Glenn Nall

Speaking of hatchet jobs, if you guys haven't read Mark Lane's last book Last Word, My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK (2011) you should - it's a real (documented) eye opener into the way the CIA has 'hatcheted' the media - print and TV - since the assassination.

Posner is far from the worst propagandist.

very good. thank you for this...

On 1/30/2017 at 11:47 AM, Paul Brancato said:

"...Muslim banning,..."

explains both this drivel and the blind, "tolerant" left overall.

Well done, Paul.

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Do you  have an extra copy?

an extra copy of the book? i wish. no, lost the first one years ago. I have just the one. I posted the clean on-line version in this thread again.

most of the "on-line" versions, like the one Doug posted, are incomplete, along with the downloadable pdfs. careful to ensure you're getting a full copy.

this is the full version, much more readable than the one at archive.org, here on this forum:

21 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, take a look at how much Oglesby's book costs on Amazon today.

I don't think I have ever seen that high a price for a JFK assassination book that was out of print.

yeah, they're about $75 anywhere on the net. Amazingly I found my one copy (after I lost my first one) on one of the free book shelves at the Atlanta VA Med Center about three years ago (among other very unique books i've come across - like a Nelson DeMille autographed Hard Cover, etc... ).

You better believe i'm still amazed that I came across this one sitting on a giveaway bookshelf.

Two years ago I scanned all the pages from it and reproduced a full copy of the book here in the forum - in text form; not jpgs. Before that i could never find a full, online copy.

Come to think of it, I actually first discovered the book on a thrift store bookshelf in Daytona Beach, FL at least 30 years ago. Always on the lookout for JFK related material, i grabbed it and right away realized its uniqueness and quality of work (as opposed to the vast majority of the other material "out there.") It was only after having read it the second time many years later that its significance affected - and rearranged - my approach to viewing our FedGov (while maintaining 100% patriotism; otherwise known as 'compartmentalization'  ).

Funny how these things work - one of the most important books ever written on such an important topic, in my opinion, and I discover it not once but twice on toss-away bookshelves.

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I was rereading Oglesby's 1976 book The Yankee and Cowboy War today.

It is an underrated volume.  But I was really struck by a reference he made to a planned invasion of Cuba in 1965 by LBJ.  It was called Second Naval Guerrilla.  He sources this to Tad Szulc,

INhis article Cuba on Our Mind, which i think was published in Esquire.

Oglesby says the Cuba operation was called off because of the Dominican Republic invasion, which used the same troops.

Has anyone seen this information before?  How solid is it?

 

 

"It is an underrated volume," (that means 'book,' right?).

To say the least. His underlying premise is the foundation upon which most theories, acknowledged, recognized, or not, find ground. No question. It is the book that taught me how to view our federal government with realism - (on the second read). Carl Oglesby, SDS or not, was brilliant. Dawn knew him and always speaks reverently of him, and I wish I had had the chance to meet him.

Richard Bartholomew wrote a good bit about SNG. His research, as well, is brilliant. I don't remember LBJ's name being connected by him, but sometimes I don't remember my wife's name. Or if I have one.

So...

1 hour ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Glenn: I did not listen to the Senate Armed Services Committee's hearing today so I am not familiar with Senator Kaine's statement until now. I can only surmise that he said what he said as a summary of what the public thinks happened in Watergate. Of course, just like with the JFK assassination, new information is still emerging about the scandal slowly but surely. The whole story has not been told. For example, this was recently revealed:

https://glomardisclosure.com/2016/12/07/evidence-implicates-jack-anderson-watergate/

I have not seen a list of the 17 intelligence agencies. However, today's Wall Street Journal reports on page A6 that "The President's Intelligence Advisory Board, a White House panel, recommended in a classified report in 2010 that the [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] be downsized and closely focused, according to the Congressional Research Service. The report did not result in legislation."

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/us/politics/armed-services-committee-john-mccain-russia-hacking.html

This second issue was mentioned to Mr. Clapper, and he stated that he's heard no discussion of any rearrangement of the current Intelligence structure. For whatever that's worth.

I think the Times (for whatever that's worth), or maybe the Wash Post (repeat), reported that PEOTUS is looking into "streamlining" these 17 agencies, but I think I heard that was denied by PEOTUS personnel.

For whatever that's worth.

I'm watching the Senate Armed Services CMTE hearings. Tim Kaine (current Senator because he's not the Vice-President Elect) referred to Watergate as a "bungled burglary of the DNC HQ, somewhat launched from the White House."

I'm just curious (Mr. Caddy?): if there's such overwhelming proof that a "bungled burglary" is pretty much the last thing Watergate was, why is still what most high-end elected officials think? It's not just Mr. Kaine, by any means; I hear it all the time from these pols. I guess what I'm asking is (and it can only be a guess, of course), are these just "talking points" - the "official version," or are there many pols who really believe the official version because they just don't know xxxx about Watergate and recent political history...?

On another, similar, note. Opinion: It's been noted that there are 17 (SEVENTEEN!) Intel Agencies in our Intel "community." SEVENTEEN. As the antipathy between just the FBI and the CIA is historic and well-known, is it safe to say that 17 intel agencies might be too many, and that it's highly likely that few of them would play well together or share their Big Wheels...?

The James and Paulie Show has gotten very old.

[switching channels]

'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said [ex-British Ambassador Craig and Assange partner] Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

13 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Glenn,  It sounds like you lost focus on Sandy's issue of campaign rhetoric and now you're trying to make this about Hilary's lies or alleged improprieties. But we've already had this debate in great detail a while back. I contributed what I could. I'm not sure where you were but I personally see no reason to re- litigate it.

I'm pretty sure I just referred to things that Hillary has said, not to her "campaign speak."

5 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Glenn,  It sounds like you lost focus on Sandy's issue of campaign rhetoric and now you're trying to make this about Hilary's lies or alleged improprieties. But we've already had this debate in great detail a while back. I contributed what I could. I'm not sure where you were but I personally see no reason to re- litigate it.

I'm pretty sure I just referred to things that Hillary has said overall, not to her "campaign speak."

In fact I, and then even Sandy, mentioned her 30+ year history...read it again, Kirk. It's on page 15.

"I contributed what I could."

Oh I'm sure you did.

"I'm not sure where you were but I personally see no reason to re- litigate it."

I was asked by Sandy to produce a list. I offered to do so. That's all.

You're the one keeps pushing it.

obsess much?

yes, when PT classified Hunt as "Rogue" and Phillips as not "Rogue" - and seemed to categorize "Rogue CIA" as some official organization indigenous to Dallas - I realized, like DVP, he really doesn't read, grasp, or give a damn about the things anyone else says.

dead horses. beating dead horses.

and pearls before swine. that one works, too.

32 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Paul B.,

There is a great difference between CIA and Rogue CIA.   Allen Dulles, John McCone, Jesus Jesus Angleton, Richard Helms, Anne Goodpasture, Tracy Barnes, George Joannides and David Atlee Phillips -- all these were CIA in the 1960's.  

David Morales and E. Howard Hunt were Rogue CIA.   Off the reservation.   This Rogue CIA joined a Civilian rebellion in Dallas.  Dallas is the locus of the JFK assassination.

It seems that for many people, it is still to sensitive to point to Dallas -- after half a century.

Caufield's book is like a flash of lightning.   Anybody who can't read it, simply has a closed mind -- closed by the CTKA.

James DiEugenio repeats the 20th century errors ad nauseum.  This CIA guy; that CIA guy; the other CIA guy, the Mafia, LBJ, blah, blah, blah.  Mere speculation.

With Jeff Caufield we finally get facts, facts and more facts from FOIA releases of FBI and CIA documents.  Of course there will be minor errors here and there, as in any mammoth, 900-page book.  James' nit-picking merely evades the point: Joseph Milteer, General Walker and the Radical Right of 1963 form the core of the Dallas plot.

James DiEugenio, starting from the flaws of Jim Garrison, merely builds on the past.  The CTKA and Probe Magazine comprise the worst of CT literature.  Probe in particular is an embarrassment to the American intellectual, and single-handed, gave a bad name to CT around the world.

As for Reclaiming Parkland (2013) it is a boring book that hopes to use the flash of Tom Hanks' recent movie, "Parkland" (2013) as a ploy to repeat the old, tired themes of Jim Garrison -- this time against Vincent Bugliosi (2007).  With DiEugenio, we get to review again the farce of Bugliosi's legal gymnastics which give one final salute to the Warren Commission (even though the official US Government conclusion on the JFK murder has been the 1979 HSCA conclusion).  Can anything be more boring?  Nothing new is offered in Reclaiming Parkland.

With Jeff Caufields book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy (2015) we get a totally unexpected theory of the JFK assassination -- undreamed of by the 20th century canon -- because actually the vast majority 20th century writers (from CTKA on up) were too blind to see it.  Even the HSCA was too blind to recall General Walker as a witness.  (Just because they were in the majority does not prove their correctness -- on the contrary.)

Caufield has come closer to solving the JFK murder mystery than any other writer -- and that covers a half-century of writers.  There is hardly enough praise that can be given to Jeff Caufield.  It takes a biased reader to just stick to the old CTKA nonsense after the flash of lightning bequeathed by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

you make the same point we're all making, but then you twist it.

all you want to do is effin' argue.

done.

24 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Again, James, your insults only show that you lack strong arguments. 

As for Ruby walking down the DPD parking basement walkway, there is sufficient testimony to verify it.  The Warren Report did indeed get this part right.

Those Dallas police who insisted that Jack Ruby did not walk down that ramp were clearly in CYA mode.

You can insult all you want, and you can pretend you have "secret" sources, James, but such only weakens your case. 

Actually, you haven't quite got the gist of Caufield's take on Jack Ruby -- the pimp who would do anything that the Dallas police asked him to do.

You leave out the connection between J.D. Tippit, Roscoe White and General Walker.  You leave out the connection of the Dallas police with the JFK assassination.   

You leave out the fact that the area behind the Grassy Knoll was actually a parking lot for the Dallas Sheriff's Department.  You leave out the fact that the Dallas County Jail also doubled as a site for electric chair and death by hanging -- Dealey Plaza had long been known in Dallas as an execution site -- by the Dallas police.

By the way, James, your book, Reclaiming Parkland (2013) cannot begin to compare with Jeff Caufield's breakthrough, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).  Not even close.  You are still pushing the 20th century CIA-did-it CT.  Jeff Caufield has made a clean break with that kid stuff.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo 

 

In the sixties they executed people in county jails?

is that what you just said?

47 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

With this smug attitude, the CIA-did-it CTers began to say that anybody even remotely connected to the CIA must be counted as a CIA agent.

This is, today, about as untruthful as it can get, and it is also where I stopped reading.

You are very unfair and very self-righteous - "smug" - while pointing so many others out to be.

And yet you wonder why so few take your theories and your reason seriously.

1 minute ago, Glenn Nall said:

With this smug attitude, the CIA-did-it CTers began to say that anybody even remotely connected to the CIA must be counted as a CIA agent.

This is, today, about as untruthful as it can get, and it is also where I stopped reading.

You are very unfair and very self-righteous - "smug" - while pointing so many others out to be.

And yet you wonder why so few take your theories and your reason seriously.

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Glenn,

Since you asked me so sincerely, I will give you my very best answer.

The CIA-did-it theory in its very earliest form begins with JBS co-founder, Revilo P. Oliver and his WC testimony in 1964.  Revilo said that the KGB killed JFK, but that there was essentially no difference between the CIA and the KGB, because the CIA was also a support for Fidel Castro and his Communist government in Cuba.

That was the first time anybody blamed the CIA for the murder of JFK, to the best of my knowledge.   (BTW, as a JBS member, General Walker agreed in principle with Revilo P. Oliver's political statements.)

The second time, and perhaps most importantly, the CIA-did-it CT was voiced by Jim Garrison, upon his loss in the 1968 trial against Clay Shaw.  Although Jim Garrison did a tremendous amount of research, and had a winnable case against Shaw, Garrison concluded that the US Government went after his case "like a mad dog" in order to protect the CIA from embarrassment.  The embarrassment was, in his opinion, that the CIA, through Clay Shaw, Guy Banister and David Ferrie, killed JFK.  (Jim Garrison believed that David Ferrie worked for the CIA, according to Lou Ivon.)

Since the days of Jim Garrison, multiple CIA-did-it CT's have emerged.  People in the CIA that were blamed included Allen Dulles, James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, David Morales, Howard Hunt, Tracy Barnes, Richard Helms, George Joannides -- the list goes on and on.

With the revelation by David Morales' friend, Ruben Carbajal, that Morales confessed to him, the CIA-did-it CTers were greatly encouraged.  With the video-taped confession of Howard Hunt, the CIA-did-it CTers became smug.  

With this smug attitude, the CIA-did-it CTers began to say that anybody even remotely connected to the CIA must be counted as a CIA agent.  This included such non-CIA-agents as Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie, Fred Crisman, Thomas Beckham, Eladio del Valle, Johnny Martino, George DeMohrenschildt, Gerry Patrick Hemming Loran Hall, Larry Howard, William Seymour, G. Gordon Liddy and Marita Lorenz.

Famed attorney for Marguerite Oswald, Mark Lane, wrote perhaps the most famous of all CIA-did-it books, with his Plausible Denial (1992), catching Howard Hunt in a lie about his whereabouts during the JFK murder.  Hunt later admitted that Frank Sturgis invited him into a plot with David Morales, and that's all he really knew, since he acted "on the sidelines."   Marita Lorenz, mistress of both Frank Sturgis and Fidel Castro, testified under oath that Howard Hunt was a paymaster for a shipment of arms to Dallas shortly before the JFK assassination.

While the evidence against Howard Hunt is solid -- and confirmed by his personal confession -- it is a far cry from there to a full CIA Conspiracy.  We have only two CIA agents who have confessed to a role in the CIA assassination -- and we have a dozen other people who have confessed in some way -- and none of these others are CIA-agents.

Those who have confessed (to one degree or another) have included Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie, Tommy Beckham, Johnny Martino, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Roscoe White and Lee Harvey Oswald.  They were all Rightist mercenaries.

Jim Garrison wrote a book about his JFK CT, named, On the Trail of the Assassins (1991) in which he names the CIA as the main culprits of the JFK assassination.  In 1992, Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, was mainly the Hollywood adaptation of Jim Garrison's book (and Garrison makes a cameo appearance in the movie).  In that movie, Fletcher Prouty (Mr. X) and General Edward Lansdale (General Y) are used to make a case for the CIA-did-it CT.

Most of the 20th century CT's have been variations on the CIA-did-it CT.   Even great writers like A.J. Weberman could find no other solution than some variation on a CIA-did-it CT.  Popular writers began to fill the pulp cottage industry of CT's, with writers from the CTKA and a proliferation of web sites on the topic.  Allen Dulles and David Atlee Phillips were among the foremost villains of the CIA-did-it CTers.

However, in the 21st century, things began to change.  Writings by Larry Hancock have greatly tempered the shoot-from-the-hip approach of former writers, and then the Lopez Report (2003) emerged to finally settle what really happened in Mexico City.  Then the ARRB began to publish more FOIA releases of FBI and CIA documents, and the whole personality of the CT community changed.  It became more of a science and less of a melodrama.  

With the publication of the free eBook by Bill Simpich, namely, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014) a major breakthrough emerged -- a CIA Mole Hunt that began on October 1, 1963 was uncovered, step by step and CIA document by document.  (I should add that Larry Hancock assisted in this effort.)  It was a stunning revelation, and it seems to me that many CTers have not yet read and digested this major breakthrough.

Finally, with Jeff Caufield's 2015 publication, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy, the one-sided slant of blaming every CIA agent who lived during the JFK assassination was finally relaxed.  CTers in the 21st century are beginning to look more closely at Willie Somersett's information to the FBI about Joseph Milteer, and the relationship of J.D. Tippit to General Walker.

The CIA-did-it CT is still big business.  There are still many who refuse to look at a local plot in Dallas as the solution to the JFK murder.  Many still wish to blame people in New Orleans, in Miami, in Washington DC, in Chicago -- or anywhere but Dallas.  Many people still hope to claim that Ruth and Michael Paine were CIA agents.  The nonsense bears decades of inertia.  The CIA-did-it CT is like an electric fan -- you pull the plug but the wheels keep on spinning.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, please hear what I'm trying to say. Please try to understand what I'm trying to say:

" People in the CIA that were blamed included Allen Dulles, James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, David Morales, Howard Hunt, Tracy Barnes, Richard Helms, George Joannides -- ..."

What I'm pointing out is that, aside from Oliver and Garrison (and I don't think Garrison's really included) I'm not sure anyone realistically thinks "the CIA did it." "The CIA" is as different from "people in the CIA" as Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera are from the New York Yankees.

Mark Lane did not think "the CIA did it." The cover of his famous book Conspiracy refers to a "rogue element in US intelligence" which may have manipulated both Oswald and pawns in the anti-Cuba movement (which are mostly the same) and the Mafia. His last book, The Last Word, also is subtitled "My indictment of the CIA in the murder of JFK," and having just read it, it's very obvious that he's not saying the entirety of the CIA.

This sounds like i'm nit-picking, but i'm really not. When you toss around overgeneralizations like you do this does not represent what theories people have formed and is not fair to the theory itself.

I'm absolutely convinced Hunt, Phillips, et al, were in on it. Likely pretty deeply.

I also think that it's likely General Ed Lansdale was.

Does that mean that I think the CIA AND the Army did it?

I also think that Roselli and Giancana and maybe Nicoletti, and Marcello and certainly Trafficante had some involvement.

Is it fair to label me a CIA-Army-Mafia-did-it CTer? 

When people on the streets ask me, as they invariably do, "do you think the CIA did it?" I am forced to explain in general what that really means, lest they go on thinking that they've met yet another lunatic CTer who thinks the CIA did it.

I do not think that, and such a label is unfair to most people to whom you are referring.

If you care.

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Glenn,

Since you asked me so sincerely, I will give you my very best answer.

The CIA-did-it theory in its very earliest form begins with JBS co-founder, Revilo P. Oliver and his WC testimony in 1964.  Revilo said that the KGB killed JFK, but that there was essentially no difference between the CIA and the KGB, because the CIA was also a support for Fidel Castro and his Communist government in Cuba.

That was the first time anybody blamed the CIA for the murder of JFK, to the best of my knowledge.   (BTW, as a JBS member, General Walker agreed in principle with Revilo P. Oliver's political statements.)

The second time, and perhaps most importantly, the CIA-did-it CT was voiced by Jim Garrison, upon his loss in the 1968 trial against Clay Shaw.  Although Jim Garrison did a tremendous amount of research, and had a winnable case against Shaw, Garrison concluded that the US Government went after his case "like a mad dog" in order to protect the CIA from embarrassment.  The embarrassment was, in his opinion, that the CIA, through Clay Shaw, Guy Banister and David Ferrie, killed JFK.  (Jim Garrison believed that David Ferrie worked for the CIA, according to Lou Ivon.)

Since the days of Jim Garrison, multiple CIA-did-it CT's have emerged.  People in the CIA that were blamed included Allen Dulles, James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, David Morales, Howard Hunt, Tracy Barnes, Richard Helms, George Joannides -- the list goes on and on.

With the revelation by David Morales' friend, Ruben Carbajal, that Morales confessed to him, the CIA-did-it CTers were greatly encouraged.  With the video-taped confession of Howard Hunt, the CIA-did-it CTers became smug.  

With this smug attitude, the CIA-did-it CTers began to say that anybody even remotely connected to the CIA must be counted as a CIA agent.  This included such non-CIA-agents as Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie, Fred Crisman, Thomas Beckham, Eladio del Valle, Johnny Martino, George DeMohrenschildt, Gerry Patrick Hemming Loran Hall, Larry Howard, William Seymour, G. Gordon Liddy and Marita Lorenz.

Famed attorney for Marguerite Oswald, Mark Lane, wrote perhaps the most famous of all CIA-did-it books, with his Plausible Denial (1992), catching Howard Hunt in a lie about his whereabouts during the JFK murder.  Hunt later admitted that Frank Sturgis invited him into a plot with David Morales, and that's all he really knew, since he acted "on the sidelines."   Marita Lorenz, mistress of both Frank Sturgis and Fidel Castro, testified under oath that Howard Hunt was a paymaster for a shipment of arms to Dallas shortly before the JFK assassination.

While the evidence against Howard Hunt is solid -- and confirmed by his personal confession -- it is a far cry from there to a full CIA Conspiracy.  We have only two CIA agents who have confessed to a role in the CIA assassination -- and we have a dozen other people who have confessed in some way -- and none of these others are CIA-agents.

Those who have confessed (to one degree or another) have included Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie, Tommy Beckham, Johnny Martino, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Roscoe White and Lee Harvey Oswald.  They were all Rightist mercenaries.

Jim Garrison wrote a book about his JFK CT, named, On the Trail of the Assassins (1991) in which he names the CIA as the main culprits of the JFK assassination.  In 1992, Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, was mainly the Hollywood adaptation of Jim Garrison's book (and Garrison makes a cameo appearance in the movie).  In that movie, Fletcher Prouty (Mr. X) and General Edward Lansdale (General Y) are used to make a case for the CIA-did-it CT.

Most of the 20th century CT's have been variations on the CIA-did-it CT.   Even great writers like A.J. Weberman could find no other solution than some variation on a CIA-did-it CT.  Popular writers began to fill the pulp cottage industry of CT's, with writers from the CTKA and a proliferation of web sites on the topic.  Allen Dulles and David Atlee Phillips were among the foremost villains of the CIA-did-it CTers.

However, in the 21st century, things began to change.  Writings by Larry Hancock have greatly tempered the shoot-from-the-hip approach of former writers, and then the Lopez Report (2003) emerged to finally settle what really happened in Mexico City.  Then the ARRB began to publish more FOIA releases of FBI and CIA documents, and the whole personality of the CT community changed.  It became more of a science and less of a melodrama.  

With the publication of the free eBook by Bill Simpich, namely, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014) a major breakthrough emerged -- a CIA Mole Hunt that began on October 1, 1963 was uncovered, step by step and CIA document by document.  (I should add that Larry Hancock assisted in this effort.)  It was a stunning revelation, and it seems to me that many CTers have not yet read and digested this major breakthrough.

Finally, with Jeff Caufield's 2015 publication, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy, the one-sided slant of blaming every CIA agent who lived during the JFK assassination was finally relaxed.  CTers in the 21st century are beginning to look more closely at Willie Somersett's information to the FBI about Joseph Milteer, and the relationship of J.D. Tippit to General Walker.

The CIA-did-it CT is still big business.  There are still many who refuse to look at a local plot in Dallas as the solution to the JFK murder.  Many still wish to blame people in New Orleans, in Miami, in Washington DC, in Chicago -- or anywhere but Dallas.  Many people still hope to claim that Ruth and Michael Paine were CIA agents.  The nonsense bears decades of inertia.  The CIA-did-it CT is like an electric fan -- you pull the plug but the wheels keep on spinning.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

that particular sentence/question wasn't meant to be discourteous. It was just matter-of-fact, like Jerry Seinfeld would ask it - like "and come to think of it, what the hell is a ____________ anyway?!"

Just now, Paul Trejo said:

As for Jeff Caufield's theory about Loran Hall, I don't agree with Jeff Caufield on this minor point.

Jeff's theory says that Loran Hall falsely claimed to be at Sylvia Odio's apartment on 24 November 1963.  I myself agree with Harry Dean on this account -- and I believe that Loran Hall told the truth.  Loran Hall was "Leopoldo" and Larry Howard was "Angelo" as far as Sylvia Odio knew -- and they had with them Lee Harvey Oswald (whom they called "Leon" Oswald.  This is because in the Spanish language, there is no name "Lee," and Spanish speakers automatically think of "Leon" when they hear the name, "Lee.")

So, Jeff Caufield is simply guessing and speculating about Loran Hall -- but as I said earlier -- this is a trivial point, a sideline note in Jeff Caufield's 900-page book.  

Jeff Caufield is completely correct when he notes that we have no idea how the FBI came to question Loran Hall in the first place. 
The obvious solution is that Loran Hall told the truth -- it was he and Larry Howard.  However, Loran Hall made the major mistake of naming William Seymour as the "Anglo" guy who "looked like Lee Harvey Oswald."   Seymour shattered that cover when he told the FBI that he was nowhere close to Dallas on that day, and he provided a solid alibi.

Loran Hall was now out on a limb -- with a half-truth.  Larry Howard was also angry with Loran Hall for naming Larry without permission.  Larry also denied being in Dallas that day.  Loran Hall had to recant.  He did recant.   Hoover knew Hall recanted, but Hoover used Loran Hall's story anyway!

This is one of the minor differences between my Walker-did-it CT and Jeff Caufield's.  

(Another minor differene I have with Caufield is the "false flag" theory that Caufield adopts from the brilliant LAPD officer, Gary Wean (1973).  In his CT, Senator John Tower admits that General Walker was the leader of the JFK plot, but only as a "false flag" fake assassination, to scare the JFK administration into a harder line against Cuba.  I agree with Senator John Tower half-way -- General Walker was the leader of the JFK plot.  I disagree with the "false flag" qualifier -- since it serves only to excuse the others in Dallas who participated.) 
 
James DiEugenios tries to make the Loran Hall confession into an invention by J. Edgar Hoover.  That's a flimsy theory.
As for Sylvia Odio, she refused to identify Hall and Howard, IMHO, because the FBI refused to accept her testimony, and therefore refused to offer her protection against a madman like Loran Hall.

The great Gaeton Fonzi believed Sylvia Odio, but he could not solve the riddle himself.  He needed more help.  Fonzi failed to look as far as General Walker.   Heck -- everybody in the 20th century failed to look at General Walker -- even the HSCA.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

" everybody in the 20th century failed to look at General Walker "

doesn't that say something to you, Paul?

everybody in the 20th century failed to look at Mayor Richard Daley, too.

29 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

OMG, James DiEugenio is actually trying to bait me with trivial details inside Jeff Caufield's recent and brilliant book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

James is actually daring me to challenge his paper-thin, so-called "criticism" of Caufield's brilliant book.

For those newbies who are unaware, let me give a one-sentence overview of Caufield's book, so that the debate is clear to everybody.  Jeff Caufield says that his recent exploration of FOIA releases of FBI and CIA documents confirms the account of Willie Somersett, that Joseph Milteer played a decisive role in the JFK assassination; and Caufield links Milteer with Walker.  This confirms the claims of the late FBI agent, Don Adams and his 21st century books.   Caufield's 900-page book shatters the mythology that the CIA killed JFK.

James DiEugenio has constructed his literary career on the mythology that the CIA killed JFK.  So, James is jealous, and pretends to challenge the "facts" of Caufield's theory.  Notice that James does not go after the central core of the Caufield theory, i.e. the credibility of Willie Somersett about Joseph Milteer -- instead, James nit-picks and side issues of little or no consequence.

For example, the sidelines of what James calls the "Pere Marquette conspiracy."   James calls it a "doozy."  It's actually quite trivial.

The linkage of Jim Braden with David Ferrie's pal, G. Wray Gill, is recognized by everybody, but James wants to nit-pick about it, and wants to make jokes and show his comedic writing skills.  It doesn't work.

The whole speculation about Jim Braden -- pioneered by Jim Garrison -- is clearly tangential to Caufield's main theory -- that Willie Somersett offered the best clues to the JFK assassination by naming Joseph Milteer.  Then, Caufield goes further than any other CT writer in the past 50 years, and shows direct linkages between Joseph Milteer and General Walker.

James avoids the big issues, and dwells on the incidentals.  That's because that's all that James has anymore.  The CIA-did-it CT is officially toast.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

without reading so much drivel, it looks to me like you took the bait all the while knowing what it was.

wow.

wow. where to start...

the point i'm making is - and it seems that you almost got it, but are still letting good, solid leftist self-righteous resentment cloud your judgement - very simply that, outside of our rights as guaranteed by, (and NOT created by), the 4th amendment as they are applied in a courtroom, the value of evidence in and of itself has nothing to do with the source of the evidence.

I have a "mean streets" history. (i have no problem sharing this here because a- those who are prone to pass judgement already have, and b- those who aren't probably won't, even on such an admission - and just might find my story a bit interesting, care they to ask, and c- it gives me insight that few in here have) I know "criminalist" behavior. it is my conclusive experience that perhaps nine out of ten criminals caught will blame a snitch for the situation they're in, or the cop that busted them, or their probation or parole officer, or their mom and dad, or their boss, or the position of Capricorn...

I'd ask someone, "what are you here for," and he'd respond, "probation violation," which is patently false on its face. They are there for being guilty of committing the crime for which they were originally charged, convicted and then given probation. And i have failed repeatedly to convey this concept to almost any i've tried to explain this to. So many (people) don't get it.

WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR ACTIONS. PERIOD. NO ONE ELSE EVER IS.

EVER.

So If I robbed a store (I never have) and get snitched out and go to prison, or suffer whatever consequences, then it's not the snitch's fault. You got that part right.

But it's also NOT because I willfully told my best friend the professional snitch and fellow criminal (there are no best friends in the armed robbery community, by the way, Kirk), or didn't tell him. Separate issues. It's clearly not because he snitched - regardless of his motives, how much money he made, or what his own crimes are.

I suffer consequences, be they legal or social or electoral, based on the perception (and in a court of law, the available evidence) of my own guilt in the "crime." Many people don't realize that as thinking human beings we are not bound to the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim. I'm pretty sure that the phrase concludes with "in a court of law," but I could be wrong. Doesn't matter.

I knew OJ was guilty - and said so - long before a jury was bound to the selective evidence which forced them to find him, officially, not guilty. The majority of America did. and it didn't matter the source of the evidence. I'm not particularly concerned with the 4th amendment in my own living room watching snakes and slugs writhe on TV. And neither are  you, unless you're one of 6 Billion who can refrain from opinion and trust every decision every jury has ever made.

And so Hillary Clinton suffered the consequences of her (perceived by an enormous number of Americans) actions. To discuss Russia's probable involvement in the release of perfectly valid emails is most certainly a discussion that's necessary and valuable to a particular end - but it has nothing to do with whether or not Hillary's a snake.

The voting public's perception of her behaviors, as exhibited by herself for two years - or for twenty-five years, depending on the impetus of the voter - and as revealed by so much documentation, is the only thing that's pertinent. As witnessed in November.

Popular vote vs. electoral college argument aside, if Hillary had had something to offer besides her own entitlement, she'd have won the more important tally. And she didn't.

There's no blaming Russia. There's investigating Russia, and Wikileaks and the NSA dude, etc, for other reasons, but Hillary's loss can only be chalked up to the fact that her secrets were revealed, and that her lies were blatant and pathetic. Even HL Mencken's American public saw through them.

Now.

You've compared me to Sandy. Neato.

Unless you've been stalking me, you have no idea - no right - to be so presumptuous. It's as if you think you know what my time consists of, what I do all day, whether my computer's hard drive has failed and my data lost, what I do for a living -

- it's also as if you presume that access to Hillary's every word is on every news webpage on the planet like Trump's is and is simply a matter of copying and pasting.

- it's even as if you know for certain how long it took Sandy to put that together (and I'd guess about the same, 10 minutes, since it really isn't that much of a list) - but I'm only guessing - you asserted it and then used it to compare my argument with his. That's pretty dumb, technically.

But there's another perspective that you've (predictably) failed to recognize. 

You've categorized the election as "appalling" (x2) and "bull***ted" (did I get my stars right?). And in general, you're probably right. But you present your reason for this as definitive, as if there can be no one who might think it appalling for very different reasons. It was, in your opinion, appalling. Cool.

And it was, in mine, also appalling. So what do we do here. evaluate opinions? does yours trump mine? does mine trump yours?

does it matter that one group of voters' opinions carried more weight than the other's?

Perhaps "in my opinion" was implied. in which case it's hardly an argument, since I already know what your opinion is, and it has nothing to do with mine.

For just a moment, let's assume that BOTH candidates are equally guilty of all the things of which they've been accused. The real point, in my opinion (clearly) is that some people in the world think that racism (and I really hate to write this, because there's little in the world I hate more than racism) and mysogeny and self-important lying, and civil lawsuits - for a Presidential candidate - is worse than national security apathy and negligence, and boldly failed foreign policies which led to rampant international terrorism, and bold-faced lying to the country in the face of criminal accusations, and a lengthy history of criminal investigations and charges - and evidence of so many more; and some do not.

You've decided that Trump's crimes are worse than Hillary's.

My choice is the opposite.

Now, if you can go find something else to obsess over, I'll post this list when i effin' post it. It's not as important to me as it might be to you. But I did say I will, so I will. 

and no, you guessed wrong. although that certainly did her some real damage - in the public's eyes, not just mine.

dead horses, James.

wearisome battles.

and what the hell is a "CIA-did-it" theory anyway, Paul? I've mentioned this once before.

I don't think there IS a CIA-did-it theory, Paul. I've never really heard one.

Please explain to me (us) what that means.

Or the "Mafia-did-it." 

These are not theories, and these are not presented by people who can think. There's a little more to most of these well pursued and long invested theories the good people in this forum offer. (key word being "offer," not "cram," or "shove").

can you expound a bit on what is meant by these particularly irresponsible phrases?