Paul Trejo

Sorry, but that’s not even close to being true. Dulles was the fifth DCI, not the first, and was installed by Eisenhower, not Truman. The list from the CIA, itself: https://www.cia.gov/.../chronology.htm Rear Adm. Sidney W. Souers, USNR Jan. 23, 1946–June 10, 1946 Lt. Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, USA June 10, 1946–May 1, 1947 Rear Adm. Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, USN May 1, 1947–Oct. 7, 1950 Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, USA Oct. 7, 1950–Feb. 9, 1953 Allen W. Dulles Feb. 26, 1953–Nov. 29, 1961 That such an easily-detected falsehood is offered as fact renders suspect all other contentions, such as a few of the following examples: As for the purported abhorrence Dulles had for the Nazis, this did not prevent his law firm from representing Nazi-era German corporate interests, or US interests doing business with the Nazis, nor did it preclude him from using the salutation "Heil Hitler" in his correspondence with those German corporate interests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_%26_Cromwell Anyone wishing to know more about the extent of the Dulles brothers’ collusion with Nazis and the nexus between it and the US corporate sector need only Google the words Dulles and Prescott Bush. Also recommended are two highly underrated books by Charles Higham, "American Swastika" and "Trading With the Enemy." Immediately after the war, Nazis who should have faced the gallows via Nuremberg were covertly exfiltrated to the United States, given military commissions and government jobs, and allowed to escape justice, courtesy of "Operation Paperclip." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip Despite President’s Truman’s explicit stipulation that Nazis were not to be brought Stateside, OSS and CIA nevertheless did an end run around that command. Apologists for this practice often state the necessity of keeping Nazi scientific advances out of Soviet hands required this disobedience of a Presidential order. Perhaps so. But the practice of shielding Nazis from the gallows also included more than mere scientists. To wit, the likes of Reinhard Gehlen, Alois Brunner and Otto Von Bolshwing, among many others, who were used by OSS/CIA until long after the war’s end. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Gehlen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Brunner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bolschwing Dulles’ opinion of utilizing Nazis during the post-war period is perhaps found in his pithy patrician characterization of Gehlen: "I don't know if he's a rascal. There are few archbishops in espionage.... Besides, one needn't ask him to one's club." Yes, those pesky Nazis were possibly such "rascals," eh, wot? Hardly the sort with whom an Ivy League gentleman would wish to be seen breaking bread at the gentlemen’s club. More to the point of this Forum, Dulles was fully witting of CIA plots to assassinate foreign leaders, most pertinently Castro. In that Cuban escapade, the murder plots were undertaken not merely without the knowledge of Eisenhower (and then Kennedy), but against the expressed order by Kennedy forbidding it, once he became witting of it. Does that constitute a "great American?" What makes Dulles singular among Warren Commissioners was his knowledge of such CIA executive action attempts, and the implications they may have held for the solution of the Kennedy assassination mystery. Subsequently, the Rockefeller, Church, HSCA and Pike panels - all plumbing to some extent the JFK morass - thought those implications worthy of further probing. An honest broker would have disclosed this, in camera, to his fellow commissioners in 1963... 　 Robert, I'm impressed by your advanced historical perspective. I will revisit my sources. As for Allen Dulles using the Nazi salute in his communications to Nazis during World War Two, however, that is, IMHO, easily explained by the probability that he was operating as an underground agent, seeking further information. That is a logical way to obtain further information from the enemy. Many prominent American businessmen placed their bets with Nazi Germany before it was illegal to do so. Ford comes to mind, even Joe Kennedy. So John Foster Dulles was one among many, and Allen Dulles was the one who set him straight. As for salvaging Nazi scientists for the West, keeping them out of the USSR orbit -- that sounds perfectly logical to me. As for Dulles' secrecy during the Warren Commission and the HSCA -- since the Cold War was still raging hot, it makes sense (IMHO) that if there really was a National Security issue of revealing the truth about the JFK assassination during the Cold War, then Dulles would be perfectly justified. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Larry, I will revoke my generalizations here, too. I'm glad we agree on some general principals, but I overstate my case when I generalize too broadly. I haven't seen all the public schools in the USA, and you describe a public school system in excellent health -- so I was being too cranky. Yet getting back to the thread at hand -- the KKK in Terry, Mississippi during 1963 -- I wonder what the public school system looks like today in Terry, Mississippi. Perhaps Terri Williams can enlighten us about that social situation. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Actually, Michael, I agree with you. I overstated my case, clearly. JFK was in the military until 1957, which means that JFK served in a racially integrated military (integrated by Truman in 1948). Add to this the meteoric rise of Thurgood Marshall on the legal team of the NAACP in the 1950's -- it's possible that that JFK met Marshall and possibly other Black leaders in the NAACP. JFK might might have met Jackie Robinson -- I don't know. When JFK's father was a movie mogul in Hollywood in the 1940's, it's possible that JFK met some Black entertainment stars. So, I revoke my sentence. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Larry, I appreciate your viewpoint on this topic. I myself attended public schools from 1957-1970 in different places in California, and I can vouch for their inequality. Yet in t970 I had not yet heard about American high school graduates unable to read a common newspaper. You're totally correct to reference the tax base of public school funding -- yet I would refer you to the California Prop. 13 initiative that began in the 1970's and was ultimately successful. It was called the "taxpayers' revolt" and it was targetted to public schools. I remember it clearly because I played a minor role in the losing debates. Howard Jarvis himself came to our Community College in West Los Angeles to make his case for drastically reducing property taxes (the source of public school funding). As I pointed out to members of the debate team on campus, Howard Jarvis was a former member of an Antisemitic rightist political group in the 1950's and 1960's, and he represented the extreme right-wing. (He had taken out a quarter-page ad in a racist street newspaper in 1961, and I had a copy of this paper.) Jarvis' motivation was rascist, I declared, although most of his followers just want to pay lower property taxes. He is being funded by racist groups, ultimately. However, my debate team did not wish to confront Howard Jarvis with his past -- and partly as a consequence of that strategy our televised debate team lost soundly, and Howard Jarvis went on to make Prop. 13 a landmark political victory for his party. I note also that in this debate Howard Jarvis advocated private schools and the possibility of abolishing public schools. "The money we spend on public schools is wasted," argued Jarvis. Now, I knew first hand the inequality of California public schools, however, it never once occurred to me that California funds for public schools was "wasted." Decades later, however, I realize the import of his words -- he was speaking from the viewpoint of the White Citizen Councils of the Deep South, which had proposed to abolish public schools soon after the Brown decision in the mid-1950's. Because of subsequent "taxpayer revolts" and incessant movements toward "charter schools" and "private schools" and "home schooling" and "school vouchers", it appears to me that California public schools are not what they used to be -- they don't resemble the schools that I attended from 1957 to 1970. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Duncan, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and helpfulness in helping AT&T identify the malware that somebody (probably one of my JFK debating opponents) used to hack into my website at www.pet880.com which held 1,200 photographs of articles from the personal papers of ex-General Edwin Walker until just two weeks ago. I forwarded your technical findings to the AT&T Abuse team, for their comment. Perhaps you'll be the one who cracked this case. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

John, I agree with your assessment of this Civil Rights history. What it tells us today is that racial-integration was not a great success in the USA -- and that attacks on (integrated) public schools (i.e. trying to de-fund them or otherwise shut them down) continues to this very day. I also agree that extreme rightists assassinated Black American leaders in the sixties and seventies, and that those responsible for more recent shooting (e.g. Ohio) are from the same ilk. (And this is what Terri Williams has been suggesting all along as well.) This leads you to conclude that the rightists actually did achieve some of their their goals; and I can find no other conclusion to fit the facts. It seems to me that after 60 years of Brown v. The Board of Education, we must finally agree that it was not a roaring success. It met massive resistance in the 1950's, and that massive resistance still shows itself in nationwide Tea Parties today. American schools have suffered -- some high schools are surrounded with barbed wire and have armed guards at their gates -- they are little more than prisons. Some American public schools are hell holes from which we would hope to protect our own children. Despite billions of dollars of investment, we still have American high school students graduating with near illiteracy levels, and American test scores continuing to decline in comparison with the rest of planet Earth. I suspect that this public school disaster is probably the result of the American people continuing to massively resist Brown v. The Board of Education. This issue runs far deeper than we like to collectively admit. Here is a true collective engram. The massive resistance to Brown -- even today -- suggests to me the sort of social energy with the actual power to kill JFK. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Paul, Aren't you an IT professional? Are you saying that your website was infected with malware programmes, was also hacked to the point of having information removed from your server and that you did not know anything about it until the issue was highlighted to you by Greg Parker when his own computer warned him of the risk? Do you not owe the members here, who have visited your website, an explanation as to what the malware was/is and what effect it may have on them? What else was it doing other than deleting photographs? Are the members here themselves at risk if they visited your site? I work extensively with Information Systems and Technology personnel in my role and the knowledge that they have concerning information security and the risks involved with malware is second to none and doubt very much that their own systems and security is as poor as yours and I cannot believe your explanation for the mysterious "hacking" was because you are "getting close to the truth" because: a.) You're not and b.) Deleting 1200 photographs of a former Texas Governor seems like a pretty crappy way to steer you away from the "truth" So, do you have a more detailed, and less OTT, explanation as to what was going on with this malware please? Lee, I appreciate that you're concerned about AT&T web hosting, and also that your theory about JFK is a dead end, but please remain calm. FIrst, I'm a professional database guy, and I rely on my AT&T web hosting service to manage security for me. Obviously, AT&T does a poor job with web hosting (for small accounts like mine). After two weeks, their Web Abuse team has not discovered how my Images folder was deleted. They have no explanation for why my web site became infected with whatever it's infected with. They admit it was attacked - but they don't know who did it or how they did it. So -- until further notice, I must advise everybody on the FORUM to keep away from my web site at www.pet880.com. It's currently infected with something -- and the AT&T Abuse Team is taking their sweet time about it. Secondly, as for the notion that my web site was attacked because "I'm getting closer to the truth," that was said in good humor. I surely don't suspect that the CIA wants to censor all those personal papers of ex-General Edwin Walker (who was never the Governor of Texas). Actually, all those images are freely available to anybody who wants to make an appointment to travel to Austin to explore the Dolph Briscoe Center during normal business hours. So, I hope you can still take a joke, Lee. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Bernice, thanks for posting both these valuable items: (1) a blurb for Vince Palamara's upcoming book, Survivor's Guilt, due out this summer, which purports to be a more accurate account of the Secret Service bungling of their POTUS protection duty in Dallas on 11/22/63; and (2) an FBI document showing that a member of the KKK told the FBI on 15 November 1963 that the National States Rights Party (NSRP) had firm plans to kill JFK soon. The second item is of great interest on this thread about the KKK and its possible involvement in the JFK slaying. We should look at USA history very closely to see a direct relationship between the KKK and the NSRP. The buzz-word of the new KKK after the Supreme Court Brown decision that demanded the racial integration of USA public schools was "States' Rights." The White Citizens' Councils that sprang up only two months after the Brown decision (17 May 1954) had a double slogan: "States Rights" and "Racial Integrity". The term, "States' Rights" means that the Supreme Court has no right to tell the many States of the USA to integrate their schools. They based this on the 4th Amendment guaranteeing State Sovereignty -- immediately under the Federal Government. After the Civil War the States of the USA had total freedom to do anything they wanted -- except to keep and trade in human slaves. Otherwise, they were totally free. Therefore, in the 1890's the South felt their oats again and established Jim Crow laws to prevent Black Americans from voting -- and to ensure they didn't vote, they would also make it nearly impossible tor Black Americans to learn to read. (This was a practice they mastered during the old slavery days.) Jim Crow arose in the 1890's to enforce racial segregation on an unprecedented scale after the Civil War, and the US Congress allowed them to do it. US Presidents were powerless against Jim Crow. Even President Woodrow Wilson conformed to Jim Crow, and praised the first full-length motion picture, The Klansman (1917), and ensured that Princeton University remained totally segregated. President Calvin Coolidge himself failed to get anti-lynching legislation passed through Congress. FDR was the first President to challenge the Jim Crow laws -- but his efforts were prelmiinary -- he formed the Fair Employment Practices Committee to ensure that the US government did not discriminate on the basis of race in its hiring practices. Truman added teeth to that Committee, and also successfully integrated the US Army in 1948. Eisenhower oversaw the passage of Brown v. The Board of Education in 1954, and he used Federal troops to integrate Little Rock high school in Arkansas in 1957. In response to Brown, the KKK rose again in the form of the white-collar White Citizens' Councils (WCC) to oppose Brown, and when that failed, the KKK struck out again on their own. But the WCC feared that the atrocities for which the KKK was infamous would jeopardize their reversal of Brown. So the WCC spun off many other segregation organizations, including the States Rights Committee (SRC), the State Sovereignty Commission (SSC), and the National States Rights Party (NSRP). The SSC became enormous in Mississippi, and soon became part of the State government itself. It collected State funds and financed the WCC organizations in Mississippi. The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission (like the Louisiania and South Carolina SSC organizations) made it illegal to operate an NAACP in their counties. (I salute the Mississippi Department of Archives & History, the MDAH, for its excellent historical web site on the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission.) The KKK saw this enormous advance in legal segregation, so they made a new push forward in the early 1960's. JFK was a traitor, they said, because he supported Civil Rights, and as the WCC had effectively argued, Civil Rights was controlled by Communists. On the topic of Civil Rights for Black Americans, the entire right-wing of USA politics was united for the first time in decades. This all happened during the JFK administration, and it came to a climax when James Meredith, the first Black American to register to attend the long-segregated Ole Miss Univeristy. JFK upheld the law with thousands of Federal Troops, and ex-General Edwin Walker (who had ironically integrated Little Rock high school) confronted JFK on 30 September 1962 with thousands of protesters from the White Citizens' Councils, the NSRP, the SCC and the KKK. Bits of this historical drama are now available for viewing on YouTube at this URL: (...youtube.com/watch?v=YJ1CTuQgcMo&feature=youtu.be) So, I find the claims of this witness from your second item, Bernice, to be eminently believable. It is a historical document of the first order. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Paul B, I respect your viewpoint, i.e. the possibility still exists that the entire US Government rejected JFK in 1963, and spit him out. That is a distasteful possibility, and I don't like it, but I must admit that it is at least theoretically possible. Such a scenario would imply that the JFK assassination was more than a remote plot by some remot cabal, but an unconscious act of 'bureaucratic resistance,' as JFK was frozen out socially. If so, then we would have sociological evidence that the WASP background of the USA could not in 1963 fully tolerate a Catholic President. Not only was JFK our first Catholic President, he was also our last Catholic President -- and he didn't even finish one term. That is, if JFK was unable to make very many friends inside the US Government -- the Senate, the House, the Pentagon, the CIA -- and if he outraged his cabinet by his traditional Catholic promiscuity (e.g. rumors that he made the Secret Service procure women for him; rumors that he slept with Marilyn Monroe; rumors that he slept with his neighbor's wives in Washington DC, and so on) -- then there remains a likelihood that JFK lived outside the pale of the very tradition he was tacitly expected to uphold -- the Protestant standard (as expressed in traditional, Puritan monogamy). I personally don't prefer to believe this -- but I will admit that it remains a theoretical possibility. (I'd also point out here that President Obama as a Black American nevertheless lives entirely within the Protestant tradition of monogamy, and this is one of the secrets of his success as POTUS.) If JFK was socially frozen out of the society of Washington (i.e. they might smile in his face, but would quickly talk behind his back), then JFK would also have become a scape-goat for everything that the majority hated about the politics of 1963, namely: (1) Civil Rights riots over the integration of public schools; and (2) Cuba. I think we must bear in mind that Eisenhower's CIA helped Castro drive Batista out of Cuba. People like Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Harry Dean, E. Howard Hunt and many other CIA contractors, supported Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra, much like Ernest Hemmingway supported the Spanish underground in Spain's Civil War in the 1930's. However, after Castro turned on his American supporters -- even killing some of them and aligning himself with Khrushchev -- Eisenhower made a 180 degree reversal, and condemned anybody who helped Castro! Imagine the fate of those CIA supporters of Castro in those days! On this very FORUM, Gerry Patrick Hemming declared how much he continued to admire Che Guevarra, long after Hemming conducted countless violent raids against Castro's Cuba. Those were confusing times. Harry Dean today still expresses the strain of Eisenhower's 180 degree reversal. JFK inherited this chaos. JFK also inherited the Civil Rights chaos. Yet because he was a Catholic in 1963, he would take more blame for these issues than any other President, I believe. The right wing would turn on JFK in a more fierce manner than they ever would turn on a Protestant President. That's my estimate of the events. I don't think JFK was left-leaning, and I don't think he showed any signs of taking LSD. He was a rich kid (like Mitt Romney) who lived in a bubble, and before Martin Luther King, Jr., JFK probably never met a Black American who wasn't a butler or a janitor. JFK was brilliant -- but not brilliant enough. He did his best -- but America was evidently not ready for JFK. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ultimately, Robert Blakey was successful in keeping the truth -- the CIA file on Lee Harvey Oswald -- locked up and secret from the American public for another 30+ years after the Warren Commission's initial lock-up. One can justify his actions on the grounds that the USSR was still brandishing nuclear warheads at the USA -- so that if concealing the CIA file on Lee Harvey Oswald was a matter of Cold War security, then the year 1979 was still too early to reverse the demand of the Warren Commission to seal Oswald's file away. However, the USSR fell in 1990. It's been 23 years now, since the Cold War's been over. Can we please see the CIA file on Lee Harvey Oswald now? That's my plea. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., the reasons I admire Allen Dulles are legion. Dulles became a diplomat at age 23. At age 28 Dulles helped expose the Nazi propaganda, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, as a forgery. At age 34 Dulles became director of the Council on Foreign Relations (and I am well aware that rightist crackpots regarded and still regard the CFR as a communist plot). In the 1930's Dulles became legal advisor to the League of Nations, where he personally met with Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Neville Chamberlain and other European leaders. Dulles, appalled by the Nazi treatment of Jews in 1935, forced his own brother, John Foster Dulles, to shut down his law offices in Berlin. Dulles helped a number of German Jews escape to the USA. Dulles worked in Allied Intelligence during World War Two, and was exceptionally effective in his relentless work against Nazi forces. In recognition of his service in US Intelligence, Dulles was named the first director of the CIA by Harry Truman in 1947. From that point forward, and until the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the CIA performed many political tasks that Truman and later Eisenhower liked very much. The Bay of Pigs disaster was ultimately the fault of Dulles, nearly 70, who relied too heavily on others to watch the store. Charles Cabell was the man ultimately in charge, and was to blame for bungling the operation. Air forces in Guatemala failed to eliminate the Cuban air force as instructed, and instead of finishing that job properly, Cabell went fishing and allowed the Bay of Pigs schedule to go forward anyway. There was never any promise of US Air Force cover of this "secret" invasion -- that part of the story is flatly ridiculous, because either you have a declared war (with official troops) or you have an underground invasion (without official troops) and there is no middle ground. The promise was not to provide air cover for the invaders, but to have previously provided air protection by eliminating the Cuban air force. Cabell not only failed to do that, but was unavailable for his status report when queried. So, Cabell clearly deserved to be fired -- and by proxy, Dulles was resposible for his subordinate's failure, so he deserved to be fired. JFK rightly said to Dulles -- "if this was England, I (as Prime Minister) would have to go; but this is America, and you have to go." Ultimately JFK was responsible for Allen Dulles, as well -- but in our system the penalty fell on Dulles, who clearly messed up. It is sheer speculation to believe that Dulles wanted to kill JFK because JFK fired him. I don't find that sort of immaturity in Allen Dulles. OK, enough about Allen Dulles. Now to some of your other points, Paul. B. You asked me directly why I care about the JFK assassination. Like many Americans, I disbelieve the Warren Commission mythology about a Lone Assassin. The evidence is overwhelming against that conclusion. I am pleased that the later investigation, the 1977 House Select Committee on Assassinations, concluded in 1979 that JFK was probably killed as the result of a conspiracy -- that is, Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices. However, I was disappointed that the HSCA went on a wild goose chase seeking Mafia bosses who allegedly killed JFK. True, there were many Mafia bosses who hated JFK and RFK for prosecuting the Mafia ten times more than any other President had ever done. But all the years of evidence only proved that Mafia bosses invested millions of dollars, throwing it at anybody who claimed they wanted to kill JFK. The Mafia were big dollar funders -- but not front-line participants (with the sole exception of Jack Ruby). So, the street-level crew was almost entirely ignored by the HSCA. Also, the HSCA failed to obtain the CIA records of Lee Harvey Oswald -- so to that extent they were ineffective. Why do I care? Because I want the truth to come out, just like millions of Americans do. That's really the only reason. I don't believe that JFK was a pacifist, but I do believe that JFK was a better politician than most others. JFK stood on both sides of the Vietnam issue -- and he could have been persuaded either way. One advantage JFK had with regard to Vietnam was his Catholic background -- he could see clearly that Vietnamese Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire had nothing to do with Communism, but was the result of South Vietnam leader Diem (who was also Catholic) passing laws forcing all South Vietnamese to be Catholics -- some of the stupidist laws ever made. If JFK had entered Vietnam, I feel confident that he would have assured the South Vietnamese that they could remain Buddhists if they wanted to. With that assurance, the South Vietnamese in the remote countryside would have remained loyal to the South, and they would have won their Civil War. But many South Vietnamese falsely believed (due to the indifference of LBJ) that the USA was there to destroy Buddhism in Vietnam. So, naturally we lost the support of the grass roots majority in Vietnam. JFK was a fairly good President, but he was not a shining saint as he is often portrayed. He wanted to put on a face of peace and calm for the world, but underneath the radar RFK pursued a policy of assassination against Castro, with the full support of JFK. The reason that Walker, the KKK, the ANP, the Birchers, and the WCC hated JFK was not because of Vietnam, but because of Race Integration in public schools. This was their obsession -- and to hell with the rest of the world. Those billboards that sprung up everywhere in Southern California in the 1960's that read -- IMPEACH EARL WARREN -- those were all references to keeping Black Ameicans out of white schools. Nothing else. Nothing else. It is impossible to be anti-rich and anti-capitalist and still support JFK, because JFK was super-rich and a super-capitalist. So, let's be clear, JFK was not on the left -- although he was totaly correct to point out the crackpots on the right. JFK's great historical contribution, looking back a half-century later, will probably turn out to be his support of James Meredith in his registration at Ole Miss, and then his famous Civil Rights speech of June, 1963. I am convinced that the kiling of JFK obtained its final, massive support in June, 1963 when he gave that speech in favor of Martin Luther King, Jr. On the very night of that speech, KKK member Byron De La Beckwith shot NAACP leader, Medgar Evers in the back at his own driveway, killing him dead. That was a foretaste of what would happen in Dallas on 11/22/1963. Since Allen Dulles was not a racist or in any way a sympathizer with the White Citizens' Council (like Walker) or with the KKK, I don't find any reason to blame Allen Dulles of the killing of JFK. On the contrary. The people who killed JFK wanted to take over the USA to make us invade Cuba right away, and also to reverse the Brown decision. The people who killed JFK failed to get their way. The people who killed JFK weren't the same people who covered up the plot to kill JFK. On the contrary. The people who covered up the plot were opposed to the people who carried out the murder of JFK. The proof is that the JFK killers failed to get their way with regard to Cuba (or with regard to Brown v. The Board of Education). I do admit that Allen Dulles was one of the people who covered up the plot to kill JFK -- not because he was one of the plotters, but because he (like Hoover, Warren and LBJ) was wise enough to know that the truth would revive the old Civil War in the USA. They knew that a Civil War in the midst of the Cold War would lead to World War 3. Therefore, in the interest of National Security, Allen Dulles did in fact cover up the plot of the extreme right-wing in the USA to kill JFK. The perpetrators of the plot were actually punished -- but privately and secretly. This is my theory. I believe this will be the result we discover when the CIA files on Lee Harvey Oswald are finally opened to the American public. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Good news, John; the "Oxford, USA" video finally arrived from the MDAH. I posted it on Youtube at this URL: (...youtube.com/watch?v=YJ1CTuQgcMo&feature=youtu.be) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ1CTuQgcMo&feature=youtu.be It is 45 minutes long. This is a one-sided film describing the racial riots at Ole Miss on 30 September 1962 which portrays as villains the US Marshals sent by JFK. The other side of the story is not told in this film. On 17 May 1954 the Supreme Court decision in the case, Brown v. The Board of Education, interpreted the 14th Amendment to infer that Black Americans should have normal access to public schools in the USA, including colleges and Universities. In response, on 11 July 1954, the first White Citizens' Council was founded in Mississippi, and this organization grew nationwide to form the spearhead of the so-called Massive Resistance against public school integration. Although most States complied with the Supreme Court decision, Mississippi, South Carolina and Alabama remained defiant. Mississippi remained 100% segregated through 1961. In 1962, aided by the NAACP, James Meredith chose to be the first Black American to attend Ole Miss University, and challenged JFK and RFK to uphold the law of the land. JFK and RFK did uphold the Supreme Court ruling, and the result was a violent riot at Ole Miss on 30 September 1962, allegedly led by ex-General Edwin A. Walker (the only US General to resign from the Army in the 20th century). Although Walker had successfully *integrated* Little Rock high school in 1957, he repented of his liberal ways in 1959 when he joined the John Birch Society. After he resigned from the Army in 1961, he became a featured speaker for the White Citizens' Councils in the South. Walker used radio and television to call for massive resistance to Meredith's registration at Ole Miss. The grain of truth in this 45-minute narrative is when Colonel Birdsong and his allies admitted that if the Mississippi Highway Patrol had not turned back many cars with weapons at the roadblock points, "there would not have been one Federal Marshal standing." I haven't yet been able to obtain film of the actual rioting at Ole Miss. This is still protected under exceptions to the FOIA by NARA. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Paul B., with all due respect, sir, your cynicism is a little too steep for my taste. I have no doubt that Allen Dulles knew every last detail of the JFK assassination -- at the very least a few hours after the fact -- and far more than the Warren Commission knew. Yet I hesitate to name this great American as a conspirator without tons of proof. And just because somebody is rich, that does not immediately make me suspect them of foul play. Again, I need hard evidence. That aside, I want to thank you for raising the spectre of Jack Crichton here. The most suspicious things you listed about Crichton, IMHO, are that he was: (i) connected with local military intelligence in Dallas; (ii) involved in the motorcade planning; (iii) a private funder of Operation 40; (iv) in business with Clint Murchison; (v) a friend of George DeMohrenschilt; (vi) a holder of oil leases with Batista; and (vii) a classmate of Earle Cabell. In my view, Crichton, like many retired military men, would tend to naturally move in rightist circles after retirement. Yet insofar as he retired as a mere Colonel, IMHO he would defer to the resigned Major General Edwin Walker in social circumstances of all kinds. However -- let us speculate, arguendo, that rogue elements of the CIA -- like James Jesus Angleton and his staff -- were involved at the highest levels of the JFK assassination conspiracy. I believe that such people could keep secrets even from their brilliant superiors for long periods of time -- and also manipulate juniors and contractors with great facility. Nevertheless -- and this is my main point -- when it came to selecting the patsy for the JFK assassination conspiracy, which was very possibly the most sensitive and demanding task of all -- this would have best been left to ex-General Edwin Walker, a trustworthy, street-level old hand at clandestine operations. (And we have the recollections of Harry Dean and a number of other witnesses to that effect.) In the late 1990's Jerry P. Shinley did some excellent work tracing the underground rightists in conjunction with Walker in both Dallas and Louisina. His work shows connections with Joseph Milteer and other street-level conspirators. This is the level at which I seek suspects. It is too easy, IMHO, to start at the top of society and suspect rich and powerful people. It is just that sort of circumstantial evidence that was used to blame Lee Harvey Oswald -- which was a major disservice to history and politics. Just like those many new books that make sensations by blaming LBJ for the JFK killing -- all without any hard evidence whatsoever -- that's the sort of thinking we can do without, IMHO. Crichton, however, is connected at the street level with street players -- and that is why he is now interesting to me. So, again, Paul B., I thank you for raising his name in this discussion. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

John, over the past several weeks I've come to better appreciate your work on the KKK in connection with the JFK assassination. Aside from the personal, family memoirs of Terri Williams which support a suspicion of KKK involvement at some level, my research into ex-General Edwin Walker (the only US General to resign in the 20th century) leads me closer to the extreme right-wing in the South in general, and Mississippi in particular, as prime suspects. There is a fascinating book, nearly 40 years old now, entited, Klandestine, by William H. McIlhany II, written in 1975. The author tells the story of his friend and FBI informer, Delmer Dennis, who cracked the case of the murder of three Civil Rights workers in 1964 (Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner) by infiltrating the KKK in Mississippi. Of the many attractions within this historical account, the author includes 90 pages of Appendices which are original documents of the Mississippi White Knights of the KKK, such as recruitment ads, sign-up sheets, initiation ceremony, Constitution and By-laws. It is able reporting, yet the author was somewhat torn. He himself was a member of the John Birch Society, and he evidently believed that the new KKK started out with the best intentions, i.e. stopping the Communist conspiracy which the KKK believed (just as J. Edgar Hoover believed) had taken over the US Civil Rights movement. The KKK repeatedly claimed to be defending White Christian Civilization as demonstrated in a Constitutional Democracy. Where the author disagreed with the KKK was in their failure to uphold their Constitutional Democratic ideals, and when their mobs lusted for violence and torture, KKK members were all-too-willing to engage in atrocities. This book is a competent history from as objective observer as we can hope for, who was somehow able to infiltrate the ultra-secret KKK. Yet the most interesting part for me is its linguistics -- the exposition of the language used by the KKK in its self-promotion. Despite the fact that ex-General Edwin Walker carefully avoided using any language that sounded like the KKK (in cooperation with the White Citizens' Council which dropped the "White" when they promoted their organization in public), I am beginning to find similar speech patterns, word groupings, and phrases in Walker's speeches that match literature published by the KKK. That's why McIlhany's book, Klandestine, may turn out to be ultra valuable. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Paul B., I like where you're headed with this line of thought. When ex-General Walker led the riots at Ole Miss on 30 September 1962, in response to JFK sending federalized troops to protect James Meredith there, history tells us some surprising stories. For one, Colonel Birdson (Chief of the Mississippi Highway Patrol) had trouble keeping his men in line, because many (or most) of them wanted to join the protestors, and had no wish to stop the protesters. Some would salute to Birdsong to his face, and then go out to join the protesters, according to one report. I know an elderly woman at Church who was present at Little Rock, Arkansas, when General Walker successfully led the 104th Airborne Division to racially integrate that high school. Her father took her there two days in a row. She had two uncles in the National Guard, and on the first day, they were among the protesters -- but on the second day, they were with their units protecting the black children who were attending Little Rock high school. They said they wished they could be with the protesters, but they were under orders and they followed orders. This is the mood I find in many histories of the late 1950's and early 1960's. The Brown v. The Board of Education decision really divided America. (Some say that school integration is still dividing America today, with continual funding attacks on public schools, and proposals for voucher systems and so on.) So -- America was divided, therefore we must expect to see this in our military men in uniform in 1963. The Dallas police, according to William O'Neil and other researchers, were ultra-right-wing in 1963. I would expect to see a link between the local military and the DPD, because the DPD would probably recruit from there. Also, I know another elderly man at Church who grew up in a small town close to Dallas, and he says that the KKK was active in his home town in 1963. So, there was an entire culture there. If that's true, I'm doubly suspicious of ex-General Edwin Walker, because he was so visible in 1961-1962. Every single month from April, 1961 through April 1962 Walker's name was in multiple newspapers and magazines. Many thought of him (incorrectly) in terms of Truman dismissing MacArthur from Korea. (We see the folly of that today, but back in 1961 the mistake was common). Therefore, Walker quickly became the *leader* of the extreme right in the USA. What makes me triply suspicious, is that after the Ole Miss riots, Walker's name became mud in the eyes of the majority -- but he became even more popular among the ultra-right-wing underground. Robert Allen Surrey, Walker's publisher, was a leader in Dallas' American Nazi Party. Surrey accompanied Walker to Ole Miss on 29 September 1962. Walker was a rabid right-winger in his actions and associations (although he used code-words in his speeches of the period). Nor was Walker married with children -- he was a single, aging man who liked to see his name in the papers. He had one skill, and that was military leadership -- but JFK took that away from him. Look at it this way, Paul B.; what sort of person runs for Governor of Texas in May 1962, and then leads a race riot at Ole Miss on September 1962? This is an unusual character. Lots of military unit commanders cuss the President, but they remain soldiers and the follow orders. Walker was unstable and liked to be in the limelight. He thought of himself as a leader, and large crowds of crackpots also thought of him as their leader, and they told him so and sent him money. Now let's look at Jack Crichton -- I suspect he was right-leaning, or you wouldn't mention him. But had he ever been a General? Would he give orders to resigned General Edwin Walker -- or would he take orders? Yet Walker didn't need regular troops for his purposes -- he had plenty of retired troopers in the Minutemen as followers. To this we must also add many radical Cuban Exiles who would do anything -- literally anything -- if only they could get Cuba back under their control. Still, I don't have final proof of my theory. I'm interested in what you have to share about Jack Crichton, Paul B. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Senator Richard Schweiker, who ran the HSCA along with attorney Richard Sprague before attorney Robert Blakey muscled his way in, would have done a better job with the HSCA investigation, in my opinion. I personally doubt that Blakey was fooled -- I believe he was hired by the CIA to continue to hide the Oswald files at all costs. See -- the obvious reason for hiding the Oswald files has little to do with Oswald -- he's dead and gone and no threat to anybody. This is one of the proofs that Oswald did not act alone -- he was not the lone nut killer -- otherwise why make his CIA and FBI files into a National Security issue? It occurred to me that the continuing threat of the USSR had made the Oswald files into a National Security issue. But since 1990 even the USSR has been dead and gone, and no threat to anybody. So, then, what is the National Security issue? Just like Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade and Chief Curry would pretend to be "fooled" by the Lee Harvey Oswald debacle, I believe Robert Blakey signed this new demand to release Oswald's files to make a pretence of being fooled. On the contrary. He was in on the deception during the HSCA period. Will the JFK records be unsealed this year? I've written to the White House twice about this, asking for a reply. (During the elections last year I always received a reply to my White House queries.) No reply. The only reason I can see for concealing the Lee Harvey Oswald files today, in 2013, must still be National Security. But who or what is being protected after half a century? Surely, given the official USA Government's HSCA conclusion of a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, we must admit that some people who were in their thirties in 1963 are still alive today. When Chief Justice Earl Warren announced that the Oswald files would be released to the American public in 75 years, he was probably protecting young men and women he knew to be involved. Who were they? We can't be certain until we see the files -- but we can guess about specifics. The US Government did not believe that these people continued to be threats -- otherwise they would have prosecuted them. Instead, they are to be protected. Thus, they're not foreigners -- they're Americans. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Michael, thanks for sharing these recent recollections from AP reporter Joseph H. Carter, who was in the press bus following JFK on 22 November 1963, and with his own ears heard the fatal shots ring out. His story, published only this year, "Sounds of JFK’s Death Shots...Ear-Witness Account," recounts that in the first hours after the JFK shooting, before Oswald was officially charged with killing JFK, this AP reporter immediately suspected that ex-General Edwin A. Walker was responsible for this deed. As chance would have it, Joseph Carter lived only a few blocks from Walker's home at 4011 Turtle Creek Boulevard in Dallas. I'll quote a part of Carter's story here: ------------------------------ Excerpt from Smashwords 2013 ----------------------------------- ...Who did it?” I asked myself as I drove toward home. I was not, at the moment, privileged with information about Oswald’s shooting of policeman J.D. Tippet or about Oswald’s arrest as the suspected assassin. I knew only that JFK was shot dead. Oswald’s arrest had unfolded during the course of the afternoon when I had been busy doing my own reporting. Then a thought struck me. Rightwing General Edwin A. Walker, retired commander of Allied forces in Europe and a nasty, vocal Kennedy critic, had flown the American flag upside down at his home near my apartment. What about Walker? Altering my route, I skidded to a halt before Walker’s house and bounced out in a trot. I rapped on the door. A matronly lady answered. “Carter of United Press.” I said. “I want to see General Walker.” “The General is not here,” she retorted and slammed the door. So much for that, I thought, as I walked to my car and drove home...and listened to my wife, Beverly tell me what she had witnessed beyond TV reports....a neighborhood four-year old boy on the playground that was shared by my own son, Joe Jr., jeered: “Ha,ha,ha, Kennedy is dead.” Kids in Dallas and across Texas, no doubt, had heard such remarks from their parents. I was not surprised. Hatred by the right wing was vocal, widespread and growing in 1963...a general mood of racism and anti-federal government feelings were rank... ...“Miami Herald” editor, Jim Kukar recalled 1963...“I heard people say ‘good riddance’...Months before Oswald shot Kennedy...you could taste the hatred the John Birch Society fueled in west Texas.” ---------------------------- End of Excerpt © Copyright Smashwords 2013 ------------------------------------------- Notice how this account matches the account by Terri Williams, to the effect that in nearly her entire Mississippi high school class, which was mostly composed of children of the KKK, let up a collective cheer when JFK was announced dead. We Yankees who look back on 1963 must look through so many dark times -- through Watergate and Vietnam -- to try to estimate the Spirit of 1963. Mississippi and Alabama had held out as long as they could, resisting the racial integration of their public schools as ordered by the Supreme Court Brown decision. They established grass roots White Citizens' Councils throughout the South for this purpose, as well as powerful and well-funded States Rights Commissions. Walker was a frequent speaker at these events. Walker also led a race riot at Ole Miss University on 30 September 1963. The KKK in this period was circulating handbills explaining why JFK was wanted for treason. The White Citizen's Councils were demanding the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren. The South successfully merged the problem of race to the problem of the USSR -- they preached throughout the South that "Race-mixing is Communism." JFK's great sin -- beyond Cuba -- was that he forced the South to integrate Ole Miss university -- with the Federal power of bayonets. Walker was in the forefront of this serious clash. Ex-General Walker was the perceived leader of the extreme right wing radicals in 1963. That is why Joseph Carter, AP reporter, immediately suspected Walker's involvement in the JFK killing. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, my web site at www.pet880.com has been completely hacked and all 1,200 of my Dolph Briscoe photographs were deleted by an attacker. AT&T is looking into this as I write. In a few days my site will be back to normal, with hardened security. In the meantime, I want to share a transcription of one of the Dolph Briscoe artifacts here on the FORUM. This artifact is a TV script, a prepared statement, made on 27 September 1962, just three days before the Ole Miss riots. Ex-General Ediwn Walker has just issued announcements on radio and television throughout the South calling for a massive march on Ole Miss in Oxford, Mississippi, in protest of the NAACP action of registering Black student James Meredith at that traditionally all-white campus. Walker called for "ten thousand strong from every State in the Union -- bring your tents, your skillets and your flags!" Correspondingly, JFK mobilized thousands of troops to uphold the Supreme Court ruling and maintain law and order in MIssissippi. We do well to remember that Walker was the successful integrater of Little Rock high school in Arkansas from 1957-1959. In 1959, however, Walker joined the John Birch Society, and also submitted his first resignation to President Eisenhower, citing a "fifth column conspiracy". So, the seeds of his Pro-Blue program were already sown in Arkansas. Anyway, in 1962, immediately before the Ole Miss riots, Walker and his handlers prepared a television interview script in lieu of an impromptu interview. This script exists among Walker's personal papers at the Dolph Briscoe Center for American History in Austin, Texas. I provide a full transcript verbatim below: Best regards, ---Paul Trejo --------------------------------------- BEGIN ATTACHMENT -------------------------------------------------------- TV Film, September 27, 1962, Dallas, Texas No. 1 (short) Prepared Statement of General Walker Q: General Walker, you have called for a citizens' army. What would be the purpose and what do you expect to gain? A: I believe you have called it a citizens' army. I call it [a movement]. I indicated it was time to move. We have talked, listened and been pushed around too long. It is time to take a stand. Now is the time to be heard, 10,000 strong, from every State in the Union and to indicate our desires for the traditions of this country and the importance of the state of the Union. It is time to rally to the cause of freedom throughout the nation. It is time to wave the flag of freedom -- when the President permits or uses any troops in the State of Mississippi. Q: What are your feelings regarding the use of troops? A: It is absolutely unconstitutional -- it is not the law of the land -- we seem to be operating without law. Any law would have to be made by the legislative branch of the Government, and it has never been done. I urge a movement as a necessity to show that this country stands by the Constitution of the United States and by the oath of office which all Presidents have taken, and certainly have followed up to 1933. The decision for arms is going to have to be made by the President of the United States. They will use whatever is necessary. The people will not move until they have made the decision. The President of the United States has proffered all of our weapons to the United Nations. This is a United Nations action, which has been termed a police action. Of course, in the disarmament program -- armed force is necessary to maintain integration. Q: What kind of force in this case -- should he use military force? A: They would either put the U.N. forces over us or the internal police of this country. I led force on the wrong side by order of a President in 1957 and 1958. I am now on the other side; and, being in civilian clothes, I am now expected to be on the other side, which is now the right side. Q: General, some people have termed this the greatest crisis this country has had in 100 years. What do you think? A: I don't understand the word "greatest." This is a very grave crisis. This, with the Cuban situation, the sovereignty of the State is all-important. It is absolutely unbelievable that at this time there should be force in the United States which would disrupt its union for any purpose. We cannot have differences of opinion unless we have some form of protection; and our freedom at home is protected by our local State Sovereignty. Q: General, what are your immediate plans? A: My plans are to watch the action that may be taken from Washington DC, in the enforcement of integration, through the method of forcing Meredith into the University, which is itself unconstitutional. When a President directed force from Little Rock it was unconstitutional and it still is unconstitutional when such laws have never been passed by Congress. Q: Do you feel there is a possibility of court action against you? A: Certainly not. Q: Do you feel that if you went to Mississippi there would be court action? A: I certainly don't think so. I would have the protection of the United States which ever citizen is entitled to. Many numbers of people are certainly -- it is certainly the right of people; otherwise, you could not even have a political rally. Q: Would you and your followers use force? A: I hope that no physical force is ever used in Mississippi. Q: If the Government used physical force, would you oppose it? A: I think public opinion would prevent any need for physical force. Q: If, on Monday, Meredith made an attempt to enter the university, what would you do? A: I have stated I intend to do to Mississippi when Federal troops are used. I know thousands of people are going to Mississippi already because there is tremendous interest all over the United States. The Governor of Florida has made a statement, and also Faubus. Q: Have you had any communication with Governor Barnett? A: I have had communications with the State Capitol. I can't tell you about the Mississippi State Capitol reaction -- the reaction in Mississippi is tremendous. They are happy to be able to feel they have people on their side. As to hundreds of thousands of people throughout the nation -- do you know that I am being flooded with messages of appreciation for these efforts that are being made to stand behind Governor Barnett? Q: Would you give us the number of people who have responded to your call? A: There are two phones busy and calls are stacking up -- people can't get through. Local people do not think that Dallas is any different from other towns. Dallas is just like the rest -- there is much local support. I opposed the principle in Little Rock. It was unconstitutional then. The Army made its feelings known by not desiring to take any part in the action. I am convinced that the troops would have been 100%, practically, opposed to taking any part in the action. That was indicated by thousands of messages against the action directed from Washington, DC. Many messages against the use of troops have been received. Q: What would be the purpose of the meeting tonight? A: I understand somebody is having a tea party here today. Q: If and when you should go to Mississippi, where will you stay -- Oxford or Jackson? A: When I am in Mississippi I probably will visit Oxford and Jackson both -- there are other things I would like to see. Q: People are en route to Mississippi. Do you think it is a grassroots movement? A: It originated in itself among people all over the country. Certainly I don't feel it is anything I have said -- but response from all over the country -- so that for a grassroots right on the spot -- Governor Barnett is fully supported in his State and has great backing for his purpose -- and that has been indicated for many, many years. Q: What would be your mission? A: I would join the nation that stands behind Governor Barnett, as opposed to Federal action that has been taken against the State in this issue. I would suggest also that we absolutely take a better look at the Constitution of the United States, and possibly this is needed in Washington DC. There should be free travel in the limit of the United States; and any attempts to stop this would be surprising and a great shock to the American people. We are concerned with the rights of the people who are only expressing their feelings and desires even if that is not done out of consideration to the NAACP. Of course, you have probably noticed that the Communist Braden was traveling in Mississippi, getting his people organized. Q: Are you in sympathy with Bob Kennedy? A: I certainly am not in sympathy with any efforts with forced integration, which seems to be the issue at present. You may assume they are making their decisions from court edicts. Q: You would be urging an attempt against court edicts favoring the NAACP? A: That is a most unusual statement. Certainly the NAACP has its right to say what they want throughout the country and be protected. Q: Will you comment on the form of violence that you might be anticipating?. A: I am anticipating no violence at all. I certainly hope there is no violence. I am certainly one man that has stood in front of violence in Little Rock and I certainly would not approve of any violence, but I think everybody has the right to show opposition in support of Governor Barnett. Q: Do you feel the deployment of Federal Marshals similar to Oxford -- do you regard that as unconstitutional? A: Of course the Federal Marshals have the free right to go as they are directed. Their intent and purpose and what they do in intimidating the Governor and people of Mississippi -- this also applies to the use of Federal troops in Mississippi. Q: If Robert Kennedy decides to use Marshals instead of troops -- would you comment on the disposition of Marshals? A: They have been using Marshals in Mississippi for several days. I don't know how many they have. Q: What solution do you offer? A: I think the most important thing today is the unity of the United States. This is inescapable and, in face of the world threat, it is vitally important. --------------------------------------- END ATTACHMENT -----------------------------------------------------------

John, I was thinking the same thing, because I'd read about so many extreme rightists singing the praises of the film, "Oxford, USA." So, I contacted the MDAH, and sure enough, they have a copy for sale. I'll process the paperwork next week, and in a short time I'll upload that film to YouTube as well. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, that's right, Paul B. Walker was standing to the right of almost everybody in 1962 -- except possibly H.L. Hunt and the John Birch Society. When these interviews of Walker were taken in 1962, H.L. Hunt was already plowing thousands of dollars into Walker's run for the Governor's mansion in Texas. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

I agree that this presentation is excellent, Randy. It's a video I've had for 15 years (it was made 20 years ago) and I'm delighted that it's finally available on YouTube for everybody to see. It has Information from the original HSCA team (before Robert Blakey's hatchet job). It has video of Malcom Thompson and Major John Pickard as they speak about the Backyard Photographs. Gerry Patrick Hemming speaks up in a relevant way...just excellent. I highly recommended this video to newbies -- it will bring them up to speed and will sail them past the Warren Commission quickly. As for Oswald's efforts to become a professional spy -- I accept that wholeheartedly. Yet one thing we should also recognize, IMHO, is that Oswald never quite made the grade. He was not earning a regular salary from any intelligence agency -- at best he was getting small change from the FBI, the CIA, the OSI, for photographic work, bag transport, and so on. He was being tested. Surely, not just anybody could get approved for testing -- Lee Harvey Oswald had to have some talent and some brains. Yet he wasn't on the payroll in the same way that E. Howard Hunt, Anne Goodpasture or James Jesus Angleton were on the CIA payroll. There were other mercenary intelligence contractors, too, and Oswald hung out with them -- like Gerry Patrick Hemming, and perhaps Hemming's companions like Loran Hall, Larry Howard or Frank Sturgis. Also, to the best of my knowledge, Oswald kept all of these associates far away from his wife, Marina. She never had a clue about them -- she thought he was at work for weeks at a time, when actually Oswald had lost this or that job without telling Marina. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

David, we can agree about the chin for the time being. I am suspending judgment until I get the material evidence into my own hands. However, for the time being I have video of Malcom Thompson, video of John Pickard, and video of Jack White, and they seem to make a firm case -- especially regarding the possibility of the same head being pasted on different body poses. The line in the chin would be the most likely point of the pasting. When Lee Harvey Oswald was confronted with a Backyard photograph, he immediately said (according to official memoirs) that the photograph was a forgery in which his "head was pasted onto somebody else's body." Thompson-Pickard-White offered their technical opinions apart from Oswald's claim. Craig cited HSCA text that claimed that Thompson-Pickard retracted their statements -- but that is what I would expect from the HSCA, since Robert Blakey believed (erroneously, according to me) that proof of Backyard Photograph fakery was final proof of a sophisticated conspiracy to frame Oswald. Blakey was not going to go down that road. I have seen nothing from Thompson or Pickard themselves to reverse their stories -- and furthermore, since they worked for the UK government, any interference with a US government investigation was politically forbidden. So I don't take their silence for agreement. But -- I will even suspend judgment on that point until I have the NARA high-quality digital reproductions of the Backyard Photographs in my copy of Photoshop. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

I notice that a several of you have visited YouTube to see my uploads of resigned General Walker's interviews by the so-called Citizens' Council Forum, in early 1962. So I have more to share. You can now watch and hear a half-hour speech given by resigned General Walker to the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission in December of 1961. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb2cn5JVWRs This was Walker's second speech. In fact, it was nearly the same as his first speech given to the NIC (National Indignation Convention) in Dallas only a few weeks before, except that it was tailored for Mississippi -- that is, it quoted from the Bible quite a bit more, and wore the sheep's clothing of Christian theology. (Yes, even the devil can quote Scripture.) If you've seen the movie that JFK encouraged, namely, Seven Days in May (1964), starring Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas, you might be reminded of the speeches given by General Scott (played by Lancaster) in which large crowds hung on his every word and jumped to their feet in praise. General Scott was modeled after the resigned General Walker. I extend my thanks to the MDAH (Mississippi Department of Archives and History) which has 83 videos from the so-called Citizens' Council Forum -- a front group for the White Citizens' Council of Mississippi. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

I spoke with Larrie Schmidt last year, and he offered me very little information that is not already published and well-known. With great respect and courtesy, I asked him some questions about General Edwin Walker, somewhat along these lines:. (1) What were your thoughts about the events in the USA immediately preceding the Ole Miss riots of 30 September 1963? (2) What were your thoughts about the Ole Miss riots themselves? (3) Did you perceive at the time of the Ole Miss riots that ex-General Edwin Walker was one of the leaders of those riots? (4) Did you believe -- as many Americans did -- that Edwin Walker should have been punished for leading those riots? (5) What were your thoughts when Edwin Walker was arrested the next morning, and remanded to a psychiatric hospital? (6) What were your thoughts when the ACLU and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz demanded the immediate release of Edwin Walker from the psychiatric hospital, on the grounds that mixing politics and psychiatry is a bad business? (7) What were your thoughts when Edwin Walker returned to Dallas only seven days after the Old Miss riots? (8) What were your thoughts about the Mississippi Grand Jury hearing about Walker's alleged insurrection at Ole Miss in November and December 1962 and January 1963? (9) What were your thoughts when ex-General Edwin Walker was acquitted of all charges relating to the Ole Miss riots? Larrie responded to me somewhat as follows: "I did not pay much attention to the news about General Walker in those days. I had more important things on my mind, like moving to Dallas, setting up CPUSA, and making contacts in Dallas. General Walker was not on my list of contacts." Yet Larrie told LIFE magazine in 1964 that shortly after he arrived in Dallas, he sought and found a job for his brother, Robbie Schmidt, working as a chauffeur for General Walker -- and he told LIFE magazine that his purpose for this placement was so that Robbie could "spy" (his word) on General Walker. When I asked Larrie what Robbie discovered in his spying mission on General Walker, Larrie replied, in effect: "Nothing. There was nothing very interesting about Walker." Bernard Weissman reported to the Warren Commission that shortly before he left Dallas, he noticed in the back seat of General Walker's car -- driven by Robbie Schmidt -- a stack of "Wanted for Treason: JFK" handbills. But he didn't inquire further into it, since he only wanted to get out of Dallas as fast as he could. The Warren Commission did not inquire any further, either. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Does anybody know how I can get a message through to Bernard Weissman? With great respect and courtesy, I would like to ask him some questions -- not about himself so much, as about General Edwin Walker. My questions would go somewhat like this -- Bernard Weissman: (1) What were your thoughts about the events in the USA immediately preceding the Ole Miss riots of 30 September 1963? (2) What were your thoughts about the Ole Miss riots themselves? (3) Did you perceive at the time of the Ole Miss riots that ex-General Edwin Walker was one of the leaders of those riots? (4) Did you believe -- as many Americans did -- that Edwin Walker should have been punished for leading those riots? (5) What were your thoughts when Edwin Walker was arrested the next morning, and remanded to a psychiatric hospital? (6) What were your thoughts when the ACLU and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz demanded the immediate release of Edwin Walker from the psychiatric hospital, on the grounds that mixing politics and psychiatry is a bad business? (7) What were your thoughts when Edwin Walker returned to Dallas only seven days after the Old Miss riots? (8) What were your thoughts about the Mississippi Grand Jury hearing about Walker's alleged insurrection at Ole Miss in November and December 1962 and January 1963? (9) What were your thoughts when ex-General Edwin Walker was acquitted of all charges relating to the Ole Miss riots? Best regards, --Paul Trejo