Paul Trejo

Nathaniel,

In my view, the rightward shift of the USA began long before the so-called coup d'etat of 1963. Few people seem to be aware that the Democratic party at the turn of the 20th century was far more right-wing than the Republican party. Woodrow Wilson, that Democratic President and son of the South, was nominated largely because as president of Princeton University, he skillfully kept that college segregated. Woodrow Wilson was friendly to the Ku Klux Klan, which is why he promoted the racist film, Birth of a Nation (1915), which was originally titled, The Klansmen. Modern Democrats would be shocked if they heard the racist remarks and songs common at Democratic Presidential rallies in 1904 and 1908. (There's a chapter about this in the book, Lies My Teacher Told Me (1996)).

The essence of the Democratic party in the 1930's was FDR's protection of the Southern farmer from the ravages of the Great Depression. This was so popular that he was re-elected, and he expanded his winning policies with more and more social programs -- the reason he was elected in the first place. He saved the poor South from ruin, actually, with these programs.

But the tenor had changed from the racist Democratic party of the turn of the century to the social-services Democrats of the mid-century, on many grounds. The most important of these grounds was the sudden appearance of World War Two, and FDR's brilliant handling of it.

FDR could see that the British Empire was all washed up. He could also see that when the dust settled after World War Two, Britain would no longer regain her former glory as Global Empire, but would have to surrender that title to the USA. Envious Germany tried and failed to seize that mantle. But most Americans today can trace their national heritage to Germany rather than to England. So, there was plenty of compromise for both sides of World War Two, with the USA as the last Western nation standing - and the new Global Empire.

This was a sudden change for the USA. We did not expect it. Most Americans thought that the USA would simply prop Great Britain up once more to be the Global Empire, as we had always done. But no. Instead, the isolationist Americans were suddenly thrust into the limelight as the heir of the British Imperial power.

Many Americans were uncomfortable with this new duty - this noblesse oblige. They complained about Internationalism -- it was a communist plot! They complained about our Global duties to police the planet, as Great Britain had done. It was a communist plot! This isolationism became the core of the extreme right-wing in the USA.

But these same USA rightists were not intellectuals -- they did not wish to study Marx in order to refute him. Rather, they redefined the Communist plot in their own terms; starting with Joe McCarthy, then proceeding through Ezra Taft Benson to Robert Welch. With Robert Welch and his writers in the early 1960's, a new element was added -- the Southern States hatred of the Yankee States was portrayed as the Freedom loving States versus the US States that had already capitulated to Communism. These were called by the John Birch Society, "The Eastern Establishment."

In this way, like the Nazi writers of the 1940's, Capitalism and Communism were held to be two sides of the same movement fomented by the same Eastern Establishment. The Jews were no longer the enemy (except to a few who regarded New York as Jewish dominated; Robert Welch never said that, but quite a few of his followers did say that).

The war of the John Birch Society was the war of small capital (the good ole boys) against Large Capital (the Eastern Establishment). With the Cold War drawn up on these terms, as a local USA problem, and not a global problem, the extreme right-wing was far more bother to the US Government than they were worth; like ants at a picnic.

Yet because of the relative failure of the US Education system in the Southern States, the John Birch Society became sacred text in many places (and we must include Los Angeles as part of the Southern consciousness). Here was a political force to be reckoned with -- entirely oblivious to the new duty of Global Empire that the USA inherited as the Superpower at the end of World War Two.

Then, as the post-war events unfolded, over the decades, the left-wing shrunk into oblivion, and today mainly repeats John Birch Society propaganda as its predominant source of commentary.

I myself don't believe that the USA has become a garrison State; rather, I see the USA as the unwilling, unwanting perpetrator of the British Empire.

FDR saw this coming. He wanted to change things. FDR envisioned earth without any colonies. He called for a halt to the colonialization of Hong Kong, Kuwait and Vietnam. (If FDR had lived long enough to enact his anti-colonial policies, the USA would never have suffered through the Vietnam conflict.)

But FDR died too soon, and he was succeeded by the high-school graduate, Harry Truman, who chose to H-bomb Japan and to allow the French to keep their colony in Vietnam (to make the Marshall Plan cheaper). Geniuses like FDR come along once in a century, I reckon.

JFK arises as the most liberal President that the Democrats ever had. He was part of the Eastern Establishment -- and he didn't think much of Southerners. He walked all over General Edwin Walker - and to many Southerners, that was unforgivable.

Anyway, I don't see an actual coup d'etat in the killing of JFK. Also, I don't see the graduation from Industrial Capital to Finance Capital to be the major crossroads of US history in the post-war era. Finally, I don't see the USA as a garrison State.

Rather, the struggle between traditional US isolationism on the one hand, and the duty of Global Empire on the other, clashed in such a way as to kill JFK. We are still struggling with our duty to handle the issues that the British Empire used to handle. Our recent and current wars in the Middle East are solid evidence of my position, I maintain.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Hello Paul,

Happy 2012 to you. Always good to read your replies to items posted and pleased that you liked the read on the finer details of Gen. Walker's Nut House visit. There is no doubt that Walker's Rebel Rousing on the US side of things had half of Congress upset, plus the JCS (like Lemnitzer and LeMay). It certainly had the JBS society crying out the Reds are coming and half the Latter Day Saints along with them.

Walker was being insubordinate to JFK and the affairs of state and the Walker side wanted lots of escallations against Communism and the JFK side was working the Peace issues and Co-Existance with Communism. JFK, like his best teacher FDR wanted Colonization phased out of existance Yes, there was certainly a huge domestic bunch that came to want JFK dead, and their theme was JFK was a Communist.

But, one not only has to study the US history for the run up on the JFK hit, but also a good bit of the Middle East problems. Recall, PERMINDEX was after DeGaulle and the main reason they were after DeGaulle was that Algeria was an Arab Country and at the time Israel was having all kinds of problems with the Arab states wanting them pushed into the Mediterranean. So, when DeGaulle added one more free Arab state wanting the same thing as Egypt, that was the last straw for the PERMINDEX anti-Arab gang trying to back up Israel. Add on that DeGaulle dropped helping Israel with Dimona and it gets real close to the JFK hit theme.

It didn't stop there, as Israel had been in a huge mess with four Arab states when they first came into existance, by doing terrorism against the British, and they bailed out with things in a mess. JFK was playing more Pro-Arab things to get into sweet spots of oil, and not paying much attention to Israel's continuing mess. JFK and person like his Catholic pal James Forrestal believed the Arabs would Push the Jewish into the Med., so this didn't sit well with the Israelis from day one.

Add in that JFK went to Berlin to make good with the Germans, and the Germans were busy helping Egypt's Nasser with rocket weapons to use on Israel and JFK had Israels strike two against him. Ben Gurion was up in arms with JFK over the Germans helping Nasser with rocket designs, and JFK didn't care much. When JFK was killed one of the Israeli high ups was running around the US campaigning for joint efforts against the Arabs. They well knew JFK was going to be out and had already been laying down the new ground ideas.

Now, move on into the mess with the Israeli side wanting their own nuclear weapons so they could stand off the Arab states in the same way that nuking Japan stood down all their resistance from the immense power of the Bomb. JFK was dead set against nuclear proliferation by a US Ally on Russia's back doorstep as he was in enough problems with the Jupiter Nuclear Missiles on Turkey. JFK's insistance on pushing to expose the Israeli Nuclear Bomb was the last straw for the Israeli gang, and they said JFK threatened their existance. So, just like the Israeli interests in PERMINDEX went after DeGaulle, they went after JFK with a 10 times larger passion to kill him.

So, why should the Domestic side, interested in killing JFK, not make use of the Foreign Interests that tried to off DeGaulle. All they had to do was offer networking for the cover up and fake story to frame LHO. All that had to do was connect up crooked LBJ and his crooked side-kick neighbor Hoover. But the US and NAZI connected intelligence side in Dallas was more than a little carefull of the Jewish PERMINDEX elements, as if the LHO fake plan failed, the fingers would point at the Dallas Gang. So, they made sure to toss in a good load of Jewish issues into the JFK hit, this was Weissman's Communist ad, shots fired from Dal-Tex and the building owned by Jaffee, they had Jack Ruby in there, they had Joe Milteer telling the Big Jew story, and finially Zapruder's Israeli memorial of the day JFK died. Ruby and Zapruder had White Russian connections in Dallas.

If you put together both the Domestic and the Foreign factors all tends to fall into place. Jack Ruby is all up in arms that there would be Pogroms against the Jewish if he didn't kill LHO. Plus, he is all bent out of shape for the position the JBS placed him in as they framed up the Jewish elements along with LHO, just in case. The JFK hit plan had messed up good when LHO lived, so that back up plan to get Ruby to off LHO was essential.

Hunt and Walker were none to dumb to use their own folks to knock off JFK, when the rabid elements on the PERMINDEX Zionism issues were easy enough to help kick off the killing of JFK.

I think you will find the following somewhat official write up on Isreal's nuclear thinking to be of great interest:

======

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm

As Zionists in Palestine watched World War II from their distant sideshow, what lessons were learned? The soldiers of the Empire of Japan vowed on their emperor's sacred throne to fight to the death and not face the inevitability of an American victory. Many Jews wondered if the Arabs would try to push them into the Mediterranean Sea. After the devastating American nuclear attack on Japan, the soldier leaders of the empire reevaluated their fight to the death position. Did the bomb give the Japanese permission to surrender and live? It obviously played a military role, a political role, and a peacemaking role. How close was the mindset of the Samurai culture to the Islamic culture? Did David Ben-Gurion take note and wonder if the same would work for Israel?[2] Could Israel find the ultimate deterrent that would convince her opponents that they could never, ever succeed? Was Israel's ability to cause a modern holocaust the best way to guarantee never having another one?

=======

Also, study some of the Egypt's Nasser history and how Nasser swang to the Socialist side of things to fence out the Capitalists games there.

Isreal's existance war:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/isdf/text/gelber.html

View from the other side:

http://www.nfuu.org/Palestineto1948.htm

Forrestal's feelings and why he was choked and tossed out a window:

http://books.google.com/books?id=z0ZCxForm1cC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=Clark+Clifford+Arabs+push+Jews+into+Mediterranean&source=bl&ots=IVQi--n0i1&sig=zL-B1

======

So, factor into the equation, that after JFK gets killed, the Isreal area gets into the Six Day war and shoots up the USS Liberty over spying on the Israeli movements, and LBJ does nothing.

Israel also gets into another Arab war in Nixon's time and Nixon's sends them twice the weapons they needed to recover from that. There was no real reason for either of them to provide that much help but for what the Israeli's knew of the special deal in Texas that killed JFK, which could well hang both LBJ and Nixon, if it came out. Nixon's big fear was that someone at the DNC put together the Dallas equition with NAZI and Israel elements in Dallas working together to off JFK.

Thus, the JFK was not simply a USA domestic problem, but one that involved Foreign Espionage/Intelligence groups and especially the one that supported Israel historically, no matter what---PERMINDEX. PERMINDEX had well invaded the US after DeGaulle had almost all of Europe after them. LHO appeared to spend more time serving the PERMINDEX interests in Russia than any CIA mission.

Dallas was a very complicated zone, with lots of old NAZIs around (Dornberger), lots of their old White Russian spy network types hanging around (de Moherenshildt), and Ferenc Nagy in Dallas and Jean DeMenil in Houston (with PERMINDEX Espionage). In Dallas, to kill JFK the Criminally Corrupt element in the JFK adminstration (LBJ, Hoover) teamed up Organized Crime's crooks (Lansky, Ruby, New Orleans and Miami Mob) and both worked with the Foreign Espionage unit PERMINDEX. LHO found himself in the middle of that triad with no way out, to the point that Ruby had to kill LHO to keep the back up play from firing on the Jewish elements in PERMINDEX.

Both factions in PERMINDEX wanted the LHO diversion to work, but just in case the NAZI side wanted to have a next better play. It became essential for their cause.

Hello Jim, happy 2012 to you, too.

I find it interesting that the James Meredith + General Walker + JFK conflict happened exactly at the time as the Cuban Missile Crisis.

As if JFK didn't have enough trouble on his desk, General Walker chose to use the radio to call thousands of Militia minded youth to Oxford University in Mississippi to march against Federal Troops over the issue of one black student trying to enter an all-white University.

In a certain sense, this was a call to the Confederate South to rise against the Northern Yankees, again. Again, the issue was the equality of black Americans. If this is correct, then the riots at Ole Miss in September, 1962 represented the last gasp of the Civil War, as a ghost from the previous century.

Here was General Edwin Walker, who was the only US General to resign in the 20th century -- he resigned in protest of JFK's military policies. Just months before the Oxford Mississippi riots, Edwin Walker came in last in the race for Democratic nominee for the Governor of Texas. This means that Edwin Walker had plans to enter politics -- against JFK. Here at Ole Miss, Edwin Walker would make a highly visible national statement about the political differences between himself and JFK. If Edwin Walker has been luckier, he would have called forth thousands of disciplined fighters to overwhelm by sheer numbers the thousands of Federalized troops sent by JFK.

If Walker had been so lucky, then perhaps JFK would have blinked -- would have backed down -- would have agreed to go slower and take these matters to the State Courts for slower deliberation. If this had occurred, then Edwin Walker could have run for the Presidency of the USA in 1964. I speculate today that this is exactly what Edwin Walker had in mind. He left the Military to enter politics, and his ultimate goal in politics was the Presidency.

But who was his political model? Has there ever been a US President who was nominated largely because he kept an all-white University racially segregated? Yes, there was, namely, Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat who stridently kept Princeton University all-white in 1902. (Evidently, Edwin Walker believed that the USA still wanted this kind of President; that is why Walker ran on the Democratic ticket, although his politics were closer to the Republican party in 1962.)

Also, I believe that JFK and RFK made a terrific blunder by confining former General Edwin Walker to an insane asylum against his will. This was truly, as Thomas Szasz shouted, a political exploitation of psychiatry. If this sort of dirty pool was allowed to pass, then any party in power could imprison its political rivals by drafting partisan psychiatrists to his side. That is, if a Democrat could do this to his opponents, then what would stop a Republican from doing this to Democrats? Nothing. Even the ACLU shouted that this was an abuse of power.

The Kennedys could have taken former General Edwin Walker down if they had kept their cool -- but they didn't. They crossed the line of propriety and deprived General Walker of his Civil Rights. It simply did not matter that General Walker was trying to deprive James Meredith of his Civil Rights, because two wrongs don't make a right. Therefore, the Kennedys were obliged to release General Walker after only a few days, and to drop all charges! General Walker never paid any further debt to society for the role he played in the riots at Ole Miss.

Here is an anecdote in the psychiatric imprisonment of General Walker that speaks to this event. The date is October 1, 1962, when RFK convinced a Federal Judge to authorize that Edwin Walker undergo a psychiatric evaluation at the US Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri. When the press asked Dr. Robert Morris why he thought General Walker was mentally ill, he told the press, "General Walker believes that he is a political prisoner!"

Now, to those who were biased against General Walker, this might sound like plausible evidence that General Walker was paranoid. But for the objective observer, like Dr. Thomas Szasz and the lawyers at the ACLU, this was good evidence that General Walker was perfectly sane! This is because he actually was a political prisoner! He might have been an old-fashioned bigot, but there are not enough mental hospitals on earth to hold all the old-fashioned bigots. Being an old-fashioned bigot is so common that it must be regarded as one more example of normalcy. So, it was clear that the Kennedys had overstepped their boundaries and toyed with scientific tyranny. They played with fire and burned their fingers. They never spoke of it ever again.

On another topic - that of JFK and Israel. While it is true that JFK was not as an enthusiastic supporter of Israel as Truman or Eisenhower, nevertheless, JFK did uphold many policies in support of Israel. The elements in Israel that hated JFK were again the extreme right-wing of Zionists. Yet I repeat -- a PERMINDEX that included Jewish members was a tamed PERMINDEX, compared with its Third Reich incarnation.

In the same way, the extreme right-wing superstar, Larrie Schmidt, in his CUSA movement, made sure he included a few Jewish intellectuals in his ranks. In other words, after World War Two, these right-wing groups did not have the same contours that they held during the Nazi period. The same applies to PERMINDEX.

It was not so obvious that a marginal character like Jack Ruby would recognize this, however. The exposition of the Nazi Holocaust had only been exposed in 1945, less than 20 years before the assassination of JFK. Jack Ruby was, like most Jewish readers, still spinning about the images of the Nazi Holocaust. If he acted rashly in response to perceived Anti-Semitism, this was nothing unusual for his Jewish generation.

Yet even if there were Jews in the story -- Weissman and his "WANTED FOR TREASON" Ad, shots fired from Jaffee's building, Jack Ruby, Zapruder's memorial and Milteer's Big Jew story -- it was well known that the main enemy of the American right-wing was the Communist menace (and it was only the old-fashioned bigots who agreed with the Third Reich that Communism was Jewish).

I'm still not willing to regard the ground-crew as secondary and of minor interest -- as if any hit-men from any nation in the world would have been adequate to the job. This was not a Mafia-style assassination -- which typically uses hand-guns up close. This was a military-style assassination.

Also, I'm still not willing to imagine Nazi's and Israeli elements cooperating to do anything at all in this world. Where Germans and Jewish folks cooperate in any endeavor of any kind, I don't ever think of Nazi and Zionist -- I think of Americans and the American way.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo, MA

The husband would be guilty of conspiracy to murder his wife because he hired someone to do it.

True, he could be guilty of a conspiracy, but he would not be guilty of murder, because in this case, a different assassin killed her than the assassin that the husband hired. He might be deplorable, but legally the husband in this case is not guilty of murder.

In the same way, if we want to find those who are truly guilty of the murder of JFK (aside from LHO) we need to first identify the actual assassins; and not simply stop when we find somebody who threw money at any assassin who promised to get the job done.

There were probably 100 plots of JFK just as there were probably 100 plots against Castro. I speculate that all those plots made lots of money for the assassins who promised to get the job done. Only a tiny few of those assassins actually killed JFK. So only a few of those financiers are actually guilty of murder.

--Paul

I don't know how much a member of the Marxist intelligensia would be swayed by Smoot. I find this part interesting :'' They didn't care about it a bit - but their ideology of making all these global left-wing movements into the puppets of Corporate Giants turned out to be brilliant -- said Jean-Paul Sartre -- because they actually distrated a significant portion of the intelligensia away from the Marxist paradigm'' I take Sartre seriously so I think this quote from him (if it is, or even if it's a particular persons 'interpretation') needs to be looked at in full context. Obviously the monroe doctrine needs to be considered as well.

Anyway, if we choose we could cover lots here that really might not have so much to do with that which we do have in common, namely Walker as pivotal. In this context the clarification about the Bealle fictions. And they certainly served a pupose of providing a palatable world view to people in a part of the world being ripped apart by systemic contradictions. Further on that particular matter. I find that most people react to circumstances most with pressure on the hip pocket nerve. That was not being applied by Cuba. That was being applied by the enormous nation wide economic shifts threatened by centuries old structures that would have to change as the world focused on the equal rights situation of the USofA at a time when TV developed dramatically during the Kennedy administration. How could the USofA possibly excert any moral force in the world when the world was finding out about the mess in the USoAs own back yard? No wonder that Kennedy himself sought to diminish the Oxford days ( The Ghosts Of Mississippi ) of late sep earl;y oct '62, still obfuscated today..

John, to respond to your theoreticals from several weeks ago:

In 1963 the left-wing talked about Marx, Lenin, the industrial bourgeoisie, the industrial proletariat and the Workers of the World.

In 1963, the right-wing talked about the evils of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve Bank. They got these ideas from Dan Smoot and his 1962 book, The Invisible Government.

The ideas of Smoot were central to the John Birch Society. Basically, they said that the great Communist powers were really in New York City, because they were the same as the great Capitalist powers, namely, the International Bankers.

Notice that this was only a variation on a basic idea of the Nazi Party -- that Communism and Capitalism were both the products of the Jewish International Bankers.

After World War Two, it was clear that the Nazi paranoia was mistaken, because most International Bankers, and the richest ones, were Gentile, not Jewish.

Still, the basic contours of the Nazi ideology was continued by the American extreme right-wing; International Bankers were the great evil, and Global Capitalism along with Communism were its tools for world domination.

In many ways, this mythology was invented to distract ordinary people from talking about working conditions and the formation of a Labor Party. It was very successful, actually.

This is what Jean-Paul Sartre decried when he lamented that the discussion of Marxism had been overlooked in favor of a discussion of these right-wing ideas. Sartre tried unsuccessfully to revive a discussion of Marxism in 1960 with his pathetic, Critique of Dialectical Reason.

So, there is a fuller context of my reference to Sartre in this regard.

As for my remark about the left-wing, it appears that after the Fall of the USSR in 1990 and granting of most-favored-nation trading status to so-called "Red China", the concepts of Marxism have less of an impact today than at any time in the past 160 years.

To fill the void, the left-wing intelligensia now likes to talk about the evils of the CFR, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve Bank! The irony is rich, actually. The John Birch Society is now a favorite source of ideology for the American left-wing intelligensia.

Anyway, I'm glad you and I can still agree on the idea that General Edwin Walker is pivotal in the research for a solution to the assassination of JFK.

Also, yes, the Economic impact of the Castro revolution did not reach the average American. It was mainly the Mafia and other Casino owners in Cuba who felt the impact (along with American dealers in sugar, rum and cigars).

It is also fascinating that on the very day that the Cuban Missle Crisis began, the conflict of James Meredith, a black Air Force pilot applying to Oxford University in Mississippi, also became front-page news.

This was in September of 1962, when the Civil Rights movement was just gaining steam.

During World War Two, the US miiltary was not very integrated racially -- but in order to wage war against Nazi Germany, we had to pretend to the world that we were fully integrated. So Hollywood began making flims showing blacks and whites serving in the same platoons, arm in arm, with comradery. This was more rare than Hollywood would lead us to believe.

The propaganda was successful not only overseas, but also here in the USA. Then TV perpetuated the propaganda. Americans really came to believe that we were integrated. That was probably a significant part of the rise of the Civil Rights movement -- that and the G.I. Bill.

JFK supported this movement, but he and RFK made a big blunder by using psychiatry to silence General Edwin Walker after the riots at Ole Miss. They had to drop all charges like a hot potato, and they never liked to talk about it afterwards.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

...The WORST AND FAR AND AWAY MOST IMPORTANT [iN TERMS OF ITS EFFECT ON THE WHOLE FLOW OF COMMUNICATIONS ] disinformation about JFK and the CIA is aimed at the left but for RIGHTWARD reasons.

Recently this point was highlighted for me once again while listening to an episode of Black Op Radio. There was a young man on who was making what sounds like an incredible doc on the Bay of Pigs.

He emphasized the degree to which 99% of JFK documentaries are EITHER/OR...Either they are about the assassination, OR they are about JFK's policies.

...

It is THE LEFT who is the dangerous audience from the point of view of the CIA...

...

You will notice how, especially since 1980 the so called "left" (i.e. read allowed-to-be-published) is almost exclusively focused on social history to the virtual exclusion of political history. You need both folks.

It is the CONNECTION of policy with the reality of the assassination that makes the JFK assassination so dangerous for the National Security State that -- for all intents and purposes -- IS the US government right now.

And the threat comes POTENTIALLY from a leftward direction. THAT is why the best and most important lies NEED to be aimed at left audiences...

Interesting perspective, Nathaniel; I agree that the JFK assassination cover-up was a right-wing vs. left-wing political situation. However, I draw different conclusions from this observation.

My theory agrees to this point: the JFK assassination was the result of a right-wing plot, and the Warren Commission moved heaven and earth to attempt to take the heat off of the right-wing for this slaying. The players are not very difficult to identify - they were the Dallas right-wing of 1963, as Dallas was the de facto headquarters of the USA right-wing.

Now, the actions of the Warren Commission certainly gave a boost to the USA right-wing (as right-wing membership increased immediately after the JFK assassination). However, I tend to doubt whether the only motive for the Warren Commission cover-up was simply to increase right-wing power.

Clearly, J. Edgar Hoover only trusted the right-wing, but he also knew the right-wing has its kooks, and he was wary of them. For example, right-wing kooks tried to pressure the FBI and the Warren Commission to accept their conclusion that the Communists were behind this plot.

If Hoover had accepted their conclusion, he'd have no choice but to go to LBJ and recommend nuclear war against the USSR, starting with Cuba. But Hoover didn't accept that conclusion. He didn't blame the right-wing, but he didn't blame the Communists, either. Yes, said Hoover, Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist, but he was also a deranged Loner. He acted on his own.

The myth of the Lone Gunman was finally rejected by the US Government in 1979 with the conclusions of the HSCA (House Select Committee on Assassinations). However, one can make the case that Hoover's invention of a Lone Gunman prevented World War Three.

Hoover's other choice -- pressing for the conspirators among the Dallas right-wing of 1963, would have had equally dangerous consequences, i.e. a Civil War in the USA between right-wing and left-wing, which would weaken the USA, which would tempt the USSR to invade; again sparking World War Three.

So, one can argue that Hoover did the right thing by focusing all blame onto Lee Harvey Oswald. (And if this is correct, then Marguerite Oswald justly said that Oswald's sacrifice was second-to-none for the USA.)

But how could Hoover have so confidently held that Oswald had no accomplices? If there were unknown accomplices, Hoover would have been risking further disasters.

The only possible answer is that that Hoover was confident because he already knew who the accomplices were! Hoover knew who they were, and he did not fear that they would make further trouble, since he knew that with the death of JFK they were fully satisfied.

That description of the accomplices best matches the description of the right-wing in Dallas in 1963.

Politics also move very slowly. Earl Warren knew this, and he said that the secret files on Lee Harvey Oswald would not be released to the American public until 75 years after. This would be a cooling off period between the left-wing and the right-wing.

I don't call the killing of JFK a coup d'etat because that suggests a change of Constitution. What actually happened was that the Constitution was allowed to persist more or less un-affected, that is, LBJ became President as expected, and he ran for office that year, as usual.

The conspirators of the JFK assassination did not jump up and claim responsibility and seize power, as in an ordinary coup d'etat. Rather, they hid in the shadows for the rest of their lives, and let life go on as normal, under the strange circumstances.

Did the right-wing show any remorse over what they had done? No, since they still tend to insist on the Lone Gunman theory, even though the US Government itself is beyond all that.

Rather, my question is why it has taken nearly a half-century for researchers to fully explore all the nuances of the Dallas right-wing in 1963.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

I recently emailed Roger Stone, Nixon confidant and longtime and notorious GOP operative, my essay 'LBJ-CIA Assassination of JFK." Or rather, I tweeted it to him.

...

Here is Roger Stone's "tweet" back to me on January 9, 2012:

"LBJ had it done. Mob, CIA, Hoover, all in on it. RFK knew. So did Nixon."

This comes from a man who was very, very, very close to Richard Nixon...

This claim from Roger Stone, no matter how close he was to President Nixon, is still not proof.

It reminds me of the claim by E. Howard Hunt, long time CIA operative and Watergate burglar. He was also very close to Nixon, and he also claimed, in a deathbed confession, that LBJ was the leader of the plot to kill JFK.

But being close to Nixon - no matter how close - cannot in itself be a guarantee that: (1) this person was telling the truth; or (2) this person was privy to all the facts in the case.

Perhaps, from their limited historical viewpoint, it appeared to them that LBJ was the leader of the plot to kill JFK. Even if they believed what they themselves said (which is itself unproven) we have no proof that they had all the facts.

In the case of E. Howard Hunt, for example, his job as a CIA operative was to obey the orders of the President of the USA. In order for a man like that to participate in a plot to kill that very same President, that man must -- absolutely must -- immediately replace in his mind another President to whom he will be loyal. According to the US Constitution, that person would be the Vice President. So, it remains possible that Howard Hunt, in his limited viewpoint, justified his role (whatever it may have been) in the assassination of JFK by imagining that LBJ was the leader of the plot, insofar as LBJ was the topmost member of the US Government immediately after President John F. Kennedy.

In other words, Howard Hunt may have simply been justifying his own role, and resting his case on the shoulders of LBJ.

I say this because LBJ (even by the testimony of Ed Clark) had no knowledge of any details of such a plot, so LBJ could not have orchestrated any such plot. Besides this, LBJ, as Vice President, did not have great powers. Those who supported him had far greater powers.

Those who supported LBJ and who hated JFK had a tremendous motive to support a plot to kill JFK, if they heard about it or had an opportunity. But LBJ would at most only be a passive witness to all these deals involving all these millions of dollars of payoffs and so on.

If others were involved that LBJ knew about, then perhaps LBJ was an accomplice, but perhaps he was only an accomplice after the fact.

J. Edgar Hoover was closer to the events than LBJ was. J. Edgar Hoover mocked up the Lone Assassin theory that guided the Warren Commission. Not LBJ, but J. Edgar Hoover did that. Hoover was well aware of plots to kill JFK in 1963, from Carlos Marcello and others, too.

But Hoover did not participate in any planning to kill JFK (to the best of my knowledge), rather, Hoover knew that he only had to turn away for a short while for all potential assassins to rush into the scene. By failing to act on Marcello's threat, for example, Hoover became a passive accomplice to the killing of JFK. (This scenario is well-described by Gerald McKnight in his 2005 book, BREACH OF TRUST.)

Many people were aware that something was going on. Many people in Dallas who were far removed from these powerful people still joked among themselves by water coolers that morning, "I wonder where the shooting will start!" It was in the air.

I've read the books by Zirbel, McClellon and Nelson, and even with their combined thousand pages plus they don't convince me that LBJ was the leader of the plot to kill JFK.

Also, Roger Stone didn't mention the right-wing in Dallas? He didn't mention H.L. Hunt? And he said RFK knew? RFK? What did he know and when did he know it? It is common knowledge that RFK suspected LBJ at first, and even confronted him, but he had nothing to make it stick. LBJ calmly told RFK that he was in error, and that was the end of it.

So, Roger Stone reminds me of E. Howard Hunt. From their positions close to Nixon, they had rumors - no matter how lofty.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Paul, I attached a high degree of credibility to Madeleine Duncan Brown who Lyndon Johnson told on 12/31/63 that it was the Texas oil men she knew in Dallas and the CIA who killed JFK.

Johnson's closest and most powerful oil men who had hierarchy would be H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison, Sr. I think it is almost certain that one or both were involved as key organizers of the JFK assassination. These are oil men who Ed Clark (LBJ's key political player in Texas) would have close contact with. Barr McClellan has confirmed that the inner circle of LBJ's law firm believed that he had orchestrated the JFK assassination. In addition, Billie Sol Estes, who plotted murders with LBJ, had a conversation with Cliff Carter and they discussed LBJ's role in the JFK assassination.

That is one key reason why I think Lyndon Johnson and his Texas oil men were at the heart of the JFK assassination. Currently, I do not have Edwin Walker "in" the JFK assassination, but his profile is a natural for it.

Secondly, I just don't think Oswald would be taking pot shots at 2 political enemies: Walker on the far right (Oswald most likely US intelligence) and Kennedy who was considered a traitorous liberal in Dallas.

Also, most JFK researchers don't know that Clint Murchison, Sr. and John J. McCloy were close personal friends. Or that LBJ and Nelson Rockefeller were close personal friends and that LBJ had in fact supported Rockefeller for president behind the scenes in spring, 1968.

Madeleine Duncan Brown was the most beloved mistress of Lyndon Johnson for 21 years from 1948 until 1969. Madeleine is one of the truth tellers and keys to understanding the ugly reality of the JFK assassination. She had a son Steven Mark with Lyndon in 1950. Madeleine lived from 1925 to 2002 and was madly in love with Lyndon Johnson when she wrote the book Texas in the Morning 24 years after the death of LBJ. She makes some BLOCKBUSTER revelations in this book, such as:

In the night of 12/31/63 or the morning of January 1, 1964, just 6 weeks after the JFK assassination, Madeleine asked Lyndon Johnson:

"Lyndon, you know that a lot of people believe you had something to do with President Kennedy's assassination."

He shot up out of bed and began pacing and waving his arms screaming like a madman. I was scared!

"That's bull___, Madeleine Brown!" he yelled. "Don't tell me you believe that ____!"

"Of course not." I answered meekly, trying to cool his temper.

"It was Texas oil and those %$%& renegade intelligence bastards in Washington." [said Lyndon Johnson, the new president; Texas in the Morning, p. 189] [LBJ told this to Madeleine on 1/1/64 in the locally famous Driskill Hotel, Austin, TX in room #254. They spent New Year's Eve `64 together here (12/31/63). Room #254 was the room that LBJ used to have rendezvous’ with his girlfriends - today it is known as the LBJ Room, and rents for $600-1,000/night as a Presidential suite at the Driskill; located on the Mezzanine Level.]

Do I think that OTHER members of the Texas Suite 8F community were involved in the JFK assassination. Probably ... or at the very least they knew what was about to happen (or found out after the fact.)

Robert, thanks for keeping the door open to my arguments. Here's how I respond to your objections:

1. Granting that Madeleine Brown is telling the truth, how far does her statement go? All that happened was that LBJ, who was emotional and angry, told her this phrase: "It was Texas oil and those %$%& renegade intelligence bastards in Washington."

2. Let's say that Madeleine Brown told the truth - but what makes us think LBJ was telling the truth? He was angry. When people are angry they say many things.

3. I mention this because of the well-known story about what LBJ told the famous reporter, Howard K. Smith in October, 1968. Smith was trying to get a scoop from LBJ about JFK, but LBJ said he had nothing to say. But before Smith left LBJ said, "I'll tell you something about Kennedy's murder that will rock you...Kennedy was trying to get Castro, but Castro got him first." Not one word about the Texas oil barons.

4. What involves HL Hunt and Clint Murchison, in my opinion, is not that they were rich oil barons, but that their political views were extremely right-wing (taken largely from Joe McCarthy, to the effect that communists had infiltrated the highest offices of the US Government).

5. H.L. Hunt made money with these views -- his radio show, LIFELINE -- was the Rush Limbaugh show of his time.

6. Two Dallas men who agreed with H.L. Hunt in these extreme views were former Major General Edwin A. Walker and racial segregationist preacher, Billy James Hargis. These two would tour the USA together, preaching the Gospel of Joe McCarthy to sell-out crowds.

7. When General Walker resigned from the Army in 1961 (not retire, but resign; Walker was the only US General to resign in the 20th century) he gave up his pension. Yet he had no other income. He immediately went to work for himself, in office space donated by the American National Oil Company in Dallas. Walker spent weeks writing speeches.

8. Who can doubt that H.L. Hunt was behind his resignation, offering to protect Walker with a golden parachute?

9. Walker resigned because JFK publicly 'admonished him' for trying to influence the troops' politics with John Birch Society materials, and other materials sent to him by Billy James Hargis.

10. H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison were also major supporters of the Billy James Hargis radio show.

11. H.L. Hunt was a friend and supporter of General Walker when he quit the military and needed work. Hunt probably got Walker started with his own speaking tours (which were very successful) and his own publishing company, American Eagle.

12. These Dallas right-wing extremists were also dedicated racial segregationists. When James Meredith, a black Air Force Veteran, insisted on enrolling in Oxford University in Mississippi, and the Supreme Court insisted on making this happen, and JFK committed thousands of Federal troops to make this happen, the segregationists rallied behind former General Edwin A. Walker.

13. In September, 1962, Walker got on national radio and called for thousands of para-military marchers to meet him in Jackson Mississippi to protest JFK's decision. Who can doubt that Hunt, Murchison and Hargis were cheering him on?

14. When the Oxford protest turned into a riot with scores wounded and two dead, RFK chose to arrest General Walker for sedition and contempt of court. Walker quickly came up with the bail, but that wasn't good enough for RFK.

15. RFK then made what may have been the biggest blunder of his careeer -- he exploited the power of his office and the science of psychiatry to hold General Walker in a psychiatric hospital against his will "for his own safety". Dr. Thomas Szasz erupted in protest against this political use of psychiatry, and the ACLU (which Walker detested) rushed to defend Walker against this bizarre novum of scientific tyranny.

16. RFK had to quickly back down. Katzenbach offered to free Walker in exchange for silence. Walker shot back, "That's blackmail! Go to hell!" The Government dropped the charges and Walker returned to Dallas and a hero's welcome in October, 1962.

17. Promptly, Walker and Hargis implemented a new USA tour to preach about the new Communists in the White House who plan to use psychiatry to brainwash people and make them Communists! They called their tour, the Midnight Ride, calling the warning to Americans about the Reds inside the US Government.

18. The night that Walker returned from his long tour was April 10, 1963. That night around 9pm, somebody shot a high-powered rifle from his backyard fence into his living room, missing him by an inch. This shot changed his life.

19. Instead of the USA trotting super-speaker, Walker dropped out of sight.

20. Why do Barr McClellan (2003) and Philip Nelson (2011) insist that LBJ was the origin of the plot against JFK? They rely on the notion that Ed Clark planned and managed this plot for LBJ. But that is the weakest part of their theory.

21. Because Ed Clark is also credited with keeping LBJ ignorant of all the details - so that LBJ would not have any information about what was happening. This is a clever way of explaining why LBJ actually knew no details at all, while still blaming him for allegedly "master-minding" the JFK assassination.

22. Even though the inner circle of LBJ's law firm believed that Ed Clark orchestrated the JFK assassination, that proves exactly nothing at all. It is merely innuendo.

23. Even though Billie Sol Estes and Cliff Carter would go drinking together and talk about LBJ's alleged role in the JFK assassination, that also proves exactly nothing. Mere hear-say.

24. If those are the only reasons that we have for blaming LBJ, we must admit that this case is even weaker than the one Garrison brought against Clay Shaw.

25. General Walker had a clear, personal motivation for revenge against the Kennedys. To the end of his life he told people that RFK was behind the April 10th incident when somebody shot at him at 9pm in his own home. (He said some stranger things than that, but this was the staple charge.)

26. It was not so much the Texas OIL men that were at the root of the JFK plot, IMHO, but the Texas RIGHT-WING. Naturally, some big oil barons were ALSO extreme right-wingers, but that only meant that the extreme right-wing could afford to do anything they wanted. It's the POLITICS that count.

27. Edwin Walker's profile is front and center for the JFK plot.

28. Add to this Walker's leadership role in the Texas Minutemen, and the fact that many Dallas Police Department employees were members of (or sympathetic to) the Texas Minutemen and the John Birch Society...and any role that any members of the Dallas Police Department may have played in this very elaborate plot would have a strong center to rally around.

29. Add to this Walker's role in the abuse of Adlai Stevenson on "UN Day" (24Oct63). Walker was directly involved, because when Adlai announced his speech for 24Oct63, Walker quickly rented a venue for 23Oct63 down the street, and called it, "US Day". Walker despised and detested the United Nations. Walker whipped up the crowd to disrupt Adlai in every way possible.

30. On the day of Adlai's speech, the KENNEDY WANTED FOR TREASON advertisements circulated in downtown Dallas -- one month before they would circulate in Dallas when JFK visited. Walker (along with Larrie Schmidt and crew) was behind this, too.

31. As for LHO taking shots at anybody -- he does not strike me as an emotionally solid person -- he was easily persuaded to do radical things by older, right-wing men like George DeMohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt -- like David Ferrie and Guy Banister.

32. As for Oswald shooting Kennedy -- remember the German newspaper Deutsche NationalZeitung objected, "why would a communist shoot a communist?" That didn't stop Walker from telling his story.

33. If Oswald was persuaded to shoot at Walker (the next Hitler), and if he was captured in this crime by the paramilitary and underground Minutemen (represented by Guy Banister and Edwin Walker), then he could also be persuaded to at least hand his rifle over to somebody near the Texas School Book Depository.

34. I also doubt strongly that Oswald took any shots at JFK. But I don't doubt that Oswald was up to his neck in mud from the company that he kept (and we have footage).

35. I have no doubts that extremely wealthy US citizens would have close friendships with extremely powerful US Government figures. No matter how nefarious this might actually be, it is still no proof at all of murder.

36. Madeleine Brown truthfully told what she heard, but what she heard was rumor.

37. We need more detail - especially at the ground level. We should trace the Dallas Police activities more closely. We should trace the Minutemen in Dallas more closely.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo, MA

<edit typos>

I speculate that easily one hundred assassins were paid to try to kill Castro, and easily one hundred assassins were paid to try to kill JFK at some location or another. Now, were are all these financiers of all these assassins guilty of killing Kennedy? By no means

So what you're saying is for those men who are having to go through a bad divorce its okay to higher a killer to kill their wife and only be the financiers of the assassin and that doesn't make you involved? Okay then! that's cheaper then keeping her.

I think it's inadequate to claim that because a wealthy person really hated Kennedy and associated with other wealthy people who hated Kennedy

Ummm Wrong again, Pawley who was apart of Operation 40 certainly mingled with less fortunate people, people who had no money, and yet hated Kennedy, take Sturgis and my father as example, as well as many of the Cubans at the time struggling to survive, although, my father liked Kennedy, Sturgis and many others hated Kennedy, however, both men mingled with the rich and both men were poor, so I don't get your way of thinking, another words if you were to say money talks I'd agree, Pawley financed several projects into Cuba. So what makes you think he couldn't finance Kennedy's assassination too?

Scott

First, Scott, I'm not saying that the financiers were innocent, I'm saying that of the thousands of financiers who paid boasters and frauds to kill Kennedy, only those financiers who actually paid the actual killers, the tiny few, were actually guilty of a conspiracy.

In other words, if husband pays assassin Y to kill his wife, but separately and unknown to the husband, her butler pays assassin Z to kill her, and assassin Z actually kills her, then the butler is guilty of conspiracy and the husband is innocent. Conversely, if assassin Y kills her, then the butler is innocent of conspiracy, but the husband is guilty.

Same way with the JFK assassination. Even if you had video tape that shows rich-man AA giving a million bucks to hit-man BB to kill JFK, that would mean nothing unless you could also prove that hit-man BB was the hit-man who actually killed JFK.

This is relevant because Assassination Science can name dozens, scores, perhaps a hundred or more possible shooters of JFK. There were so many plots in the Mafia, among rogue CIA elements, the Jimmy Hoffa guys, the Cuban Exiles, the Russian Exiles, the German ex-Nazis, and what not, that we must first of all reach a consensus which of these many plots was the one that actually succeeded.

Then and only then can we identify which financiers were the guilty ones. Yes - they were all deplorable. But only a few were actually guilty.

Yes, money talks. But not all money screams and swears. And not all money hits the mark. We must be more particular.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Pawley was also a member of the Suite 8F group based in Texas. I GUARANTEE YOU some of the key players in that group killed JFK. Period - end of story.

Suite 8F group: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2868

Pawley grew up in Cuba and no doubt lost a lot of family money when Castro nationalized billions of assets. So he was invested beyond belief in anti-Castro activies. And if those "traitor Kennedys" were not going to get rid of Castro ... then (the thinking goes) someone needed to put a bullet in the Kennedys. That is exactly how many folks in the CIA and anti-Castro Cuban community thought.

Pawley certainly is a "person of interest" (i.e. suspect) in the JFK assassination.

I think it's inadequate to claim that because a wealthy person really hated Kennedy and associated with other wealthy people who hated Kennedy, that we have identified the killers of JFK. Far more proof is needed. These blanket statements are too general.

Theoretically, of course, it makes sense that they would hope to kill Kennedy, and since they were wealthy it also makes sense that they would throw money at anybody who promised they would try to kill Kennedy. Many such money-throwers have been named over the past half-century, including Howard Hughes, Sam Giancana, Carlos Marcello, Santos Trafficante, Jimmy Hoffa, H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison, Joseph Milteer and countless others. The fact that they threw money at countless mercenaries to kill Castro or to kill Kennedy might make them deplorable, but it doesn't prove they were the killers.

I speculate that easily one hundred assassins were paid to try to kill Castro, and easily one hundred assassins were paid to try to kill JFK at some location or another.

Now, were are all these financiers of all these assassins guilty of killing Kennedy? By no means. Only the few who actually succeeded in killing Kennedy would be guilty of the crime.

We can't blame people generally just because they hated Kennedy with a purple passion, and possessed more than enough money to get the job done. The actual assassination wasn't as easy as it may appear.

Just as only a few assassins were actually guilty of killing Kennedy (though a hundred tried to some degree), in the same way, only those few financiers who funded the actual killers are guilty of the conspiracy.

I propose that in order to identify who the truly guilty financiers were, we must first and foremost identify at least the contours of the ground-crew who actually held the rifles and pulled the triggers.

That demand, unfortunately, is too often treated as a 'minor detail' that will fall out as a result of identifying the financiers. I suggest the opposite. There were too many financiers to identify them with certainty. They resided in perhaps every single State of the USA. There were far too many. Focus on the ground-crew.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, I sent a PM to you on the 28th. Click on your name in the top right corner of your browser window and click on messenger. I am not posting

the info in the PM publicly, because I can think of no way to maintain the privacy of irrelevant persons named and described very personally in the pages I am providing you a link to.

Tom, many thanks for explaining how these links work, but especially for what you sent me -- a letter from Gary Schoener to Harold Weisberg from 30Apr93. (Since the letter has irrelvant personal and family references, I honor your request to post only the relevant parts for this thread.)

But part of this personal letter is very relevant to this thread, so I will post that part publicly:

--------------- BEGIN GARY SCHOENER LETTER 1993 -----------------

From: Gary Schoener

To: Harold Weisberg

Date: 30 April 1993

<snip>

The major prompting for this letter was two things. It has been a long time and I was thinking of you and [your family], as I always do, when I look at anything which reminds me of the old days.

The second reason was that I got a call from a guy working for Frontline who asked about the John Martin film which surfaced when you did the WLOL radio appearances out her so many years ago. Apparently, on closer examination of the entire film, something I never did because it was supposedly "family" footage, it appears that John Martin shot footage in General Walker's living room after the "Oswald" shooting, when the hole was in the wall!

I recall that Martin told us that he lad left [that] right-wing work when Walker's far right-wing stance turned him into a pacifist who was discharged because he wouldn't pick up a weapon. This would obviously not square with a visit to Walker in Dallas in 1963! Jim Marr's book lists it as a strange coincidence.

I'm still looking around for my copy of the film to screen it and see what they are talking about. If this is accurate I would have trouble explaining: 1. why Martin told us what he did; 2. why Martin would have given us the film. Unfortunately, there are many John Martin's in the phone book here and I have not had the time to try to locate him. I feel old just saying this -- but it was 25 years ago! Can so much time have passed?

<snip>

Gary

--------------- END GARY SCHOENER LETTER 1993 -----------------

This is truly an amazing find, Tom. I really appreciate your sharing this. Here we have, nearly 20 years ago, a discussion between Schoener and Weisberg that just about perfectly matches the thread we are forming on the Education Forum today!

The same bullet points are there! Why did this alleged pacifist in 1961 go to visit Walker in Dallas in 1963 to film the bullet holes in his house? If he wasn't a pacifist in 1961, but said that he was, then was he truly a pacifist in 1968 when he spoke to Schoener? And in any case, exactly why did John T. Martin give Weisberg and Schoener the film at all? What was he expecting them to find?

It is amazing that our questions today are the same as the Schoener-Weisberg questions of 1993. It's as though these facts about the Jack Martin Film stick out like a sore thumb after a half century!

Allow me to summarize the big picture, please.

1. Frank Ellis, an agent for AFT (Alcohol-Firearms-Tobacco) told the Warren Commission that he believed the JFK assassination was a plot by General Walker and the John Birch Society.

2. Jack Ruby told Earl Warren himself that the JFK assassination was a plot by General Walker and the John Birch Society.

3. We have on our Forum the well-known Harry Dean, whose memoirs say that he witnessed General Walker and the John Birch Society plan to make Lee Harvey Oswald a patsy in a plot to assassinate JFK.

4. We have Attorney Liebeler, interviewing General Walker for the Warren Commission, asking why a German newspaperman, Helmut Muench, would say that General Walker told him before 7am on 11/23/1963 (less than 20 hours after the JFK assassination) that Lee Harvey Oswald was not only JFK's killer, but also his own shooter from 4/10/1963.

5. We have Dick Russell's effort in, The Man Who Knew Too Much, to interview General Walker personally -- twice -- to ask him these same questions and similar questions.

Now, with this as background, we have the mystery of the Jack Martin Film. It is like a Rosetta Stone, because it contains footage of the bullet holes in General Walker's house, and Lee Harvey Oswald being arrested for FPCC-related violence with CIA connected Cuban Exiles, and filmed by a CIA connected production company.

On top of this, Jack Martin seems to be lying to Weisberg and Schoener about his role in taking the film (he was a pacifist), and the FBI apparently lying about his age (saying he was 17 in 1963, when he himself said he served under General Walker in Germany, yet Walker quit the Army in 1961).

It is an intriguing little riddle. I like it.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo, MA

<edit typos>

The guy who pushed the on button on the camera?

Well, of course John; what I meant was, WHO WAS JACK T. MARTIN, REALLY?

If he wasn't a 17-year old in August of 1963 as the FBI records claim, then why would the FBI get this wrong?

More to the point - why did John T. Martin volunteer to share the film with Weisberg and Schoener?

Was he a CIA plant? Was he a rightist operative? Did he really become a pacifist as he told Schoener?

He was clearly a rightist extremist in 1963, and probably before that, because in my definition anybody who is a member of both the Minutemen and the John Birch Society is a rightist extremist.

But in 1968, when he volunteered to share his film with Weisberg and Schoener, WHAT DID HE HOPE THEY WOULD FIND?

Weisberg and Schoener studied the film for faces of those in the crowd near Lee Harvey Oswald, to detect possible accomplices. They did not ask John T. Martin (very much) about General Walker. (Did he volunteer information that they didn't hear because Walker wasn't on their radar?)

What's a little confusing is that John Martin told Gary Schoener that he became a pacifist during the time he served under General Walker in Germany, and struggled to keep his honorable discharge. That would have been in 1960-1961. Walker thought of pacifists as Communist sympathizers. He would have been livid.

But then, why would John T. Martin in 1963 go visit General Walker's house to take photographs of the bullet holes, and then a little later go to New Orleans to film Oswald in the act of being a 'communist?'

It is more likely that John T. Martin was only thinking about pacifism in 1960-1961, but still kept his external loyalties to General Walker. This would explain why he cooperated with General Walker in sheep-dipping Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963.

Then, by 1968, when John T. Martin met with Weisberg and Schoener, he completed his commitment to pacifism, turned away from Walker and the John Birch Society, and sought political activities among the comparatively more conservative players like Weisberg and Schoener.

This is speculation, obviously, but it more easily explains the existence of a film that shows both the shot-up house of General Walker in the first few minutes of the reel, and then the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald in NOLA in the final minutes of the reel.

Martin Shackelford says that it looks like a home movie. I'm sure that it does. I believe that was Walker's intention. After the assassination of JFK, several people contacted the FBI with information 'proving' that Oswald was a communist (thus justifying an immediate invasion of Cuba). John T. Martin was among those people, I'd speculate.

Five years later, he'd long changed his mind and gone straight.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Tom, I repeat my gratitude to everybody on this thread. I now know with certainty that the Jack Martin Film was not the product of Jack S. Martin Sr. who worked for Guy Banister.

However, we still have a problem identifying this John T. Martin with the one described by Shackelford and Schoener.

Today Gary Schoener sent me an email that objects to my idea that John T. Martin was a volunteer for General Edwin Walker. His email reads in part:

> ...[John T.] Martin told us (i.e. Harold Weisberg and me) that he had

> become a pacifist while serving under Walker in Germany, and that he

> had left the service, barely able to get an honorable discharge.

> He claimed to be done with the Birch Society and minutemen.

>

> Gary

This presents a major problem of identification. Here again we have the claim that we heard from Martin Shackelford, that John T. Martin served under General Walker in Germany. But that is impossible if John T. Martin was 17 in August of 1963, because General Walker quit the Army in late November of 1961.

...

I wonder whether John Martin explained how, socially, he came to visit Walker's home to take these pictures in the summer of 1963?.

All I can say with certainty today is this -- it is impossible that he served under Walker in Germany during 1961 and was still 17 in 1963.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo, MA

So, I raised these points with Gary Schoener, and he replied last night as follows:

------------------------------------------------------ FROM GARY SCHOENER ---------------------

From: Gary Schoener

Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:57 PM

To: Paul Trejo

Subject: Re: Seeking the 1968 companion of Harold Weisberg...

Well, the address is correct, but as you note, something is wrong here.

My experience with the FBI is that they sometimes mix people up or falsify. I have several people it took years to track down due to mistakes in names or addresses.

All in all, with the information you have, 'something's rotten in Denmark" (or at least St. Paul, MN)

It may be that there is more information in the Weisberg archive or in my records, but I am sure about his claim to have served under Walker in Germany and the pacifist thing.

The Walker segment of the film was not, if I am recalling correctly, taken at the same time as the rest. But, it occurs earlier in the film so that would mean that it predated the Bringuier incident.

There is always the chance that the guy was contacting us as (1) CIA asset, or (2) a collaborator with the right wing.

But again, the question is, why give us the film? it's not clear enough to identify (at least, nobody Harold or I showed it to recognized him) the guy we think was LHO's handler on the street. it would make sense if they were trying to plant information framing someone,but if so, it didn't happen.

Years later, of course, I was to help set in motion the expose of Bill Boxley and all of the disinformation in NO. So, I am aware of how much of that was around.

Also, the Walker connection was barely mentioned and very honestly I know that we didn't ask much about it -- again, not clear what the motive would have been -- why not just edit that out of the film.

Gary

PS: typical of the "case," the more you look the more complicated it gets

-------------------------------------- END OF EMAIL FROM GARY SCHOENER --------------------

Now, this is what I call fun. The intrigue just builds and builds. Thanks to everybody on this thread for an exciting ride.

WHO WAS THE JACK MARTIN BEHIND THE JACK MARTIN FILM?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo, MA

No, I think it is far from a waste of time, the results you present are interesting and add to the overall knowledgbase. If I needed clarification, maybe others do....

Tom, I repeat my gratitude to everybody on this thread. I now know with certainty that the Jack Martin Film was not the product of Jack S. Martin Sr. who worked for Guy Banister.

However, we still have a problem identifying this John T. Martin with the one described the Shackelford and Schoener.

Today Gary Schoener sent me an email that objects to my idea that John T. Martin was a volunteer for General Edwin Walker. His email reads in part:

> ...[John T.] Martin told us (i.e. Harold Weisberg and me) that he had

> become a pacifist while serving under Walker in Germany, and that he

> had left the service, barely able to get an honorable discharge.

> He claimed to be done with the Birch Society and minutemen.

>

> Gary

This presents a major problem of identification. Here again we have the claim that we heard from Martin Shackelford, that John T. Martin served under General Walker in Germany. But that is impossible if John T. Martin was 17 in August of 1963, because General Walker quit the Army in late November of 1961.

Anybody can do this math. John T. Martin would have had to be 15 years old to serve under Walker in 1961; and he needed two yeras to get an honorable discharge from the Army, so he would have had to enlist at age 13. This is clearly ridiculous.

Can we be talking about the same person? Can we be certain we are talking about the same Jack Martin Film?

The only age that makes sense of the claims of Martin Shackelford (that John Martin served under General Walker) as well as the claims of John T. Martin himself (that he served under Walker in Germany when he became a pacifist) is an age 4-6 years older -- the estimate that Gary Schoener first gave us about the age of John T. Martin.

Schoener said he was 24 in 1968 when he and Harold Weisberg met John T. Martin, and he had the impression that John Martin was older. He estimated about 4-6 years older than himself. Let us say four years older - so John T. Martin would have been 28 in 1968; so he was 21 in 1961 when Walker quit the Army; so he was 19 when he joined the Army. This means he was also 23 in the summer of 1963, when he flew to General Walker's house to film the bullet holes there, and then to NOLA to film Oswald getting arrested.

The FBI records (and the Minuteman records) clearly state that John T. Martin was 17 years old in 1963. Still, it is unlikely that we are speaking about two different men, because the FBI gives the address of that man: FBI documentation shows Minutemen records from August, 1963, with the full identification as:

Name: John T. Martin

Address: 1752 Iglehart, Apt. 4, St. Paul, Minnesota

Age: 17

FBI documents also advise Harold Weisberg that if he wants a copy of the Jack Martin Film, he must contact John T. Martin, personally, because the FBI no longer has a copy. They gave the address as 1752 Iglehart, Apt. 4, St. Paul, MN.

This is the same name, the same middle initial, and the same address. The trouble is that they gave his age as 17, but he told you he served in Germany under General Walker (whose final year in the Army was 1961) -- so there is no way he could have been 17 in 1963. Impossible.

Finally, insofar as John Martin claims that he served under General Walker, then he must have served before Walker quit in November, 1961. Yet we still have records of his Minuteman membership in August, 1963, complete with a dues payment (as I recall). So, this suggests that John T. Walker wasn't *yet* a pacifist in August, 1963. Rather, he must have become a pacifist between 1963 and 1968, when he met Weisberg and Schoener.

This means that John T. Martin became a pacifist *after* August, 1963, when he paid the expense to *fly* to Dallas to film the bullet holes in General Walker's house -- most likely out of respect for this famous General.

If I'm correct, then John T. Martin became a pacifist in late 1963 (at the earliest), and somehow scrambled his own time track and came to believe that he was a pacifist by 1961. (Or perhaps he was torn about the issue in 1961, never fully disconnecting from para-military groups until two years later.)

Schoener wonders why a Minuteman would share his political movies with the FBI and journalists. What did he think the FBI would find there? What did he think the FBI (or the journalists) would seek there?

I wonder whether John Martin explained how, socially, he came to visit Walker's home to take these pictures in the summer of 1963?.

All I can say with certainty today is this -- it is impossible that he served under Walker in Germany during 1961 and was still 17 in 1963.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo, MA

Thank you, Paul. BTW, did you bring to the attention of Gary Schoener the Martin age info in the Minutemen membership list page describing Martin as age 17 ? If so, what was Schoener's reaction?

As far as I know, the only two sources for Martin's middle initial, a "T" are from the Minutemen membership list and in a 1969 memo attributed to Schoener.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Williamson%20Billy/Item%2001.pdf

...

Where is Schoener's copy of the film, or his printout of each frame of the film? Can he locate or share any of it?

You are willing to advance Martin's age by six years, based solely on Schoener's recollection of a subject he has exhibited almost no interest in for 42 years, willing to trump the age on a written record? ...

Tom, I asked Gary Schoener for more information, and he kindly replied. Here are the questions I asked him:

* Would you be willing to share the Jack Martin Film with us? Or are you able to convert it to DVD format and show it on Youtube?

* Do you find it odd that a home movie documents both the Walker shooting and the Oswald NOLA arrest in the same footage?

* Also, about your estimate of John Martin’s age; what about FBI reports that give his age as 17 years in 1963. That would make him 23 in 1968, when you saw him. Is it possible, Dr. Schoener, that the John Martin you met in 1968 was only 23 years old?

He kindly replied promptly as follows:

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Gary Schoener

Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 9:05 PM

To: Paul Trejo

Subject: Re: Seeking the 1968 companion of Harold Weisberg...

I was the one who provided the copy to the Collector's Archive many years ago.

To be honest, the meeting with John Martin was 44 years ago and I cannot be sure of my memory. I was myself 24 and I thought he was older -- but we didn't ask him his age...

If I can find (1) the film and/or (2) the printout of all the frames, I will be glad to supply copies...I will make an effort to find them, but all of that stuff is buried so I'll have to guess right to find it.

Gary

P.S. I have a ton of stuff and to be honest a lot of it is buried...[Due to unforeseen circumstances on 7/4/68] some friends and I had no choice but to stuff the files into a huge number of boxes. Although at various times in the 1970's I found things Jim Garrison wanted or the joint congressional committee wanted, many things are still buried...Hal Weisberg did not think that he was any of the other "Jack" or "John martins" in the case...On occasion I had to go to Harold Weisberg or Paul Hoch or Hal Verb for copies of things I had originally located in the archives. Weisberg's archive, I am sure, has the film and the printouts and our memos from back then.

...If Walker made any statement about Oswald BEFORE the assassination, I haven't seen evidence of it...

BK

Bill, in addition to the story about H.L. Hunt's assistant (John Curington) who heard Walker and Hunt talking about Oswald *before* the JFK assassination (this story is on page 317 of Dick Russell's book, TMWKTM) there is a more important incident that I want to share with everybody.

It appears first in the Warren Commission testimony of Edwin Walker, when he is questioned by attorney Liebeler. Liebeler possessed FBI evidence that Walker spoke with German newspaperman Helmut Muench before 7am on Sat23Nov63, less than 24 hours after JFK was killed, to announce that the man who killed JFK was the same man who tried to kill Walker on Wed10Apr63. This story turned into a full blown interview with Haslo Thorstein starting at 7am that same day (the paper was the Deutsche NationalZeitung) and it was published in the Sunday edition, on Sun29Nov63.

Walker pretended that he never heard of Helmut Muench, and said he didn't speak German, and tried to change the topic. Eventually he wiggled out of it, and that was the end of it.

There are many implications of this testimony, but the main one I wish to make is that Edwin Walker demonstrated -- nearly a week before Marina told the world that Oswald was Walker's shooter -- that he already knew that Oswald was his shooter.

This documentation is also preserved within the Mary Ferrell Foundation web site. I believe it is part of a documented proof that Walker lied about Oswald - that Walker was hiding something important.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo, MA

P.S. I have about 180MB of PDF files to upload on this topic, but that exceeds our limit. If anybody knows where I can post them for everybody's access, I'll try that.

Is there a record that Mrs. Voshinin told the FBI that Oswald was suspected (by DeMohrenschildt) of shooting Walker?

Stephen, I got the account from Dick Russell's book, The Man Who Knew Too Much. Russell quotes Mrs. Natasha Voshinin on page 317-318, speaking of George DeMohrenschildt:

"George said, 'that scoundrel took a potshot at General Walker. Of course Walker is a stinker, but stinkers have a right to live.' Then he told us something about the rifle. But Igor and I felt Oswald had something to do with the CIA. Anyway, I immediately delivered this information [from DeMohrenschildt] to the FBI."

The footnote (55) is on page 763, and it reads: "Voshinin on de Mohrenschildt/reporting to FBI: author's interview (April 5, 1992)

All best,

--Paul

<delete>

I believe that DeMohrenschildt told others in the White Russian Community of his suspicion of Oswald taking the pot shot a Walker, but Hosty, the FBI agent investigating the case, did not hear that Oswald was a suspect because he already had Oswald as a potential national security case - in keeping tabs on him upon his return from USSR - What does Hosty say about this?

...

And what about the Brothers Schmidt? No relation to Volkmar, but they served under Walker in Germany, returned to USA, went to Dallas to take over conservative organizations, got job with Walker and were involved in the shooting with Oswald? There's got to be more there somewhere.

If Walker made any statement about Oswald BEFORE the assassination, I haven't seen evidence of it - and afterwards we hear from the German newspaper and Walker's claim that Oswald was arrested and freed by RFK, and then Marina cherps in, and even Dr./Col. Jose Rivera (USAR) in DC knows Oswald shot at Walker, but we only hear about this stuff AFTER the assassination.

Nor do I believe that Walker had the where with all to concoct the Dealey Plaza Operation, frame Oswald, have him killed and cover-up anything after the fact. Walker's a player, a mark, just like Demohrenschildt, and they played their roles and then got off the stage.

BK

Bill, here are my opinions and findings:

1. Hosty's report and his book are so devoid of useful information that one can only suspect him of being part of a cover-up. I have had that position for many years now.

2. Dick Russell and others have noted that FBI agent Hosty was a bridge partner for General Walker's business partner, Robert Allen Surrey. Walker's American Eagle Publishing company was run out of Walker's living room, and Robert Allen Surrey, who also testified for the Warren Commission, was almost a daily companion.

3. If (and only if) General Walker was the center of a plot to make Oswald into a patsy as punishment for the April shooting, then his publishing partner, Robert Allen Surrey, would almost certainly have heard about it, and would have discussed this with James Hosty over bridge; that seems like a good bet.

4. So, if Hosty knew about a plot to make Oswald a patsy, then Hosty was part of that conspiracy. If so, then he sure wouldn't let that leak out in any FBI reports.

5. As for the Schmidt brothers, I know that they served in Germany while Walker was there; but I don't think they served in the 24th Infantry Division in Augsburg under Walker. Yet I believe they were in the same vicinity, because Larrie Schmidt (along with mentor, General Charles Willoughby, who used to serve under General MacArthur) were associated with the newspaper OVERSEAS WEEKLY, and General Walker's Pro-Blue program severely criticized the OVERSEAS WEEKLY for having swimsuit ladies on every fourth page.

6. In response, the OVERSEAS WEEKLY staff (under young Larrie Schmidt) decided to complain to the White House that General Walker was 'indoctrinating' his troops with John Birch Society propaganda.

7. Also, according to Dick Russell, Larrie and Bob Schmidt drove a tan Ford sedan, and they drove Oswald to General Walker's house on April 10th. They took another rifle, too, and two rifles shot at Walker. They hit the window frame, and also missed Walker's head by inches.

8. Russell's story confirms eyewitness reports from neighbors to the police that night. It also confirms Walker's claim that bullet fragments he found at his house don't match a Manlicher-Carcano.

9. Now, Bill, you made an important statement: "If Walker made any statement about Oswald BEFORE the assassination, I haven't seen evidence of it." Dick Russell also wondered about that so much that he made a second interview of General Walker, more than 10 years after his first interview, just to ask that same question.

10. Predictably, Walker denied any knowledge of Oswald being the April shooter before December, 1963, when Marina announced it to the world. But that was the same lie he told the Warren Commission.

11. However, Dick Russell found at least one person who remembered differently. The assistant of H.L. Hunt sometimes overheard conversations between H.L. Hunt and General Walker when they spoke face to face. He told Dick Russell that he *definitely* remembers them speaking about Oswald *before* the JFK assassination.

12. Gerry Patrick Hemming (a former member of this Forum) also said that at the Cuban Exile training camp at Lake Pontchartrain, he saw General Edwin Walker there. Hemming also said he saw Lee Harvey Oswald there on another occasion.

13. This raised a basic question for me - General Walker was a national speech-maker and radio personality and very loud after he resigned from the Military in order to insult JFK. Walker was even louder after he was released from the mental institution with a clean bill of health, and RFK dropped all charges against him for the Mississippi riots.

14. However, after his April 10th shooting, General Walker seems to vanish into the woodwork! Where did he go?

15. I think it's possible that he kept a lower profile and dealt increasingly with the rightist underground, and that would have included people at Lake Pontchartrain -- with members like Carlos Bringuier, "Angel and Leopoldo", Roscoe White, Eladio del Valle, David Ferrie and Guy Banister.

16. Perhaps, also, as Harry Dean (another member of this Forum) suggests, Guy Gabaldon, famous war hero, was also at Lake Pontchartrain, dealing with the same rightist underground.

17. Finally, Bill, an ex-General would still have a lot of contacts in the Pentagon, and could call in many war time favors.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo, MA

Paul,

I posted a link to the page of the Minutemen membership list earlier in this thread. It shows Martin with the same address as on the FBI report about his film. it shows his age as 17 in 1963. you post his age as 23, you have stronger support for making Martin six years older than the info I posted? From what source?

Bill, Jim Root established that Walker could have been a passenger with LHO on the flight leading to entry into the Soviet Union and tbat the CIA provided the flight's ticket price to the WC and probably disappeared the passenger manifest.

Tom, after I saw your link, I also pursued your advice to seek out the psychologist, Gary Schoener. I contacted him and asked him how old John Martin was when he and Harold Weisberg met him in 1968. Dr. Schoener said he appeared to be 28-30 years old. That was by appearances. This was in 1968. Now, if he was 28 in 1968, then he would have been 23 in 1963, obviously. So, that's where I got the age of 23 - from Gary Schoener's personal recollections.

Now, if he had been 17 in 1963, then he would have been 23 in 1968, when Weisberg and Schoener met him. Not too many young men would look around 30 years old when they are 23, but it's not impossible. Nor is it impossible for a 17 year old boy to be a member of the John Birch Society, and also a member of the Minnesota Minutemen sharpshooters.

However, it is unlikely that a 17-year old boy would have already served in the Army under General Walker; and then flown to Walker's home to take photographs of the bullet holes that almost killed him. Clearly this Jack (John) Martin who made this film felt close enough to General Walker to care about the bullet holes in his home -- and enough to receive an invitation to fly to Dallas to film those bullet holes.

The attachment of this young man to General Walker seems to me to fit the profile of somebody in his early 20's (as Gary Schoener recollects) rather than somebody still in high school.

Nevertheless - it is not, strictly speaking, impossible. But we must posit that Martin Shackelford was mistaken in saying that this John Martin served in the Army under General Walker (and then honorably discharged, and then arrived at Walker's home in 1963, and still be 17 years old).

Still, we might consider that, just as Lee Harvey Oswald served as a teenager under David Ferrie as a cadet, it might be possible that this teenage John Martin served as a cadet in some capacity under General Walker. In that case Martin Shackelford could still be partially correct.

The evidence is still slightly askew, it appears to me. To defend the FBI report, we would have to doubt Shackelford's Army claim, and question the eyesight of Gary Schoener. To defend Shackelford and Schoener, we have to question the FBI report.

Dr. Schoener said he was willing to contact John Martin again -- but despairs that there are simply too many John Martins in America to make that search viable.

All best,

--Paul

<delete>

If Gen. Walker had longer designs on LHO, how did he know of him?

BK

Good question, Bill. In my opinion, living in Dallas, which was predominantly right-wing in its politics, and being personally involved in every dominant right-wing organization in Dallas, including the John Birch Society, the National Indignation Committee, the Citizen's Council, the Minutemen, the Billy James Hargis Christian Crusade, and the H.L. Hunt Lifeline radio show, he had his ear close to the ground whenever anything occurred with the words, 'communist' or 'USSR' appeared in a sentence.

He was aware that Lee Harvey Oswald was in Dallas - and he blamed the Kennedy's for their lax security. When somebody shot at him at about 9pm on April 10, 1963, he called the police, and the investigating officer told him that since one of the shots was so close to his head, that it could not have been a 'warning' shot. Such a 'warning' shot had a 50/50 change of killing him, just as a 'kill' shot had a 50/50 chance of missing him. So, the officer concluded, it was an attempted assassination.

According to the Warren Commission, George DeMohrenschildt strongly suspected Oswald of the shooting after visiting the Oswalds late Saturday night, before Easter Sunday. As a ruse they brought baby June a toy bunny. Jeanne DeMohrenschildt searched their small apartment under the ruse of admiring it, and spotted a rifle with a scope on it. George DeMohrenschildt made a joke about shooting at General Walker, and both Lee and Marina froze, with a stunned look on their faces. Then George laughed out loud, and everybody laughed, and the DeMohrenschildts soon left, never to see the Oswald's again. The next day George DeMohrenschildt told Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin what he suspected; something they themselves already suspected. Mrs. Voshinin immediately called the FBI.

Now, I believe it is normal protocol to inform a victim of an attempted killing about any suspects they learn about in their investigations. So I believe that the FBI told General Walker, on or about April 15, 1963, that Oswald was a suspect in this shooting.

As a committed righist, General Walker would have deduced that Oswald, a known communist, under the lax security of the Kennedy's, represented a communist plot to kill him. Only six months prior to this, Robert Kennedy ordered the psychiatric incarceration of General Walker. Walker would put nothing bizarre past the Kennedys.

Anyway, Bill, that's how and when General Walker found out - according to reason. Now, until the end of his days he wrote articles blaming Robert Kennedy for this shooting, and believed that Robert Kennedy put Oswald up to the shooting. This is in print in multiple places.

Everything would be normal, in my opinion, except that for some odd reason General Edwin Walker chose to lie to the Warren Commission about this. When asked point blank about the time he learned about Oswald being his April shooter, Walker said he never heard about it until Marina announced it to the FBI in December!

He didn't have to lie - he could have told the truth. But Walker chose to lie to the Warren Commission. This is our big break, in my opinion.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo, MA

No, I think it is far from a waste of time, the results you present are interesting and add to the overall knowledgbase. If I needed clarification, maybe others do....

In summary of this thread so far, I've learned a lot and I'm very grateful. I now know with certainty that the Jack Martin Film was not the product of Jack S. Martin Sr. who worked for Guy Banister.

I learned that John Martin was very young, perhaps 23 (about the same age as Oswald) when he made this sort film showing the bullet holes in the Dallas house of General Edwin Walker made in the Spring of 1963, and then the arrest of Oswald in New Orleans in the Summer of 1963.

But that didn't end my suspicions that the Jack Martin Film was part of a right-wing plot supervised by General Edwin A. Walker. On the contrary, it makes me suspect General Walker even more because:

(1) As Dr. Schoener showed, the young John Martin was a member of the Minutemen sharpshooters organization, as well as the John Birch Society, both of which held General Walker as a long-time officer.

(2) If Guy Banister's employee, Jack Martin, had been the author of the film, I would have attributed more supervision to Guy Banister, and less to Edwin Walker.

(3) Since John Martin was a young devotee or follower of General Walker, I now attribute more supervision to General Walker.

My theory speculates that General Edwin A. Walker chose to ask a young man whom he trusted to make a film that visually connects the April Crime against General Walker with the 'communist' Lee Harvey Oswald.

A 23-year old John Martin, loyal follower of the JBS and the Minutemen (and who knows what other connections to General Walker), agreed to fly to Dallas to film General Walker's house using half of a home-movie film. This was intended to look like a simple tourist film.

Then, Martin agreed to fly to New Orleans and, again posing as a tourist, discover the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald and Carlos Bringuier. This would complete the visual connection.

Now, if (and only if) my theory is correct, this means that General Walker had prior knowledge that the arrest would take place. This agrees with Jim Garrison's conclusion that Carlos Bringuier, working with CIA and FBI elements, staged this event with the help of Guy Banister and his team. Guy Banister was also an officer in the Minutemen organization.

The filming of a communist passing out leaflets is unheard of, actually. Any interest in Oswald passing out FPCC leaflets was almost certainly a CIA and FBI framing operation. Carlos Bringuier was CIA related - and so was Oswald. Oswald probably believed that everybody involved was helping him forge 'communist' streed credibility so that he could take this information to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico for an easy entry to Cuba, so he could kill Castro for a huge cash award (and fame, and perhaps a seat in Congress in a few years).

Instead, the entire scheme was working in favor of General Edwin A. Walker, who was rubbing his hands together because his 'patsy' was being deep fried. His motive was that he believed that Oswald was his April shooter. He probably heard this from the FBI a few days after the shooting, because George De Mohrenschildt told his friends, Mr. and Mrs. Voshinin, who immediately told the FBI.

General Walker lied to the Warren Commission when he told them that he never knew Oswald was his April shooter until Marina announced it to the FBI in December, 1963. That is the essence of his role in the cover-up.

John Martin was following General Walker's orders to make this politically motived 'home movie'. As a loyal member of the Minutemen and the John Birch Society - he was glad to do it. He probably had no idea that Walker had longer designs on Lee Harvey Oswald.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Can We Give Those Conspiracy Theories a Rest?

Well, Bill, I'm one of those guys who believes in exactly one conspiracy theory - I believe that Oswald had accomplices. Yet I also tend to agree with Macaray that finding conspiracy everywhere is like the John Birchers in the 1960's finding communists everywhere.

Of course it's possible for a single individual to walk up to a President and shoot him at point blank range. John Wilkes Booth did so with Abraham Lincoln. In fact, most Presidential assassinations were exactly of that nature. The assassins did not care so much about being caught -- unless they were insane like Hinckley, they were proud of their political act, and they gave their reasons. For example, Booth, after shooting Lincoln at point blank range in a theater, jumped onto the stage to deliver his short speech on his motives - Sic Semper Tyrannis (so always to tyrants)! There were scores of eye-witnesses to the shooter in the act.

The JFK assassination is a different matter altogether. The President was shot by at least two hidden assailants. That's a-typical. There were no eye-witnesses of the shooter in the act. The cover-story put up to frame Oswald was put up skillfully and far too quickly. Arctic newspapers had a full bio of Oswald and a conviction of his guilt before he was even charged.

We cannot compare the case of Oswald with the case of any other Presidential assailant, unfortunately. The half-century of flailing for an answer - as exhausting as that has been - must go forward. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren promised that the full Oswald files would be released in 75 years. The wait is so frustrating.

Since it is clear to human reason that Oswald had accomplices, and since Hoover and the Warren Commission quickly moved to insist that Oswald had no accomplices, reasonable people must conclude that Hoover and the Warren Commission knew who the accomplices were. That is precisely why Hoover and the Warren Commission acted to protect them; they knew exactly who they were, and they moved to grant them a full pardon - for 75 years.

If Hoover and the Warren Commission knew who they were, and acted to protect them, then it is a fair guess that they weren't among the Left Wing. Almost certainly, then, the conspirators in the JFK assassination were among the Right-wing.

Now, if we were living in 1963, perhaps in Dallas, and we were to suspect the Right-wing leaders of complicity in such a plot, who would we name?

What Right-wing gentlemen were most outspoken about their views - insisting on radio, public arenas, newspapers and television to promote them? We find H.L. Hunt, of course, and General Edwin Walker, and also Billy James Hargis. There is also former General Charles Willoughby. All these men were also segregationists - sympathetic to the KKK, members of the JBS and the Minutemen. If we lived in Dallas in 1963 - these are precisely the men we would name.

I suggest that we start here to resolve this mystery. In another 25 years perhaps the Federal Government will make good on its word and release the Oswald files. But that is no reason for the rest of us to give up the most exciting murder mystery of the 20th century.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo, MA

The "Oswald shooting at Edwin Walker" is a canard of the JFK assassination. It is a lie that was posthumously created by the murderers of JFK (or their lackeys, rather) to frame Oswald for the death of John Kennedy. I give it zero percent credence.

It did not happen.

...General Walker himself had a different scheme. To the end of his days (as I shared with David Lifton) he claimed that Oswald was arrested on April 10th, 1963 on suspicion of this shooting, but was released on the orders of RFK and the Secret Service. Walker was also convinced that Oswald had a second shooter with him, and demanded to know - to the end of his days - the identity of that second shooter; whether he was connected with the CIA...

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

...As for Edwin Walker, well perhaps he believed that ... but it does not mean he was right.

Robert, thanks for your open mind regarding my suspicions about General Edwin Walker. I also appreciate that you recommended me to the Education Forum knowing that we disagree on this critical issue.

To help explain my position about General Walker, I offer in evidence seven (7) documents that come from Edwin's Walker's personal files, as copied from the Briscoe Center for American History archives. (I tried to attach these PDF documents to this reply, but they comprise around 180MB, nearly twice our alloted limit. I'm not sure how to share large files with the Forum.) The seven documents can be described as follows:

(i) EW_1963_11_29: This is an excerpt from the November 29th, 1963 edition of the Deutsche NationalZeitung. It makes the claim that Oswald was arrested on 4/10/1963, but was released on the orders of RFK. The article goes on to claim that these ideas come from Edwin Walker, who graced this grateful newspaper with an interview on 7am of 11/23/1963, only 19 hours after JFK was assassinated. The full transcript (translated into English) is available on the Mary Ferrell web site (http://www.maryferrell.org/) using this search tag: ADMIN FOLDER-E11: HSCA ADMINISTRATIVE FOLDER, OUTGOING TO COMMISSION VOL IX. Once you find the document, read pages 330-340. Pay special attention to page 330, Rankin's evidence that Walker spoke to Muench. Yet Walker told the Warren Commission he never heard of Muench. (But why should Walker tell the Warren Commission the truth, because Walker's slogan since 1959 had been, 'Impeach Earl Warren"!)

(ii) EW_1967_04_04: This is Walker's article, OSWALD - A KNOWN CRIMINAL. It is notable because of its ending paragraph that repeats the story he allegedly told the Deutsche NationalZeitung on 11/23/1963.

(iii) EW_1968_06_12: This is Walker's article, THE US SENATE AND ITS SENATOR KENNEDY, written seven days after the assassination of RFK. It is notable because of its ending paragraphs that also repeat the story he allegedly told the Deutsche NationalZeitung on 11/23/1963.

(iv) EW_1969_12_12: This is Walker's article, CHIEF CURRY'S BOO-BOO. It is notable because its ending paragraphs suggest again that Oswald received "protection" from RFK, although he uses the term, "two Chiefs of State," because as he argues in other writings, Walker believed that the White House and the Kremlin both protected Oswald.

(v) EW_1975_06_23: This is a letter from Walker to Senator Frank Church, in which he repeats the story he allegedly told the Deutsche NationalZeitung on 11/23/1963.

(vi) EW_1990_09_12: This is a letter from Walker to Congressman Lamar Smith, Bob Dole and others, requesting the release of all JFK assassination files.

(vii) EW_1991_11_11: This is Walker's article, JFK DIDN'T KNOW HE KNEW HIS ASSASSIN. It was published by the Kerrville Daily Times on 1992_01_19. It is notable because he repeats the story he allegedly told the Deutsche NationalZeitung on 11/23/1963.

As I explained to David Lifton -- I don't believe Walker's story, nor do I believe that Walker himself believes his own story. Yet to the end of his life Walker kept repeating this story. Why? Perhaps because it sets up a smokescreen for his actual participation in these events.

I'd ilke to post these PDF files somehow, Robert. I'd really like to hear your opinion about them.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo, MA

The "Oswald shooting at Edwin Walker" is a canard of the JFK assassination. It is a lie that was posthumously created by the murderers of JFK (or their lackeys, rather) to frame Oswald for the death of John Kennedy. I give it zero percent credence.

It did not happen.

Robert, zero percent denotes a rather high level of certainty. One would have to possess proof that Marina Oswald lied - and not only that, but that she played along with a conspiracy fomented through the FBI in which Oswald wrote a letter to her the night before, in Russian, in his own handwriting, of what she must do in case he was arrested.

One would also have to possess proof that the conspirators worked with the FBI to (1) forge this letter; (2) convince Marina to lie, saying she found this letter; (3) forge photographs of Oswald holding a rifle, pistol and militant newspapers; (4) convince Marina to lie again, saying she took at least one of these photographs (the others of which were altered into variations); (5) forge Oswald's signature on the back of one of these photos; (6) get Marina to write "Hunter of Fascists, ha, ha" on that same photograph; (7) place this photograph among George DeMohrenschildt's possessions; (8) take pictures of General Walker's house, backyard and surrounding area; (9) distrubute these photographs among Oswald possessions in Ruth Paine's garage and in his Dallas rooming house; and (10) convince George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt to also lie to the Warren Commission about their certainties that Oswald shot at General Walker.

That's a very elaborate scheme, obviously. General Walker himself had a different scheme. To the end of his days (as I shared with David Lifton) he claimed that Oswald was arrested on April 10th, 1963 on suspicion of this shooting, but was released on the orders of RFK and the Secret Service. Walker was also convinced that Oswald had a second shooter with him, and demanded to know - to the end of his days - the identity of that second shooter; whether he was connected with the CIA.

Dick Russell suggests that the second shooter was Larrie Schmidt, who owned a tan Ford Sedan. Russell says Schmidt's brother confessed to joining Oswald on this shooting. The eye-witness to the April Crime saw two men running from the scene, one to a tan Ford Sedan, and the other to a Chevy at the local Church parking lot. So it seems one would also need proof that Dick Russell's source was lying.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo