Glenn Nall

10 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Glenn,

I surely do leave room for other views.   The problem I have is that the Walker-did-it CT is so new, and so unfamiliar to readers, who have been overwhelmed by CIA-did-it literature for the past half-century, that my theory doesn't get a fair hearing.  

We see that on this very thread.  One of the leaders of the CIA-did-it CT is here trying to attack Caufield's Walker-did-it CT, in order to defend his  own weak and crumbling CIA-did-it CT.   

That's all that's happening here.  I don't want to be dogmatic -- I just want a fair hearing for this brand new theory -- and I'm finally tired of the old, 50-year old theory that just repeats itself and never attains closure.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

your views don't get a fair hearing because of the way you present them, the frequency with which you present them, the dogma and sanctimony with which you present them, and the logic and reasoning you've used to arrive at them and with which you vilify the others.

that's why they don't get a fair hearing.

29 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

It is absurd for anybody to claim to have the skills of literary criticism in the JFK assassination, when they continue to repeat the Probe Magazine nonsense from the 1990's.

For example, take the case of Ruth Paine.  James DiEugnio's book, Destiny Betrayed 2nd edition (2012) merely repeats word for word the charges against Ruth Paine voiced in Probe Magazine in the 1990's.   Here are just two of many examples I can share:

(1) Ruth Paine's mother-in-law had a childhood friend who later turned out to be a lover of Allen Dulles -- therefore Ruth Paine must be a CIA agent.

(2) Ruth and Michael Paine met George and Jeanne DeMohrnenshildt for dinner in 1968, in preparation for the Jim Garrison hearings, so therefore Ruth lied when she told the Warren Commission in 1964 that she never saw the DeMohrenshildts anytime in her life before or after February 22, 1963. 

These flaws in logic show a decided lack of critical ability.

James DiEugenio has little right to accuse anybody of lacking critical skills.  His melodramatics in his CIA-did-it CT are world-famous.  No logical person accepts them anymore.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul.

your convenient oversimplifications of Jame's claims and of the Paines' suspected "connections" are wrong.

Michael Paine had more than one relative connected to United Fruit and the CIA, and more than one connection outside of his family to the CIA.

As did Ruth Hyde Paine have several more than one connection to the CIA. Ruth Forbes Paine's relationship with Ms Bancroft requires a little more description than "childhood friend" once you actually read some things about its longevity and particulars.

"Ruth lied."

Oh God, then the case is lost. Your honor, I'm sorry I brought such a flimsy case before the court. I could never have foreseen that the defendant actually told a lie. Please accept my apologies and please do exonerate her of all suspicion.

I've been drawing up an "outline" of these (and only about a thousand other) exasperatingly convoluted interrelationships for over a year. The Paine's curious interconnectedness with the agency cannot be ignored - but neither do I stake my house on the supposition that they were CIA. You're right - there's no real evidence that Ruth or Michael was a spy, but for the numerous people they hung out with, a fact that goes way beyond coincidence. 

For most people.

Moreover, your steadfast antithesis to all things "CIA connected" might leave some people to wonder why "thou protesteth too much..." Or else wonder about your research techniques.

Also, you misspelled de Mohrenschildt (or even DeMohrenschildt) twice in a row.

6 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

??? No, It's your fault and probably would say something about your character that you couldn't even trust your best friend.

So Hillary willfully told who? who told everyone else, but it's not his fault? 

Glenn, it probably took Sandy all of 10 minutes to come up with his list of appalling campaign rhetoric by Trump. (Which honestly Glenn, having followed the election process most all of my life was by far the most appalling,not to mention the bullxxxxted  campaign I can ever remember.)
And you've made the case that Hillary's rhetoric was as bad and now it's taken you 3 weeks and you still haven't come up with anything! My guess is your best point will be the "deplorables" comment and you're not going to stack up in quality or quantity to Sandy's list.

this little bit screams for so many comments. it's 9.30 in the morning; let me sober up and i will write some.

Paul, here is the crucial difference between your theory and mine - and many others, for that matter - my thoughts on what may have happened and what probably didn't happen leave room for particulars of others'.

your theory does not.

Like an Alabama Church of Christ credo, everyone else is just wrong.

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Glenn

This is one example of what I pointed out but Trejo had no problem with:

Let me conclude this section of the review by noting a memo that Caufield repeats at least three times throughout the volume. (Repetition, and inclusion of extraneous material, are two methods by which Caufield inflates his page count.) The memo is from Hubert Badeaux, a New Orleans police intelligence officer, to state senator William Rainach (p. 273, 791) In this letter, the following two sentences appear in paragraph five:

“I have been in contact with an out-of-town person whom I have been grooming to come here to take over the establishment of infiltration into the university and intellectual groups. I will tell you in detail about this when I see you in person.”

Caufield actually tries to make the argument that Badeaux here is referring to Oswald. But Oswald was not out of town at the time, April of 1957. He was out of the state. He was in Jacksonville, Florida, being trained in avionics to become a radar operator. Five months later he would be out of the country and on another continent. He was shipped to the Far East, stationed at the giant CIA base at Atsugi, Japan, home of the U-2. Are we to think that both Badeaux—and Caufield—were unaware of this? Or that Badeaux did not know that Oswald had contracted with the service until December of 1959? Was Badeaux going to tell Rainach when he saw him that he had a prospect they had to wait for until 1960, over two and half years in the future, to cultivate? And then, in 1960, he would presumably tell the senator, well we have to wait another two and half years, since he’s going to Russia. But, hey Mr. Senator, that’s OK, because his fluency in Russian is going to help him infiltrate those integrationist groups in Louisiana, which used that language.

This all strikes me as nonsense. It shows how desperate the author is to place Oswald in this rightwing milieu as an operative. Which parallels his desperation to make Oswald into a Nazi. But that doesn’t stop Caufield from going even further in this regard. He actually tries to say that state senator Rainach took his own life in January of 1978 because he may have feared having to testify before the HSCA! (Caufield, p. 697) If anyone can show me where there was any imminent move inside the HSCA to call Rainach as a witness, I would love to see it. I would be willing to wager that almost no one on the committee even knew who he was. And for good reason.

 

To spew out literally thousands of words about Caufield's rather long book and never to tell the reader that it is studded with baloney like this, that is not criticism.  It is cheerleading.  And if there is one thing we do not need on this case anymore, its cheerleading.

I think you missed my point, James.

or maybe not. I'm not sure.

57 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

This points to your obtuseness.  Which,  as with Tom Scully, I am beginning to think is deliberate.

I was not talking about Larry's book.  He was talking about the whole original version of the so called Howard Hunt confession.  The dead giveaway for anyone but  you is this:

Even if it goes to the heart of what the whole Hunt imbroglio is all about, and it undermines its authenticity.

Larry had access to a primary source.  I had even more personal access to this source.  What Larry is saying is that the original form did not resemble the final version. And I can back that up through my contacts with this source.  Larry is correct and you do not know of what you speak.

UNDERSTAND PAULIE!  Or as they say in Italy, CAPISCE?

And Walker was not even in Dallas on the 22nd Paulie.

As per Paulie's taste in books, just read my review of the Caufield travesty.  Its probably the worst book on the JFK case since Ultimate Sacrifice. 

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/caufield-jeffrey-h-m-d-general-walker-and-the-murder-of-president-kennedy

And Paulie was quoting whole chapters of it on this site at length like it was the gospel truth!!

 LOL  ROTF

So your powers of  critical analysis leave much to be desired.

 

 

Strictly in the interests of objectivity, James - with NO malice intended - in support of your own claims you cite your own review of Caufield's "travesty" as the standard against which Paul's references to it leave "much to be desired?"

so one is to glean from your argument that that your review of this book is inarguable? 

ok, so here's my question; perhaps an attorney might see the logic here - Hillary supporters will not:

So I rob a convenience store. Which is against the law.

I'm not caught, and i get away with 17 cases of Miller Light, a carton of Newports and $49.26 - my priorities being what they are as an armed robber of convenience stores.

I tell my best friend about it.

He snitches.

I'm busted. With a case and a half of Miller Lite as the only evidence. My priorities being what they are...

Is it the snitch's fault that I'm busted?

44 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Larry,

That's all fine.  Yes, you were only responding to Glen, but you responded publicly, so that opened it.

As for E. Howard Hunt, his confession to his role in the JFK assassination is US History -- it is profoundly public.

As for his account, there are many problems with it, and we should not accept it at face value.  Hunt's famous flowchart, for example, places LBJ at the top of the chart, and so suggests to many readers that LBJ must have been the source of the JFK murder plot.

But that is not what E. Howard Hunt said -- he only placed LBJ at the top of his flowchart.  Period.  My interpretation is this: a CIA agent cannot exist without a President, and here was a CIA agent involved in a plot to assassinate the President -- an obvious act of Treason.

Yet how can a person confess to Treason -- to his own son?  So, IMHO, Howard Hunt forged in his own mind the fantasy that LBJ was his real President, and that he, Hunt, was acting in a manner loyal to the US President.

It was a fantasy -- not a reality -- and it was a fantasy based on the profound shame of being a traitor to the USA, which he had sworn to protect and defend.  It was a confession of shame, ultimately, with an effort to make a scapegoat of LBJ.   That's my reading of it.

Howard Hunt was not the only CIA agent to confess to the JFK assassination plot.  We must also add the confession of CIA agent David Morales to his friend, Ruben Carbajal.

However, after those two CIA agents, after a half-century, we draw a blank.  We have many other confessors, but they were all mercenaries and not CIA agents.

One of those mercenaries was Loran Hall.  Loran Hall links the Howard Hunt saga back to the theme of this thread: Sylvia Odio and Harry Dean.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS,
--Paul Trejo

that's your interpretation, huh.

mmm...

doesn't it suck when inconveniences get in the way of perfectly enjoyable theories...?

26 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Glenn:

He is full of it anyway.  The cover story about Shaw was first, he never worked for the CIA.  This is the BS he spewed to willing harlots in the media like James Phelan and they printed it.

The second stage of the cover up was the "oh well, he was simply a business class informant".  And that was what other CIA flunkies like Blakey used for the HSCA.

Well, due the decalcification process, two documents came out which smashed the cover  up.  First, it was revealed that Shaw a covert security clearance. Second, through the CIA historical review program, the Agency let slip many years later that Shaw was a highly paid, valuable contract agent for them for a number of years.

Now, after the CIA let that slip, the Agency then shut down that program!  That is how touchy they are about the subject of their cover up of who Clay Shaw really was.

And BTW, I have it from a source who was close to Dulles, that the CIA started this cover up about Clay Shaw very early after the JFK assassination.  It was done through a guy named Howard Osborne.  

But people like Trejo are willing dupes for this disinformation, and they never get upset at being lied to.

in some ways they rely on being lied to.

i've made legitimate and answerable charges to which he's responded none whatsoever. 'nuff said.

right?

just don't we effin' dare call Frank Sturgis an agent. 

egads. blows the whole "CIA did it" CT.

i knew a "CIA did it" CTer once. He read a lot of L Ron Hubbard and James Patterson. and worked at KFC.

22 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Chris,

Name one other suspect named by Jim Garrison or Joan Mellen who was clearly a CIA Agent.

Not Guy Banister.  Not David Ferrie.  Not Jack S. Martin.  Not Thomas Beckham.  Not Carlos Bringuier.  Not Eladio Del Valle. Not Loran Hall.  Not Larry Howard.  Not Gerry Patrick Hemming.  Not Johnny Martino.  Not Jack Ruby.  Not Fred Crisman.  Not Carlos Marcello.

Even Clay Shaw was at best a CIA informant -- which is not the same as a CIA Agent.

The common element of all the suspects named by both Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen in the past 50 years is their participation in plots to assassinate Fidel Castro.

Starting with Jim Garrison (who otherwise made great contributions) a common error thread runs throughout 50 years of the JFK CT literature -- namely -- that virtually everybody involved in Fidel Castro assassination plots at 544 Camp Street, was also involved in the JFK assassination plot.

The only honest way to link the CIA with the JFK assassination is to blur the line of distinction between the two plots -- then the case can be made.  But once we distinguish between Fidel plotters and JFK plotters -- then the CIA-did-it CT breaks down.  

Also, once we distinguish between CIA Agents and CIA mercenaries, the CIA-did-it CT breaks down to nothing; we are left with only CIA rogues (Morales and Hunt).   Period.

Garrison and Mellen are authorities on New Orleans and 544 Camp Street.  It stops there.  They knew next to NOTHING about the Dallas plot, IMHO

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul.

There IS NO "the CIA did it" conspiracy theory.

no one in their right mind proposes that McCone "did it."

you're skewering windmills, dude.

21 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Chris,

Name one other suspect named by Jim Garrison or Joan Mellen who was clearly a CIA Agent.

Not Guy Banister.  Not David Ferrie.  Not Jack S. Martin.  Not Thomas Beckham.  Not Carlos Bringuier.  Not Eladio Del Valle. Not Loran Hall.  Not Larry Howard.  Not Gerry Patrick Hemming.  Not Johnny Martino.  Not Jack Ruby.  Not Fred Crisman.  Not Carlos Marcello.

Even Clay Shaw was at best a CIA informant -- which is not the same as a CIA Agent.

The common element of all the suspects named by both Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen in the past 50 years is their participation in plots to assassinate Fidel Castro.

Starting with Jim Garrison (who otherwise made great contributions) a common error thread runs throughout 50 years of the JFK CT literature -- namely -- that virtually everybody involved in Fidel Castro assassination plots at 544 Camp Street, was also involved in the JFK assassination plot.

The only honest way to link the CIA with the JFK assassination is to blur the line of distinction between the two plots -- then the case can be made.  But once we distinguish between Fidel plotters and JFK plotters -- then the CIA-did-it CT breaks down.  

Also, once we distinguish between CIA Agents and CIA mercenaries, the CIA-did-it CT breaks down to nothing; we are left with only CIA rogues (Morales and Hunt).   Period.

Garrison and Mellen are authorities on New Orleans and 544 Camp Street.  It stops there.  They knew next to NOTHING about the Dallas plot, IMHO

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

yet still, Paul, you're glued to the word "agent" when there are so many nuances of duties and expectations of CIA "connected" personnel which easily circumvent the standard role of "agent."

[edit] IMHO.

is this on purpose, or simple ignorance of facts?

On 11/30/2016 at 10:10 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

meant to respond the other day, Kirk, just now getting around to it.

Yes, you're right, I did "promise" such a list, and in fact have half of one that i slapped together one free quarter-of-an-hour i happened to have weeks ago. I have honest;ly had very few since; have been flat out swamped with a couple of projects for a while now.

nearing an end, though, and have no problem posting some of Hillary's more colorful eloquence. There's plenty of it, it's just that the salivating and star-crossed media won't have anything to do with it. It's stuff objective people actually have to look for.

But it's there to be found.

On 12/7/2016 at 3:33 PM, Douglas Caddy said:

This is being posted in the forum because the JFK assassination and Watergate are interrelated due to the involvement of Howard Hunt and some of his Cuban-American allies in both events.

 

Evidence implicates Jack Anderson in Watergate

 

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

Sometimes I wonder just how distant what the public "knows" about Watergate is from the truth.

1 minute ago, Larry Hancock said:

Glen, absolutely Hunt was trusted with a lot of money and with some key political action jobs. He was old cadre with the agency and was internally valued for his spy novels which some of the senior guys felt were good PR for the Agency (you even find that mentioned in documents).  Not trying to underplay his position at all, just to define it. Hunt had actually run the Mexico City station early in its history but he did have a habit of annoying people he didn't like and that didn't last long.  If  you liked his politics and he liked yours it was all good but he was opinionated enough to actually take himself out of his job on the Cuba project just before the BOP and Phillips had to pick up his duties for him.  Definitely a man with strong opinions and a good opinion of himself as well - probably better than his actual job performance justified but he seems to have been sincere and quite convincing.

yes, i wondered why he lost/gave up the BOP project just previous. and Mexico City... he did have his friends, but he sure had his enemies...

2 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

That's just guesswork -- and anyway that CT is decades old, and has never been able to prove its claims.  Time for a new CT.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

"guesswork"

you're pretty liberal with that term, too.

me thinkest thou protesteth too much...

and what the hell is this "that CT?" I have presented no "CT." I've presented factual evidence that Sturgis was aboard the Rex on Oct 31, and that he hung out with E Martinez and Hunt and as in Watergate, and - oh, hell, you know all this. You just don't like it.

no. it's not time for a new conspiracy theory. it's time for a well reasoned one - a few of those which have stood the tests and which today gain momentum.

it's the new ones which are most suspect.

the evidence is old. the latest evidence is old. there is no new evidence but the old that has been revealed.

novel CTers who think themselves smarter than the rest are as well suspect.

and predictable.

7 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Hi Glen, good point but my take would be that in terms of Hunt's career at the CIA he had a day job and that was political action (normally as a money guy).  He was actually separated circa 64 to provide him with a special cover to operate over seas in support of the AM/WORLD Artime project - still political action rather than operations. And yes, it looks to me like his involvement with the Nixon White House was a very special sort of political action, probably intended more as a planted source for the Agency than anything else but to get deep inside Hunt needed to make himself really valuable hence his move into the plumbers.  Its probably good to point out that Hunt's tradecraft, even during his regular time at the Agency. was always poor...he held meetings in motel rooms and was overheard by the folks next door who reported it, he lost a briefcase. He consistently violated security protocols - so seeing him screw up so badly at the Watergate including leaving all sorts of traceable materials in his motel room is no big surprise.

Anyway, I take your point but my view is that Hunt always wanted to be a real spy and whenever he got a chance he played that role, although it was not really his assignment during most of his career.  He kept trying to be the kind of guy he wrote about his action novels though....and he talked a good enough game to convince some folks that he was when that was very far from reality....just my view of course.

 

yes. key word here being "planted." 

no doubt.

but he was in charge of an awful lot of cuban mercenary money and ops, wasn't he...?

2 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Glenn,

Yes, I'm positive.  Sturgis, Martino and Hall were mercenaries -- low education and low paid mercenaries.  Lots of testosterone and mediocre brains.  Too few brains to be well-paid, professional "Agents" of the CIA.

Yes, it does matter how one defines the word "Agent" when one says CIA "Agent."   David Morales was a CIA "Agent."  Howard Hunt was a CIA "Agent".  David Atlee Phillips was a CIA "Agent".

Sturgis, Martino and Hall were involved in the Cuban conflict, where the CIA had many "assets," and temporary help at low pay.  Mercenaries.  Not "Agents."  It matters.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

it matters to you to keep your theory intact.

it matters to me because it were these "morons" who did the dirty work.

you might be a little more conservative in your assignation of those who lack "brains." you'll find yourself surprised one day.

10 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Hunt was a CIA employee, primarily a political officer not operations.  Martinez was a CIA employee, the best boat guide for Cuban operations missions that they had.  Sturgis was an informant for the CIA, starting around 1962, we have the documents on that.  He was not an employee, he was a willing and valued source.  As to Hall, he was a talker....the closest he came to the CIA and the FBI was as a voluntary source who provided little information beyond street gossip.

As Chris said, job titles are very important, they tell you not only the roles but what an individual could be expected to know.

On Phillips manuscript, it was strictly fictional. I've gone into that before here but there is no reason to take it literally and actually it may have been intended as intimidation - to let certain parties in the CIA know that Phillips could tell a lot more than he did if somebody decided to make him a scapegoat.  Pure speculation on my part but having studied Phillips for a very long time the last thing I would expect would be for it to be literally the truth; if anything it would be 180 degrees from it since that was his specialty .

 

Larry, I'd be tempted to think that the Watergate burglary went a bit beyond politics into operations... wouldn't you?

4 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Hunt was a CIA employee, primarily a political officer not operations.  Martinez was a CIA employee, the best boat guide for Cuban operations missions that they had.  Sturgis was an informant for the CIA, starting around 1962, we have the documents on that.  He was not an employee, he was a willing and valued source.  As to Hall, he was a talker....the closest he came to the CIA and the FBI was as a voluntary source who provided little information beyond street gossip.

As Chris said, job titles are very important, they tell you not only the roles but what an individual could be expected to know.

On Phillips manuscript, it was strictly fictional. I've gone into that before here but there is no reason to take it literally and actually it may have been intended as intimidation - to let certain parties in the CIA know that Phillips could tell a lot more than he did if somebody decided to make him a scapegoat.  Pure speculation on my part but having studied Phillips for a very long time the last thing I would expect would be for it to be literally the truth; if anything it would be 180 degrees from it since that was his specialty .

 

"if anything it would be 180 degrees from it since that was his specialty."

right. being as deceit is, after all, what they do for a living.

and job titles tell me that certain roles are better suited to an "asset" or "talker" than to an officer...

I think Phillip's "inadvertent" admission during his debate with Mark Lane that O was never in Mexico is more telling than anything.

IMHO.

if nothing else, behold the skills of Mark Lane's oratory. one can understand how he whipped Hunt's ass in a Miami courtroom.

pretty sure Hunt was CIA. ergo, Sturgis. and Hall. and Martinez...

birds of a feather, Paul.

not like in novels. in the real world.

1 minute ago, Chris Newton said:

First off, Lee Harvey Oswald did not confess.

Secondly, you are playing fast and loose with the terminology. There are assets, agents, contract agents, staff agents, staff employees and officers. Several of the people you mention above can be placed in several categories depending on the era in question. None of the people you mention are CIA Officers but there were a few who confessed to having a role in JFK's assassination, and one who was very public about it.

And here, once again you want to have your cake and eat it too. In your opinion, Phillips was confessing to a role in a conspiracy, whether you want to call it a conspiracy or not, doesn't matter, that's what it was. I think it's a classless move and he should have been called out for it.

As Glenn pointed out, above, you keep digging this hole for your theory. You bring up Larry and Dick, last time I checked they weren't on the same bandwagon as you.

 

 

right.

18 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Chris,

Yes, I thought of that, too.  But again, negatives are not evidence.  Just because the CIA keeps secrets doesn't give us the license to fill in the blanks when we feel like it.

Larry Hancock wrote a book called, "Someone Would Have Talked." (2006), and that title echoes the words of Arthur Schlesinger.  But the truth is that several people have already talked.

We have several people who have already confessed to the JFK assassination -- at least a dozen, actually -- and only two were CIA agents -- and not top level.

Frank Sturgis confessed and boasted about it.  John Martino confessed.  David Ferrie confessed.  Thomas Beckham confessed.  Gerry Patrick Hemming confessed.  Loran Hall confessed.  Roscoe White confessed.  Lee Harvey Oswald confessed.  None of these were CIA agents.

This is where we need to begin -- not continually trying to force CIA agents into the mold, by using only negatives, in which our strongest evidence is the fact that can find no evidence.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

you're absolutely positive Sturgis wasn't CIA? or Martino? or Hall?

Sturgis on board the Rex on Oct 31, 63...? and these guys leading the training in Pontchartrain (and Big Pine)...?

please.

depends on how strict you want to get with the word "agents," doesn't it. i s'pose if it don't fit your theory, strictness is needed.

47 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Chris,

That is in the pages of DAP's manuscript, The AMLASH Legacy (1988).  Here's a snippet from that manuscript (which is online and available freely to all):

-------------- BEGIN EXTRACT OF DAVID ATLEE PHILLIPS' THE AMLASH LEGACY (1988) --------------------

I was one of the two case officers who handled Lee Harvey Oswald. After working to establish his Marxist bona fides, we gave him the mission of killing Fidel Castro in Cuba.
I helped him when he came to Mexico City to obtain a visa, and when he returned to Dallas to wait for it I saw him twice there. We rehearsed the plan many times: In Havana Oswald was to assassinate Castro with a sniper's rifle from the upper floor window of a building on the route where Castro often drove in an open jeep.

Whether Oswald was a double-agent or a psycho I'm not sure, and I don't know why he killed Kennedy. But I do know he used precisely the plan we had devised against Castro. Thus the CIA did not anticipate the President's assassination but it was responsible for it. I share that guilt.

-------------- END EXTRACT OF DAVID ATLEE PHILLIPS' THE AMLASH LEGACY (1988) --------------------

Although Phillips presented this in the form of a novel, I nevertheless take it as a confession from a tortured soul.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

"Although Phillips presented this in the form of a novel, I nevertheless take it as a confession from a tortured soul."

and yet...:
"We need harder evidence." (2X in just this thread...)
"We need more material evidence"

in the form of a novel, "I nevertheless take it as a confession..."

how novel.

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

everybody in the FBI, CIA and Right-wing in the USA was involved in smearing the FPCC

really?

everybody? 

as in, 100%?

90%?

how about 50%...?

what about something that doesn't make you sound "melodramatic," like, "many in the FBI, CIA, etc etc..."...

Paul, you seem to know so much more than everybody else on the planet. Wish the rest of us had your sources...