Paul Trejo

Craig, while I never claimed to be a photography expert myself, I readily acknowledge that there are different opinions offered by experts. I really like your moving heads picture -- but what's most clear is that while the lips and nose-shadows change, the SIZE of the heads don't change, and the position of the ears don't change. Common sense should tell you (as it has told genuine photography experts) that it is a logical impossibility (as well as a photographic impossibility) for a person to stand closer to the camera in one photo, and yet have the heads remain the same SIZE in both photos. You seem to be in denial of the empirical and logical evidence. You provided ample evidence yourself of my main point -- the SIZE of the heads don't change. Thanks for your excellent graphics. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Do you really think she's credible? Len, I think that Terri is sincere and mostly credible, although we must allow for some hyperbole in her account. She has tended to over-generalize and jump to conclusions (e.g. the KKK rules the USA) but allowing for those personal perceptions based on the world in which she grew up, yes, I believe she's credible on the topic of the possible KKK involvement in the JFK assassination. Although Terri believes she knows the shooter of JFK, that cannot be verified. I'm not interested in what cannot be verified, rather, I'm interested in Terri's personal eye-witness account of Guy Banister in her home town, in her grandmother's kitchen, and Guy Banister's lavish praise of her uncle and her cousins (all KKK members) who were so helpful to Banister's many causes. These are important sociological connections -- and Guy Banister's presence is most relevant. The lack of final data provided by anybody also opens the possibility that Terri Williams just might be right -- she might really know the identity of the JFK shooter. Yet her proposal must stand in line behind other proposed shooters, like Lee Oswald, Roscoe White, James Files, Johnny Roselli, Eladio del Valle, Loran Hall and so many more. Nobody knows that answer today. All bets are still on. Short answer -- aside from the flat conclusions, I do find Terri Williams credible, and more, even a valuable addition to our research on Guy Banister. Also, we can tie all this up with Joachim Joesten's theory that the racist right-wing in the USA was behind the JFK conspiracy. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Daniel, the KKK involvement in the JFK assassination is drastically underexplored in JFK literature. I am not able to find adequate connections, despite my efforts, and I appreciate every effort that others make on this topic. So far, the reports from Terri Williams are the most valuable I've seen. She grew up in Terry, Mississippi and she reports that her home town was dominated by the KKK. She also reports that Guy Banister was a known visitor to her town, and specifically to her family's dinners. Banister, after retiring from the FBI, became a leader in the White Citizens' Council, as well as the Louisiana Minutemen. Guy Banister recruited KKK members from Terry, Mississippi for training at Lake Pontcharttrain (which was located on Carlos Marcello's property) near New Orleans. Guy Banister, also the director of the Anticommunist League of the Carribean, drafted the KKK into the Anticommunist movement with the slogan that "Race Integration is Communist." The way to keep Black people down, he preached, was to destroy Communism in Cuba. With this teaching, evidently, and by Terri Williams' account, Guy Banister recruited many young, armed KKK men to join Cuban Exiles for a new Bay of Pigs. When JFK openly outlawed such movements, the KKK became convinced that JFK was actually a Communist, just as the John Birch Society had been saying all along. If JFK was a Communist, then he was a traitor, and all patriotic men then had to duty to kill JFK. That was Guy Banister's teaching, and those were the lessons that these young KKK boys were taught in 1963. As a girl, however, Terri Williams could not go very deep into the KKK meetings in her home town. Nevertheless, she believes she knows who the KKK players were -- and even the very shooter of JFK. Terri is now a member of this FORUM, and John Simkin started up her first thread, namely, "JFK and the Klu Klux Klan," several weeks ago. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Yes, Ian, it sounds very familiar. I'm not sure what some theorists are aiming at by defending the alleged "brilliance" of Lee Harvey Oswald, but the evidence suggests to me that Oswald was smart-but-not-smart-enough. Now, I happen to believe Marina Oswald's sworn testimony, so that structures my own theory. She portrayed him as somebody who lied to her continually, who kept secrets from her continually, who bullied her, who beat her, and generally kept her in a closet. That's not the mark of "brilliance" in any definition I know. It's the mark of a petty person. George De Mohrenschildt provided sworn testimony that was damaging and even insulting to Lee Harvey Oswald. Later, instead of appearing before the HSCA for more sworn testimony, he offered a booklet, I'm A Patsy! I'm A Patsy! in which he pretended he loved Oswald dearly. But we must remember that this booklet does not represent sworn testimony. The great value of this booklet is its confirmation of Volkmar Schmidt's interview by William Kelly in 1995, in which Schmidt tells of a party in Dallas dedicated to convincing Lee Oswald to kill ex-General Edwin Walker. Schmidt admitted he used an advanced psychological technique, and he worked on Oswald for hours -- and after that session Oswald went out and bought the weapons used in the Backyard photographs -- one of which was signed by Oswald and given to George De Mohrenschildt. George De Mohresnschildt was at that party. His 1977 booklet admits this important party -- but he had withheld the truth from the Warren Commission in 1964. George De Mohrenschildt was about to be caught in a lie -- that is why, IMHO, he could not face the HSCA. What does this say about Oswald's intelligence? He was smart but not-smart-enough -- that is, an amateur psychologist like Volkmar Schmidt could manipulate Oswald's mind and send him on a self-destructive mission. That's my interpretation. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

David, thanks for posting that link to the 50 minute "Special Report" on the Backyard photographs, which emphasizes the extensive work of photographer Jack White on this topic. As for the De Mohrenschildt comment in the report, it was not George himself who said that, but he was quoted out of context. In his own booklet, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy! (which is freely available on the Internet) George explains how he found the photograph, among the English records that Jeanne had lent to Marina so long ago. The photo was there along with Oswald's signature (which was confirmed by handwriting analysts) and a Russian language remark, 'hunter of fascists, ha ha ha,' which De Mohrenshildt believed was written by Marina as a sarcastic memo. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Craig, it's surprising to receive these decades old questions again, but I'll oblige. First, among the many photographic experts who concluded that the Backyard photos are fakes, I will name only three. First is Robert Groden, a US researcher who has amassed more photographic evidence than perhaps any JFK researcher. Secondly, Major John Pickard of the Canadian Department of Defense, and an expert in photoanalysis, concluded that the photographs were subject to pasting and re-touching. Third, Malcolm Thompson, a British forensic photography expert publicly announced (1978, BBC television) that the photos were fakes. This is only the tip of the iceberg. A few minutes of patient Googling would reveal a tons of web sites on this. Start with Wikipedia. Here's one web site with a decent summary: http://www.pimall.co...s/backyard.html As for the photographs in question, of course I'm referring to Warren Commission Exhibits CE 133-A and CE 133-B which were found in the Paine garage, along with negatives. In those pictures, the poses are very different, but the heads are absolutely identical (where in CE 133-B the head is deliberately slanted to the right). Use a ruler compass yourself to measure it, or take advantage of the extensive work done by experts whose work is widely published. Another photo, 133C-Dees , was found separately, and it has a completely different pose, but again the head is identical -- pasted on. Honestly, I thought all this was common knowledge. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Paul, I made no claims about what you said. Now you are modifying and explaining what you wrote. It was clear enough the first time: "I don't think Oswald had the brains to finish the first chapter of Das Kapital." Michael, I think you misunderstood my point -- when I doubt that Oswald didn't have the brains to finish the first chapter of Das Kapital, that should not equate to the charge that "Oswald was stupid." It just so happens that Das Kapital is a very difficult book to read, even for scholars. It takes special brains to read even the first chapter of Das Kapital. Furthermore, when somebody does read Das Kapital, really and truly, and not in a superficial way (in that superficial way that George De Mohrenschildt, by his own words, admitted that Oswald read the book) one does not emerge from that experience with the amateur vocabulary that Oswald evidenced in his political writings. Aside from the obvious fact that Oswald's political writings were sophomoric, he was still a promising candidate for a low-level spy -- he was a capable radar operator, a capable code-writer, he learned to speak the Russian language with some fluency, and clearly had an IQ above average. That still didn't give him the necessary brains to finish the first chapter of Das Kapital. Oswald was not stupid, but I object to any hint that Oswald was a political prodigy. Finally, I realize that George De Mohrenschildt contradicted himself about Lee Harvey Oswald. That was one of my key points. That was the point that I clearly made with my quotations from him that flatly contradicted the quotations you cited. The fault does not rest with you or with me, IMHO, but with George De Mohrenschildt himself -- the opportunist, the xxxx, who withheld vital information from the US Government under oath -- and who preferred to end his own life than to face that oath again. One need only read George De Mohrenschildt's farewell address, his booklet, I'm A Patsy! I'm a Patsy! to clearly make out the depth of his deception -- not only of the public, but also of Lee Harvey Oswald, whom he pretended to befriend to so many, but whose actions proved his disdain. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Mark, FWIW, here's my impression on the involvement of these CIA figures: 1. David Atlee Phillips, CIA Chief of Cuban Operations, was seen with Lee Harvey Oswald in September of 1963 by a Cuban Exile warrior named Antonio Veciana, one of the leaders of Alpha 66. Phillips was a major player in the Cuban episode, so we should expect to find him in these proceedings. IMHO, Phillips knew much about what others were doing, and did comparatively little himself. 2. James Jesus Angleton, CIA Deputy Director of Counterintelligence, admitted that he played a role in the career of Lee Harvey Oswald by involving Oswald in a plot to kill Castro. Oswald got much information and many contacts from that involvement. Angelton denies sending Oswald after JFK, but he admits some guilt in building Oswald up to a specific point of power. IMHO, Angleton is telling the truth. 3. E. Howard Hunt was finally charged by Mark Lane (following Marita Lorenz) with buying illegal guns from Jack Ruby, Gerry Patrick Hemming and Frank Sturgis -- and Lee Harvey Oswald -- in early November, 1963. Hemming himself denied that he was in that caravan, and always held that Lorenz kept embellishing her story, which was partially true. IMHO, Hunt was involved in illegal arms trafficking -- but that in-itself is not proof of anything else. 4. David Sánchez Morales was a CIA operative who hated RFK as much as he hated Kruschchev. If hatred were proof of murder, then Morales would be guilty. But there were millions -- literally -- of people who hated the Kennedys. He wasn't in Dallas on the fateful day. If he was involved, then it was at a high level, as one of the many who nodded approval. IMHO, Morales was a man of action, one who preferred to pull the trigger, but he wasn't in Dallas. 5. William Harvey was famous at the end of WW2 in Germany for his famous underground tunnel to East Berlin. But he hated Castro so much that even during the Cuban Missile Crisis, against JFK's orders, Harvey continued to send small raiding parties to Cuba. RFK got so angry with Harvey that he banished him to a CIA office in Italy, where he drank himself to death. IMHO, Harvey's case is much like Morales' case -- if hatred was proof he'd be guilty. But the evidence on him is all circumstantial and speculative. IMHO, a professional CIA man is not like some rogue CIA contractor who takes two-bit contracts on demand. He is educated and professional, and knows he himself is being watched even as he watches others. He is also loyal to his Commander in Chief, even if he hates the Commander's guts. The beauty of Democracy is that in four more years we could have another idiot in the White House -- but at the most, eight years. A mature man can tolerate that, as long as he can also resist with all his might. That's the fun of it. Why spoil the fun? IMHO, it was lower-level, immature people who killed JFK. I believe the FBI and the CIA watched as the drama unfolded before their eyes. I also believe that the FBI and the CIA could have done more to prevent the tragedy -- yet the Kennedys made very few friends among the top brass. That doesn't mean the top brass went after him -- they wouldn't need to do that. All that is necessary for Evil to prosper is for Good men to look the other way and do nothing. I believe that's exactly the role that the FBI and the CIA played in the JFK assassination. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

John, this excerpt from the HUAC of 1944 as Congress studied the fascist right-wing in the USA is interesting. I do agree that the failure of the Nazi party in Germany did not end the existence of white-supremacy in the world; it only removed white-supremacy from the highest levels of State power. Today the cause of white-supremacy still lingers on in the free marketplace of ideas, protected by the right of Free Speech. Because of this, many Nazi fanatics who lingered on after Hitler was gone have been able to make inroads in the USA. It stands to reason that some of their most fertile populations would be in the Deep South, where white-supremacy reigned supreme in the 1950's, before the appearance of the Civil Rights era. When the extreme right-wing would exclaim that Race Integration in the public schools was Communist -- this was something that the Deep South never heard before. It was probably Nazi ideologists who migrated from Germany after WW2, and settled in the Deep South, that began to publish ideas like this. Naturally, the ideas would catch on immediately. America and England were increasingly lined up against the USSR, our former ally in WW2, so that Anticommunism reached the level of a religious fervor in the USA by 1948. So, when the Deep South began to say that Race Integration is Communist, they immediately got a hearing -- they obtained a level of credibililty that the KKK never had. The KKK had previously only preached that Race Integration is Satanic and would burn crosses on people's property. The New Right, following the dregs of the Nazi party, now preached that Race Integration is Communist. and so took on a new life. Not only the White Citizens' Councils, but the John Birch Society and countless Christian Segregation groups, usually started by Reverend Carl MacIntire, Billy James Hargis, Fred Schwarz or their many imitators -- all these would rise up to oppose the Race Integration of public schools mandated by the Supreme Court in 1954 (Brown v. The Board of Education). Nazi ideology colored all aspects of the right-wing after 1945. The Catholic Priest, Father Coughlin, would preach the most vile Antisemitic drivel in the USA before WW2 -- but after WW2 he stepped up his efforts, and it was obvious how much he had learned from Joseph Goebbels. We do well to remember that Hitler did not rise to power mainly on the basis of Antisemitism, but on Anticommunism. In the middle of the 20th century, as Hitler proved, a person could get away with almost any drivel or any crime, as long as one railed against Communism. Anticommunism was the real secret of Hitler's rise to power. Racists in the USA would try to follow the pattern that Hitler made. If you want to hold down a certain race (e.g. Jewish people) then simply spread the lie that they are all Communists. That would get the ball rolling immediately. And that's exactly what the White Citizens' Councils did in the 1950's -- they spread the lie that Black Americans who demanded Civil Rights were all Communists. That mobilized milllions of Americans against the Civil Rights movement. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

From de Mohrenschildt's manuscript: Instead of playing basketball or baseball, like any other red-blooded American youth, he read voraciously. Among the books he read was Marx's "The Capital" which made a deep impression on him. Ironically, he said, he borrowed this book from the Loyola University library . "What did you like in it?" I remember asking him. "It made clear to me the intolerable fact of the exploitation of the poor by the rich ." .....I read similar opinions recently in several liberal books and Lee was way ahead in thought of all of them . .....Lee read Russian classics and discussed some at length with me, especially I remember "The Idiot" by Dostoievski, a psychoanalytical study. He understood the pre-revolutionary life in Russia, which I did not know but heard about from my parents . Russian classics belong exclusively to the pre-revolutionary or early revolutionary days and modern Russians are fascinated by those days of extravagant aristocracy, tzarist power and abuses of it. Michael, I never said Oswald was stupid -- I just don't find evidence from his writing that Oswald was truly well-read. Just because George De Mohrenschildt said Lee read Das Kapital, that's no proof. The proof would show in Oswald's writings, and when I personally read those writings, I find them to be superficial. But more to the point, even George De Mohrenschildt would express disappointment in Oswald. Here are some sentences from George De Mohrenschildt's own responses to the Warren Commission (i.e. his testimony to attorney Jenner on 23 April 1964). Notice the change of tone from the words that you cited from him: 1. He had a chance to be a Marine. Here was a perfect life for him -- this was my point of view. He was a man without education; in the Marines -- why didn't he stay in the Marines all his life? You don't need a high degree of intelligence to be a Marine corporal or solider. 2. He was clinging to me...When I talk to people, I am interested in them. And he appreciated that in me. The other people considered him, well, he is just some poor, miserable guy, and disregarded him. 3. I do not remember any particular incident, but I knew that he wanted the attention to himself, always. Not in any particular case, but always. 4. But Lee did not want to take anything. He had a very proud attitude. That is one of the reasons I sort of liked him, because of that. He was not a beggar, not a sponger. 5. It was a very strong resentment on his part. It was almost an insane jealousy of people who succeeded where he could not succeed. 6. And they (Marina and Lee) were very miserable, lost, penniless, mixed up. So as much as they both annoyed me, I did not show it to them because it is like insulting a beggar -- you see what I mean. 7. One conversation I had with him -- I asked him, "Would you like to be a Commissar in the United States," just teasing him. And he sort of smiled -- you could see that it was a delightful idea. To me it was a ridiculous question to ask. But he took me seriously. 8. Possibly he was seeking for something, but knowing what kind of brains he had, and what kind of education, I was not interested in listening to him, because it was nothing, it was zero. Furthermore, the following excerpt from his sworn testimony completely contradicts the text that you cited from him: ------------- Begin Excerpt from Warren Commission 23 April 1964 ----------------------- Mr. JENNER. Did you have the feeling that his views on politics were shallow and surface? Mr. DE MOHRENSCHILDT. Very much so. Mr. JENNER. That he had not had the opportunity for a study under scholars who would criticize, so that he himself could form some views on the subject? Mr. DE MOHRENSCHILDT. Exactly. His mind was of a man with exceedingly poor background, who read rather advanced books, and did not understand even the words in them. He read complicated economical treatises and just picked up difficult words out of what he has read, and loved to display them. He loved to use the difficult words, because it was to impress one. Mr. JENNER. Did you think he understood it? Mr. DE MOHRENSCHILDT. He did not understand the words - he just used them. So how can you take seriously a person like that? You just laugh at him. But there was always an element of pity I had, and my wife had, for him. We realized that he was sort of a forlorn individual, groping for something. Mr. JENNER. Did you form any impression in the area. let us say, of reliability -- that is, whether our Government would entrust him with something that required a high degree of intelligence. a high degree of imagination. a high degree of ability to retain his equilibrium under pressure, a management of a situation, to be flexible enough? Mr. MOHRENSCHILDT. I never would believe that any government would be stupid enough to trust Lee with anything important. ------------- End Excerpt from Warren Commission 23 April 1964 ----------------------- So, to be fair to my point, Michael, we should really look at both sides of George De Mohrenschildt's opinions about Oswald's intelligence. Even apart from this I reaffirm, based on my own reading of Oswald's amateur political writings, that he showed no depth in political science. He was a rank beginner. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

John, you're referring to Clyde Watts, I take it, who was Walker's lawyer at his Senate Subcommittee hearings in 1962, at Walker's Grand Jury hearings (along with Robert Morris) in Mississippi in 1962-1963, and at Walker's Warren Commission hearings in 1964. They were very close, and they'd known each other a very long time. Walker was a West Point graduate (who graduated in the bottom 10% of his class). He might have met Clyde Watts in West Point. Otherwise, they probably met just before World War Two. Walker and Watts thought they'd be multi-millionaires by suing A.P. for printing that Walker was the leader of riots at Ole Miss (which he certainly was). Watts and Morris (a former lawyer and aide for Senator Joseph McCarthy) brilliantly won over the Mississippi Grand Jury in the face of overwhelming evidence, convincing them to drop all charges against Walker. Their strategy was that since JFK and RFK had sent Walker to an insane asylum the day after the riots, the real question wasn't whether Walker led any riots; the real question was whether Walker was insane. They wasted hours of time parading a stream of psychiatrists through the Grand Jury, who of course couldn't agree on anything. Thus, Walker was acquitted. However, Watts and Morris decided to parlay their Walker victory into millions of dollars, so they used that ridiculous "victory" to charge the Associated Press with libel -- for falsely printing that Walker was guilty as sin. From 1963-1967 they sued and sued, hoping for $35 million dollars in damages from various AP syndicates. If they had been successful, then Walker would have richly repaid his lifelong friend, Clyde Watts, for keeping him out of prison. They won some and lost some here and there, but in the end, Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren ensured that all their time was totally wasted. They didn't get one dime. So Justice was served on both Brigadiere Generals and their super-lawyer, Robert Morris. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

I've read Bill Turner's Power on the Right (1971), and there was precious little on the Rangers, or on Walker for that matter. Great source, though, since it gives us a plausible feel for the right-wing in the 1960's. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Oh, right, John, you did find a contradiction in my speed typing. When I thought of ex-military I thought of duly retired US Military men, such as those in the American Security Council. Ex-General Edwin Walker was an exception, however, because he did not associate with those conservative gentlemen. Instead, ex-General Edwin Walker did not retire from the Army after 30 years of service, but he resigned, which is a hostile act. In fact, Walker was the only US General in the 20th century to resign from the Army. In resigning Walker gave up his Military pension -- his only visible source of income. That all by itself was evidence of his recklessness. Yet Walker was clearly encouraged and supported by rich people on the right (especially H.L. Hunt and Billy James Hargis, the self-made millionaire) who helped Walker get his start as a professional public speaker. After Walker botched his campaign for Texas governor (paid for by Hunt) and then went berzerk at Ole Miss University (by causing a massive riot there on 30 September 1962 over the pending admission of their first Black student, James Meredith), Walker's income seemed threatened. However, after a Mississippi Grand Jury acquitted Walker of all charges regarding the Ole Miss riots, Walker and his lawyers (Robert Morris and Clyde Watts) set up a system to sue every US newspaper that claimed Walker was guilty. If successful they would have won $35 million (which in today's dollars amounts to $350 million). After years of court trials ending in 1967, they finally won $3 million, but then Earl Warren found in favor of the Associated Press in their appeal, and overturned all their winnings. By 1968 it was clear to Walker that he was going to be penniless -- so he began to beg the Army for his pension. Naturally, he had already signed a waiver of his pension in 1961, so the Army did not move quickly on this, but they finally relented and gave him his pension in 1982. That's why I disassociate ex-General Walker from the legitimate ex-military, John. Walker was a weird exception. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Paul B., a number of photographic experts have examined the Backyard photographs and concluded they were fakes. I'm certainly not the first to make that statement. The most convincing argument, IMHO, is that of the two best-known photographs (published by the Warren Commission) the heads on both the photos are 100% identical -- not just similar, but identical in position, shape, shadow and dimension -- and yet the bodies aren't identical, i.e. one is slightly closer to the camera than the other. That's a photographic impossibility -- therefore at least one of the photographs is a fake. That's scientific evidence, IMHO. Further, you claim that there isn't any indication of forgery, yet even before the face measurements were performed, critics had noted bumps in straight lines, and other evidence of re-touching, including a flat chin on Oswald's face (who had a pointed chin) which is strong evidence for pasting. Yet your final question is the most relevant: why would anybody waste valuable time making multiple fakes? My opinion involves my emerging psychological portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald. I don't regard him as a Communist zealot, or as a right-wing zealot, but as a frisky wannabe, always hoping to impress older men who might offer him a permanent career. Oswald was a radar operator for the Marines, with a high security clearance. He was a capable code-breaker. Oswald spoke Russian because he had intelligence training. Oswald wanted to be a spy -- I believe that can be demonstrated with ease. Yet Oswald was also a loose cannon, a boaster, and had difficulty keeping secrets (which is one reason why he was never hired permanently by the FBI, CIA, ONI or anybody in his chosen field of intelligence). So, in my theory, Lee Harvey Oswald made multiple fakes of his Backyard photo because he imagined that he was about to do something big, bold and history-making (i.e. kill ex-General Edwin Walker) and he had two desires: (1) to boast to his friends, including George De Mohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt and Michael Paine; and (2) to have plausible deniability just in case these photographs ever fell into the hands of the Dallas Police. That is something that a young, wannabe spy would naturally do. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Bill, that link about Roy Frankhauser was amusing reading. I especially enjoyed the expose of SWP leader Lyndon LaRouche and his surprising right-wing, Antisemitic side, and the fact that he hired this compulsive xxxx and KKK fanatic, Roy Frankhauser, as a political consultant. Regarding Frankhauser's story, I agree with your assessment -- most of it is deception -- and perhaps Frankhauser (like LaRouche) was more than a little bit wacky. Yet I also agree that there may be some gems to be mined in that coal pit. After all, there is mounting evidence that the KKK was out for JFK, as were the Minutemen -- that is, the extreme right were on the warpath over the Civil Rights issue. As for the left-wing, they were the chosen scape-goat -- everything was to be blamed on them, so spying on them was critical. Frankhauser was considered wacky by the FBI and CIA because he couldn't pick a story and stick to it. But the clues were there. As for your interview of Volkmar Schmidt in 1995, Bill, I have long considered it to be one of the most important interviews of the past fifty years. IMHO, once the whole truth about the JFK assassination is finally revealed (perhaps in 2039) your interview with Volkmar Schmidt will become one of the most cited interviews of the 20th century. I truly believe the major clues to resolve the JFK assassination are to be found in your interview with Schmidt, when combined with George De Mohrenschildt's booklet, I'm A Patsy! I'm A Patsy!, which cites the same party but deliberately changes Schmidt's name (and nationality).. Finally, although we do agree that the JFK assassination was never a covert operation of the CIA, the ex-military or the Mafia, we still disagree on the identity of the ground-crew and their direct leaders. You're currently interested in the Pentagon office that on 24 September 1963 studied the Valkyrie Plot (the 1944 plot to kill Hitler), while I am currently interested in ex-General Edwin Walker and his underestimated capabilities and connections. That said, I do find it intriguing that Volkmar Schmidt specifically mentioned the Valkyrie Plot to Oswald in February 1963. Yet since Volkmar's own family in Germany was fairly close to the Valkyrie Plot, it is not surprising that he would refer to it. Still, the context in which Volkmar spoke was almost entirely about ex-General Edwin Walker. Walker is still the key, IMHO. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

David, there's a good chance that it isn't the body of Oswald in those pictures. There was a reason that Oswald wore black when he asked Marina to snap his photo. In my theory, Oswald had accomplices. Not just one or two, but many. When Oswald went out to shoot ex-General Edwin Walker on 10 April 1963, he wasn't alone. There were probably two others (according to the single eye-witness that night). When Oswald went out taking photographs of ex-General Walker's house, he was never alone -- he had at least one other person with him, and they traveled by car. It's also possible that Oswald sent out flunkies to snap photographs of Walker's house, and they brought them back to Oswald, who developed the film. Oswald's accomplices were probably young and slender, like he was. They would probably dress in black and pose for the shots if he asked them. Oswald's accomplices probably had their own cars and their own rifles. Yet the most economical explanation to the Backyard photographs is that Marina snapped one photo (to get the face) and then Oswald snapped at least two more (for different poses) using one accomplice dressed in black. Then Oswald himself made many "fotoshop" style variations on these photographs using sophisticated photography equipment at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall, where he worked. It also makes sense to me that since Oswald was fired from JCS about this time, that the logical reason he was fired was that he was not discreet about using company equipment for personal use. We don't have to imagine any long-term CIA plot for any of this. Oswald's whole life and fate would have been so different if he had just resisted the temptation to please Michael Paine, Volkmar Schmidt and George De Mohrenschildt by killing ex-General Edwin Walker. Actually, however, George De Mohrenschildt, who was a rich opportunist and not truly politically motivated, only wanted to prove he could control Oswald like a puppet. He didn't want to enter politics in 1963. He wanted to go to Haiti and get rich in the oil business. So, when Oswald actually tried to kill Walker (but missed) it made a big stink in Dallas for several days in all the newspapers and on the radio and television. Three days later, on 13 April 1964, George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt visited the Oswald's late at night, worried to death that Oswald might have been the shooter -- fighting with each other over the mess they might have made, and how this might ruin their oil contract in Haiti. Sure enough, they found the smoking gun in Oswald's house that night. They quickly left Dallas, and never saw the Oswalds ever again. But before they left -- on Easter Sunday 14 April 1963 George De Mohrenschildt told his friends Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin, that Lee Harvey Oswald was the wanted shooter that all the newspapers, radio and TV news shows were all talking about. Mrs. Voshinin -- the true hero of the story -- waited until George left her house, and then she immediately called the FBI and told them what she heard. So -- just as Walker always suspected all his life -- the FBI knew about Oswald on 14 April 1963, but they didn't jail him. However, they most likely did warn Edwin Walker about this stalker. And Edwin Walker, a leader of the Texas Minutemen, had a colleague in New Orleans -- Guy Banister, a leader of the Louisiana Minutemen. Together they planned a paramilitary revenge on Lee Harvey Oswald. If not for the Walker shooting, Oswald might have matured and eventually been hired by the FBI or the CIA as a regular, salaried employee. But now, after showing what an immature brat he was, Oswald's chances for regular employment by the Government were shattered. He was once again on the street -- and more vulnerable than ever. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

David, IMHO, the fakery in the creation of the Backyard photographs has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The main question to address now should be "who" created those fakes. That must be established before we address the problem of "why" or the problem of confederates or models. IMHO, Lee Harvey Oswald created those fakes, and he did so using equipment at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall (JCS). I believe this is exactly why Oswald was fired from JCS. The dates of the fakes seems to match up exactly to the date of his firing. I once read that Oswald creeped out one of his co-workers at JCS by using his hand as a make-believe-gun, pointing his finger at his co-worker and whispering, 'pow!' That would not be exceptionally creepy as an act all by itself, but if this was combined with Oswald's being loose and free with his Backyard photos there at the workplace of JCS, that would be way too creepy to tolerate. I would like to ask the managers at JCS why Oswald was fired. I would like to look at Oswald's personnel file, and view any complaints about any obsession with guns. We know, also, that fragments from cardboard cutouts of the Backyard photographs were found at the DPD station. Where did those come from? IMHO, they came from the managers at JCS, trying to be helpful in showing Oswald's darker side. All that said, I want to emphasize that I am not a "lone nut" theorist. I reject the Warren Commission conclusion of a "lone gunman." I believe Oswald was part of a larger conspiracy, and I believe he was a confused young man who was easily manipulated. I believe he had no idea that he was being made into the patsy of the conspiracy. I believe he had many names he could have shared with the police and with the press in his last two days on earth, but he trusted his fellow conspirators. Oswald trusted his accomplices, but they didn't trust him. Why? Because Oswald was a big-mouth. This was made plain in the Warren Commission testimony of George De Mohrenschildt. To understand the Backyards photographs, IMHO, we must regard them as one more example of Oswald's lack of discretion and his inability to keep secrets. Marina only needed to take one photograph. Oswald dressed all in black so that his "double" could easily dress the same way. Oswald planned the entire Backyard photograph controversy, IMHO. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Bill, after four years a there's been no reply to your post. Yet I'm beginning to think that Michael Paine was far more important to the JFK assassination than generally admitted. Not that I believe Paine was involved in any JFK plot -- but I believe that Michael Paine had more information than the Warren Commission was willing to withdraw from him. I don't put any stock in Paine's family past -- his father's Trotsky position or his connections with Bell Helicopter. That is all trivial in my opinion. What are most vital in Paine's eye-witness account are his days with Oswald in early 1963. I believe those early days of 1963 set Oswald in motion for the remainder of 1963. There were three major male influences on Lee Harvey Oswald in early 1963, namely, George De Mohrenschildt, Voikmar Schmidt and Michael Paine. I believe they all influenced Oswald in a direction that Oswald himself -- on his own -- would never have chosen; namely, a burning hatred for ex-General Edwin Walker. DeMohrenschilt, Schmidt and Paine all had one thing in common, IMHO, namely, their hatred for General Walker. Only a few months before, in the morning news of 1 October 1962, the world read about the bloody riots at Ole Miss University, in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed. The leader, ex-General Edwin Walker, led white-supremacist forces of tremendous violence to prevent one Black student, James Meredith, from legally registering for class. JFK had had to send thousands of troops to restore peace. On that day, furthermore, JFK and RFK saw to it that General Walker was committed to an insane asylum. However, on that same day, the ACLU and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz erupted in a screaming protest, charging JFK and RFK with political psychiatry -- a heinous act of tyranny. In only five more days General Walker would be back in Dallas, where an adoring crowd met him at Love Field, waving Confederate flags and a banner that read, "Walker for President in '64.' www.pet880.com When Walker's attorneys, Robert Morris and Clyde Watts, presented Walker's case before a Grand Jury in Mississippi, they plied a brilliant strategy -- they would downplay the riots themselves, and concentrate on the question of whether Walker insane. If Walker was insane -- he would be guilty. If Walker was sane, then JFK and RFK were wrong, and Walker would be innocent. The Grand Jury bought the ruse. Psychiatrists on both sides of the issue testified endlessly, and the Grand Jury concluded that Walker was sane. Walker was acquitted in January, 1963. The bloody riots themselves were hardly at issue. Brilliant defense. But back in Dallas, among the liberals like DeMohrenschilt, Schmidt and Paine, this was unbearable. A white-supremacist like Walker could lead a bloody insurrection against the USA and then walk free, back in Dallas, just down the street. This was too much for them to bear. In January, 1963, George De Mohrenschildt was baby-sitting Lee Harvey Oswald, and introducing him to his friends around Dallas. One friend, an engineer, Volkmar Schmidt, was also the son of two psychiatrists. As a child he learned quite a few tricks of psychology. DeMohrenschilt, Schmidt and Paine all agreed on one thing -- Oswald's complaints against JFK were irritating. Oswald would continually complain that JFK betrayed the Cuban Exiles at the Bay of Pigs. So, Volkmar Schmidt got an idea. He would use a pscyhological technique on Oswald, and "transfer" Oswald's hatred toward JFK from JFK onto General Walker. At a party at which many were presnt, and after two hours of psychological manipulation, Lee Harvey Oswald emerged at the end of that party with a new mission -- to kill ex-General Edwin A. Walker. The rest of the timeline is obvious after this January party. Oswald bought weapons, had Marina snap one picture of himself with his weapons, made fake variations of this photo at his work at JCS, got fired for that, but continued to take photographs of Walker's house, back yard and alley. But the important point for this thread is that Michael Paine knew far more about Oswald's state of mind regarding General Walker than the Warren Commission was willing to ask him. Michael Paine, IMHO, knew about DeMohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt. Michael Paine knew about the re-conditioning of Lee Harvey Oswald. Michael Paine drove Oswald to Walker's US Day rally on 23 October 1963 to plan heckling Adlai Stevenson the very next night in the very same auditorium. (Michael Paine denied going to that rally, saying that he went to some other meeting down the street.) My questions to Michael Paine are fewer. I would like to know: (1) How closely did Michael Paine follow the activities of General Walker in late 1962 and early 1963? (2) Where were Michael Paine's opinions about General Walker in late 1962 and early 1963? (3) How closely did Michaal Paine follow the activities of Volkmar Schmidt upon Lee Harvey Oswald in early 1963? (4) What was Michael Paine's opinion about Volkmark Schmidt in early 1963? (5) Did Michael Paine suggest any encouragement, either by word or look or glance, to Oswald regarding hatred of Walker? It's my theory, Bill, that Oswald was manipulated by DeMohrenschildt, Schmidt and Paine in early 1963, and this reckless act of Oswald (and at least one other shooter) trying to kill Walkre on 10 April 1963 -- was the turning point in Oswald's life. It ruined his chances of ever attaining a successful CIA or FBI career. I believe this turning point is something that Michael Paine knows more about -- and the Warren Commission manipulated matters cleverly to discourage Paine from telling what he knew about Volkmar Schmidt. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Bill, IMHO any useful timeline must be strictly chronological. It confuses matters to place material from three years into, e.g. a "month of January" list. That said -- I applaud your call for a Timeline. A Timeline is indispensible to solving any case, IMHO. I myself would like to see a consistent Timeline of Volkmar Schmidt, George De Mohrenschildt and the Paine's in early 1963, when Volkmark Schmidt "hypnotized" (quote unquote) Oswald to kill ex-General Edwin Walker as punishment for Walker's role in the Ole Miss riots of late 1962 where hundreds were wounded and two were killed. Evidently Schmidt's psychological technique worked perfectly, and Oswald promptly bought weapons and began to dramatize himself as the "hunter of fascists." Oswald then had Marina take one photograph of himself with his weapons, and he then used the complex photo equipment at Jagger-Chiles-Stoval (JCS) to make fake variations. He was then fired (almost certainly because of these photographs and his fake Hidell ID). The chronological sequence of these events is crucial, IMHO, to this case. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Paul B., I have responses to your five questions that might interest you: 1. Marina Oswald admitted to taking one picture. She said that's all she could remember. When she was shown two pictures, she was puzzled, and said that she "must have" taken two, because the evidence was clear, but she really didn't remember taking two; she was sure she pushed the button only once. 2. Lee Harvey Oswald worked at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall at the time. He asked his supervisor if people ever used company equipment to make personal photographs. The supervisor said it's not allowed, although he knew people did it -- but they were discreet and did not get caught. Oswald took that as a green light -- we know this because he made his Alek J. Hidell fake ID using that same equipment. 3. In my theory, Lee Harvey Oswald himself also made those additional copies of Marina's original single photograph. Lee probably spent a lot of time at it, as he made multiple versions. Lee was also indiscreet about it -- it looked bizarre to co-workers -- Lee posIng with weapons. That was also the time that Oswald was fired from Jagger-Chiles-Stovall. Lee Harvey Oswald was known as a loose cannon -- an unreliable boaster -- according to George De Mohrenschildt himself. 4. My point is that Lee was a capable photographer, and a capable code-maker and code-breaker. He had a package mailed to himself that was replete with secret codes on the outside -- and possibly glow-in-the-dark ink, too, which is now being researched. In other words, Lee Harvey Oswald was a capable photographic technician who had motive, means and opportunity to make the fakes of his own Backyard photographs. (His motive was twofold: First, to show off to people like George De Mohrenshildt. Secondly, to ensure that if his photographs were found, that he could prove they were fakes.) 5. This also explains how Lee Oswald signed one. It wasn't forced. Oswald was a braggart. This was why George De Mohrenschildt exclaimed that no government agency would be so stupid as to trust Oswald with anything important. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

In his suspicions of J.D. Tippit as one of the DPD officers who might be involved in the JFK assassination, Joachim Joesten writing in 1968 was 30 years ahead of this web site that attempts to use quantitative methods to detect the face of J.D. Tippit in the "Badgeman" photograph identified by Jack White: http://www.jfkresearch.com/morningstar/morningstar5.htm Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Robert, the most intriguing point of Joesten's, How Kennedy Was Killed (1968) was, IMHO, his opening salvo at the Dallas Police Department (DPD) in chapter one. The DPD had sealed off the area behind the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll at Dealey Plaza. Anybody who traveled behind that fence would have been immediately known to them. Everybody knows the story about eye-witness Lee Bowers who saw two men standing behind the picket fence at the time that the JFK motorcade drove by, and he also saw a flash of light at the picket fence at that moment. What the Warren Commission didn't pursue in his story was the question about how these two men bypassed the DPD blockade of that area. Joesten also reports that Chief of Police Jesse Curry called the DPD station and ordered an immediate search of the TSBD building. Why? -- he was asked. Because, he replied, the sounds seemed to him to come from that building. Joachim Joesten did not accept that explanation -- the motorcade was very loud, the crowd was very loud, there were echoes all across Dealey Plaza. Besides, the Secret Service men in the cars ahead agreed that the sounds came from the Grassy Knoll. Joesten cannot help suspecting that Jesse Curry was following a plan -- a plot. Joesten is also willing to suspect the involvement of DPD officer J.D. Tippit in the JFK slaying. This is a near-sacrilege, since Tippit is most often identified as an innocent bystander and victim of the JFK slaying. Yet the behavior of Tippit is suspicious to Joesten, and I wonder if what he would have thought about R.D. Morningstar's photographic speculation about Jack White's "Badgeman" as a clear portrait of J.D. Tippit. It will always puzzle the public that Jack Ruby was able to silence Oswald while surrounded by DPD officers. Yet Jack Ruby was also armed and present the night before -- twice -- when Oswald was paraded before the press. It was as though the DPD gave Ruby three chances to make his move. When I visited the TSBD museum at Dealey Plaza in Dallas some years ago, the officials displayed an impressive, graphic chart of possible suspects in the slaying of JFK -- there were over a hundred suspects on that chart. The DPD, of course, was absent from the list of suspects. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

The occasion for that Playboy interview, IMHO, was a book by Joachim Joesten which accused H.L. Hunt of having JFK killed because JFK wanted to end the oil depletion allowance. You're right, David, that Playboy was known for its political reporting in the sixties. The interviewer asked Hunt point blank about Joesten's accusation, and Hunt denied it, saying that the Kennedy family themselves made a lot of money in oil. Then Hunt volunteered that bit about Oswald being Walker's shooter and the 'Justice Department' knowing this and setting Oswald free to kill again. That was ex-General Walker's favorite story, and it proves to me a direct connection between Hunt and Walker in late 1963. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ian, it is 177 miles from Terry, Mississippi to Lake Pontchartrain on I-55. In 1963 that would take a little less than three hours to drive. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

John, it is obvious to me that H.L. Hunt's statement is nothing but a repetition of General Edwin Walker's most common account of the assassination of JFK -- that Lee Harvey Oswald tried to kill Walker on 10 April 1963, but RFK set Oswald free that same night so Oswald would be free to try again. Instead, Oswald killed JFK. H.L. Hunt was close to General Edwin Walker, and paid for Walker's run to be Governor of Texas in 1962. Dick Russell (1993, TMWKTM) interviewed Hunt's butler, and the butler told Dick Russell that he heard Hunt and Walker discuss Lee Harvey Oswald before the JFK assassination. At 7am on the morning after JFK was assassinated, General Walker told a German newspaper reporter that same story -- here's the first appearance of that story in a German headline: http://www.pet880.co...d_DNZeitung.jpg Soon after RFK was also killed in 1968, General Walker wrote a bitter editorial, and repeated that same story in the final paragraph, as you can read here: http://www.pet880.com/images/19680612_RFK_released_Oswald.pdf General Walker repeated this story many other times, but to save space I will jump to the final editorial that he wrote near the end of his life. (Walker died in 1993.) This version was printed in his hometown newspaper in 1992. http://www.pet880.co...ld_arrested.pdf The fact that H.L. Hunt repeated General Walker's story in 1966 is solid evidence, IMHO, that both men had foreknowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald's role as patsy in the plot to kill JFK. I see no plausible alternative. Best regards, --Paul Trejo