the Birch Society grounds that President Eisenhower was a Communist), Walker adopted the John Birch Society slogan -- Impeach Earl Warren! Following the logic of the segregationist right under Judge Tom Brady (Black Monday), Judge Leander Perez, Robert Patterson (White Citizens' Council) and the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission, General Edwin Walker charged Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren of treason for his Brown ruling to racially integrate US public schools -- a move which the far-right, including the KKK, claimed was a Communist plot, and therefore an act of treason. Actually, ex-General Edwin Walker installed a full-size billboard on his front lawn in Dallas, with a different Bircher slogan every few months, including, Impeach Earl Warren! It is clear where Walker's politics remained -- back at Ole Miss -- and he told the press on his Midnight Ride tour with Billy James Hargis, "I would do it again." So, I ask again -- is it feasible that ex-General Walker, facing the court of this Supreme Court Justice whom he despised for five years, would behave with more honor than he would at a Mississippi Grand Jury? So, when ex-General Edwin Walker told Warren Commission attorney Wesley Liebeler, in sworn testimony, that he never spoke of Lee Harvey Oswald before the JFK assassination, we should be open to an opposing testimony. Jack Ruby told Earl Warren that Edwin Walker and the John Birch Society were behind the JFK assassination. That claim fell on deaf ears. ATF Agent Frank Ellworth advised the Warren Commission to investigate more fully Edwin Walker and the Dallas Minutemen. That advice fell on deaf ears. Harry Dean told the FBI in early September 1963 that he was present at a John Birch Society meeting in which ex-General Walker told the assembly that he had selected Lee Harvey Oswald to be their patsy in their plot to kill JFK. That report fell on deaf ears. (And today the FBI denies any record of such information.) Finally -- perhaps ultimately -- there is one person young enough to be alive today who is still in a position to produce a sworn affidavit to the effect that ex-General Edwin Walker was profoundly aware of Lee Harvey Oswald through the spring, summer and autumn of 1963. That person is the young John (Jack) Martin, who made the home movie that Martin Shackleford has called, "The Jack Martin Film," which is in two parts: (1) showing the bullet holes in Walker's home in Dallas; and (2) showing Lee Harvey Oswald being arrested in New Orleans. John Martin was an estimated 27 years old in 1968, and perhaps 21 in 1960 when he served under General Walker in Augsburg, Germany. In 1963, Martin was out of the Army and was a member of the Minnesota Minutemen. In 1968 John Martin handed his film to Harold Weisberg and Gary Schoener, because he had experienced a change of heart, and removed himself from rightist politics entirely. Sadly, Weisberg and Schoener failed to see the importance of this film -- it materially connected Walker and Oswald in one film. Sadder still, Weisberg and Schoener lost all contact with John Martin. In my humble opinion, if we can somehow -- anyhow -- make contact with John Martin of Minnesota (who should be about 74 years old today) -- and ask him to confirm or deny whether ex-General Edwin Walker had actually instructed him to make this film, we would be make a giant step in our quest. Because -- if John Martin confirms this allegation, then we have material evidence that Walker knew in advance exactly when Oswald was going to be arrested in New Orleans! Having that fact, we will then have material evidence -- conclusive in my opinion -- that Walker perjured himself before the Warren Commission as well as to the Mississippi Grand Jury. That would start the dominos falling, and the people associated with ex-General Edwin Walker -- including the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission, the John Birch Society, Interpen, Lake Pontchartrain, the DRE, the CRC, Guy Banister and all the rest -- would suddenly fall into their rightful place in history. I have searched and searched and cannot locale this John Martin. Does anybody have any clue about how I could possibly make contact? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Michael, I never said that Harry Dean and Gerry Hemming supplied sworn accounts. You misread me. Further, I never implied that you were dishonest. You misread me. Further, I couldn't care two cents whether you respect what I say or not. Further, I never talk about "hard proof". Again, you misread me. Further, I never claimed that you, personally, claimed that the the CIA did it. You misread me. Your bias against me just wastes a lot of time, Michael. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Nobody's saying that, John. We're only asking what solid evidence exists to make the claim that Hoover tried to kill MLK. I will grant this -- if we have solid evidence that Hoover tried to kill MLK, then we can surmise that Hoover believed the right-wing lies about the Civil Rights movement in the USA being controlled by Communist Moscow (instead of being a grass-roots movement for justice, which is what it truly was). Now, if Hoover was so intellectually drained by 1963 (after all, he was born in 1895 and had lived through much) that he believed MLK was a Communist, then it is surely plausible that Hoover believed that JFK was also controlled by Communists, particularly after JFK's Civil Rights Speech of 11 June 1963 which was clearly in support of MLK. However, I doubt that Hoover was that stupid. After all, he knew that the John Birch Society was teaching that JFK was a Communist, and that Eisenhower had been a Communist, and that Truman had been a Communist and that FDR had been a Communist, and he wrote down for all to see his rule that the John Birch Society was therefore not a patriotic organization, but a subversive organization. For that reason, Hoover made a rule that no FBI Agent could be a member of the John Birch Society. Now -- given that factoid, how should I come to believe that Hoover himself decided to believe in the John Birch Society nonsense? That is a difficult stretch. Not impossible -- but difficult based on the material evidence. So, knowing the material evidence that you allude to when you say that "Hoover tried to kill MLK at least once" would be very helpful in forming a conclusion about this controversy. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Once again, no hard evidence is presented to support the theory that the CIA -- that is, the official CIA -- sheep-dipped Lee Harvey Oswald. However, SOMEBODY definitely framed Oswald. That is the core theory upon which the overwhelming majority of JFK researchers will agree. The question is -- who? The answer must entail the nature of the sheep-dip. Specifically, Lee Harvey Oswald, whose personal associates tended to be exclusively among the right-wingers in the South, was framed to appear to be a Communist. While it is true that Lee Harvey Oswald sent many postal letters to Communist agencies and newspapers from 1962-1963, these are not personal relationships. Lee Harvey Oswald did not associate with Communists in his personal life. By actual film footage, we know that Lee Oswald associated with Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler -- two of the most rabid right-wingers in the USA at the time. By a dozen eye-witness accounts in Clinton, Louisiana, we know that Lee Oswald associated with Clay Shaw and David Ferrie -- two more of the most rabid right-wingers in the USA at the time. Therefore, whoever framed Lee Harvey Oswald convinced Oswald *personally* to behave like a Communist. We know for a fact that the FPCC chapter in New Orleans of which Lee Harvey Oswald was the chief officer, was actually a FAKE chapter. That chapter had only one member, Lee Oswald, and one fake member, Alek Hidell, the alias of Lee Harvey Oswald. Why, why, why isn't this fact screamed in the re-telling? Oswald's FPCC chapter was FAKE. Therefore, Oswald's FPCC commitment was FAKE. That is the essence of the sheep-dip. The framing of Lee Harvey Oswald was all the work to make Oswald appear to be a Communist. But Oswald was no Communist. Now, who did this? We know very well who did this. Clearly, the people who helped Lee Harvey Oswald pretend to be an FPCC officer were the framers. That includes Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler (by actual photographic evidence), so it also implicates their immediate contacts in New Orleans, namely, the DRE, INCA and their American coordinators, Guy Banister and David Ferrie. The people who sheep-dipped Lee Harvey Oswald are known to us. There is no need to imagine or invent any fictional scenario to explain it. We have them. Now. What are we going to do about it? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Terri, I'd advise you to call the Washington, DC office of the FBI. I also suggest that you move slow and steady with them, and stick to one crime at a time. I'm very interested in their response. Best of luck with this. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, John, you claim that Hoover tried to kill MLK, and proof of that would be nice to see. Also, you seem to claim that Hoover was somehow a supporter of the Nazi Party, and proof of that would be nice to see. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

John, I will stipulate, for the sake of argument, that Hoover tried to kill MLK at least once. Nevertheless, there is an explanation. Hoover was convinced -- insofar as he was not as sophisticated a thinker as he supposed -- that MLK was a Communist controlled by Moscow. He wrote this, and he believed it. Now, it is also a fact that this was the same theory proposed by the White Citizens' Council, the State Sovereignty Commissions and the States Rights Parties in the 1960's. Clearly the KKK signed on to this theory, because it gained new supporters for their racist cause *that they otherwise would never have*. That is, most Americans were (and are) not racists. Yet most Americans were (and are) Anticommunists. So, when Judge Tom Brady (Black Monday) and Robert Patterson (White Citizens' Council) promoted this idea that the Civil Rights Movement in the USA was controlled by Moscow, that was a stroke of political mastery. The racists in America, whose only hope in 1954-1964 was to Impeach Earl Warren and reverse his *Brown* ruling to integrate public schools, made a masterful political stroke by claiming that MLK was controlled by Moscow. Millions of Americans who would otherwise never march with the racists, suddenly joined the racists. This is one of the most important aspects of USA Cold War history. We now find honest (however naive) Anticommunists switched over to the KKK agenda -- without realizing it. This is why I noted that ex-General Walker did not have any racist comments in his copyrighted speeches written in 1961 and early 1962. Racism was not on his agenda -- but Anticommunism was his obsession. It was because Walker was not a well-read man that he fell victim to the mythology that the Civil Rights movement was Communist. So he joined the John Birch Society, and called for the Impeachment of Earl Warren in a billboard that he installed on his front lawn. Because of his poor reading skills, Walker was fooled by the John Birch Society, and ended up supporting racist causes (like the Ole Miss riot) to his own detriment. Because the Ole Miss riots ruined his political career in mainstream America, ex-General Walker was forced to move to the extreme right of racism, and to work with Robert Allen Surrey and the White Citizens' Councils, in order to remain in the public arena at all. He didn't realize it at the time, but this totally ruined his chances in politics. I will also cite Harry Dean in this regard. I made a point to meet Harry Dean personally, and found him to be a fair-minded working man and family man with conservative American values. Harry Dean is no racist -- and furthermore, in his dealings with the John Birch Society and even with the Minutemen in Southern California, Harry Dean saw no evidence of racism in their ranks. If he had, he would have objected immediately. My conclusion is that the John Birch Society, despite their close dealings with the White Citizens' Council goal to Impeach Earl Warren, did not wear their racism on their sleeve. It was hidden. This was a deliberate strategy on the part of the founder, Robert Welch. I cite Walker and Dean here as a comparison with J. Edgar Hoover. Just because Hoover also fell victim to the belief that Martin Luther King was controlled by Communist Moscow, this does not mean that Hoover was also a racist. There are nuances to be observed here. Millions of people *unknowingly* marched with the racists in the 1960's by following the ideas of the John Birch Society and similar organizations throughout the USA. Yet their aim was Anticommunism -- not racism. This factor helps explain the mystery of civilized Germany following Adolf Hitler in 1930. Hitler was a racist, as anybody who read "Mein Kampf" could plainly see. But many people didn't read "Mein Kampf", and Hitler's original agenda that he broadcast to the public was the agenda of Anticommunism. Hitler promised to put a stop to Communism, and millions of Germans supported him on that basis. Only after it was too late -- after Hitler destroyed all Republican\Democratic principles in Germany, and established a brutal dictatorship -- did the German people realize the mistake they made. Then they were forced to see it through to the bitter end. In the same way, J. Edgar Hoover was fooled by the KKK spin-off of the White Citizens' Council and the State Sovereignty Commissions and the States Rights Parties. These institutions concealed their racist roots -- and J. Edgar Hoover was fooled by that. So, I believe history will show that J. Edgar Hoover's well-known hatred for Martin Luther King will prove to be his great failing due to his mistaken belief that MLK was controlled by Communist Moscow. I strongly doubt that Hoover was a racist in the sense of the Nazi Party. Very, very few Americans are that crass. I will end with a note about George De Mohrenshildt (as this is his thread). George was known to have supported the Nazi Party when he was in Europe. Yet George was an opportunist, not a racist. He thought better of Lee Harvey Oswald, knowing that Oswald would speak up for Black Americans. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

That's a fair question, John. I will look into that, certainly. Yet the same question applies to you -- what evidence do you have that Hoover actively supported the Nazi Party? Best regards, --Paul Trejo