Michael Paine

[Paul Trejo]

I am bumping this thread in order to ask whatever poster claimed Michael Paine lived with Volkmar Schmidt to explain and verify. I cannot find anything to support this. I also want Paul T to look at these posts so he can see that last year he posited that Morales was not involved, and that if it turned that he was, it would perforce lead to assumptions of high level CIA involvement in the plot. Today Paul has been convinced that Morales was a plotter, but a rogue nonetheless, and that his involvement does not implicate upper CIA. We are of course entitled to change our views when new info surfaces. But this is more than that. It is simply adding Morales while denying the implications thereof, implications which are quite obvious.

Well, Paul B., I'd forgotten about this thread, but I thank you for reviving it.

A lot has happened in the past year, e.g. Bill Simpich published his new book, State Secret (2014) for free on the Internet. This brilliant work convinced me that the CIA was divided inside itself, so that whatever CIA Officer impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City on 28 September 1963 in order to FRAME Oswald as a COMMUNIST, was utterly and completely UNKNOWN to the CIA high-command.

Bill Simpich demonstrated this plainly -- whether he intended to or not -- with his ample evidence of a CIA mole-hunt. Therefore, based on the strength of Simpich's findings, which are based on recently released CIA documents, I can easily conclude that David Morales was indeed part of the JFK murder plot (as he confessed to his friend, Ruben Carbajal and Bob Walton), without concluding that the CIA high-command was in control.

I continue to deny any implication of the control of the CIA high-command in the murder of JFK. (If stronger evidence presents itself, I reserve the right to change my mind.)

Today I wonder why so many who've read Bill Simpich's book this year haven't concluded as I've concluded.

ON THE CONTRARY: The most important suspects in the murder of JFK remain the right-wing in Dallas, led by Ex-General Edwin Walker, and his motivation was precisely the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald (in conspiracy with liberal engineers in Dallas) really tried to kill him at his home in Dallas on 10 April 1963.

David Morales merely joined a plot already in progress, starting on Easter Sunday, 1963, led by Edwin Walker and Guy Banister -- two chums from the JBS and Minutemen.

The evidence is piling up in favor of my theory. Michael Paine is still alive. Who will step up to ask him the hard questions about Ex-General Edwin Walker?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 15, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

[bill Simpich's] State Secret ... convinced me that the CIA was divided inside itself, so that whatever CIA Officer impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City on 28 September 1963 in order to FRAME Oswald as a COMMUNIST, was utterly and completely UNKNOWN to the CIA high-command.

[...]

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

Dear "Fast and Loose With Words" Trejo,

Just because a CIA agent might do something that he's not authorized to do doesn't necessarily mean that that agent is unknown to the "CIA high command".

D'oh.

--Tommy

Edited October 11, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Steven Gaal]

The hierarchy of the CIA would use patsies for protection in their murder of the POTUS.

The perfect murder is when you make another person think they killed someone and you really did the dirty deed.

==

In Noel Twyman's Bloody Treason there was a interview with Gerry Patrick Hemming a self proclaimed 'singleton' for James Jesus Angleton.

One of the main points Hemming made was that there were a number of people who 'thought' they were involved in the assassination. Walker,JBS,local Dallas right wingers,et al could be compartmentalized in the periphery of the assassination so they , " 'thought' they were involved in the assassination".

==

Lansdale visited 3 special forces bases in the summer of 1963. The hierarchy of the CIA would use the best shooters available. Shooters

from the special forces would be about the best. Most would refuse such a task but psychological/political expert Lansdale would be the perfect person to select those who would agree to the dirty deed.

######################################################################################

Barbara Lamonica, Coalition on Political Assassination's Conference (21st October, 1995)

I find the Paines the most interesting, yet least studied, of the people surrounding the assassination. After all, they were the people who were closest to Lee Harvey Oswald - just prior, and leading up to, November 22. And wittingly or unwittingly, they contributed to the subsequent condemnation of Oswald, and therefore to the success of the conspiracy and coverup.

Furthermore, there are two timeframes, being the spring and fall of 1963, when the lives of the Paines and Oswalds are especially intertwined, that coincide with some very significant events.

Ruth Paine first makes contact after she first met (Marina Oswald) on February 22 at a party arranged by Everett Glover, who was a friend of Michael Paine's and George DeMohrenschildt's. But she doesn't try to make contact with Marina until March 8, when she sends her a note. On March 20, she visits Marina. In between these two dates, on March 13, Oswald purchases, or orders, the rifle. On April 2 Ruth invites the Oswalds to dinner. On April 7, Ruth writes a note, asking Marina to come and live with her. She never sends this note, but she keeps it. On April 11 she visits Marina again. On April 20 there's a picnic with the Oswalds and Ruth Paine. And by the end of the month, Marina is staying with Ruth temporarily, while Lee goes to New Orleans to seek employment and try to find an apartment.

In the middle of this cluster of activity the Walker incident occurs on April 10. During the summer the Paines and Oswalds part company. They are reunited in the fall. Marina is again living with Ruth Paine. Now, Ruth and Michael have been separated. Michael has agreed to continue to support Ruth, naturally, and his children. But interestingly enough he has also agreed to contribute to the upkeep of Marina financially.

The Paines are significant in several ways. First they insured the continued separation of Lee and Marina, allowing Lee to live unencumbered, and with no witnesses to his activities or associates during the principal time leading up to the assassination. Secondly, they provided a storage space for evidence that would be used against Oswald. Almost everything that would convict him in the public mind, including the alleged murder weapon, came out of the Paine's garage. Also found in the garage, among other things, was the Walker photograph, the backyard photograph, the Klein's Sporting Goods tear-out order for the rifle, among other things... there was also some radical magazines.

One wonders why someone intending to commit a crime would allow such items to be stored in another's garage, instead of destroying the incriminating evidence. Michael Paine's testimony is used to confirm that Lee had a rifle, and indeed it had been stored in their garage - in retrospect, of course, because Michael Paine said he never realized it was a rifle... It's hard to believe that a man like Michael Paine, who had been in combat artillery in Korea, and then in the Army Reserves for six years, could not recognize the feel of a rifle. Especially since it belonged to someone who he considered a person who advocated violence.

I think maybe Michael Paine is lying here. He either knew it was a rifle, and is choosing to hide that fact, or maybe it wasn't a rifle at all... in either case he distances himself from the situation by saying he just didn't realize what was going on. And this is characteristic of the Paines all along - they try to distance themselves from Oswald.

Ruth's testimony pinpoints the time for placing the weapon in Lee's hands. She testified that on the Thursday night before the assassination Lee showed up unexpectedly at her house to visit her family. Now Lee Oswald's habit, if you will, was to visit his family on weekends, so he would usually be there on Friday nights... So during the course of the evening, Ruth comes in around o'clock, after dinner, she goes into the garage and finds that the light had been left on. Well she tells the Warren Commission that she would never, ever leave the light on. So therefore Lee Oswald must have been in the garage to retrieve some of his belongings. This allows the Warren Commission to infer that this was the moment that Oswald got his gun, in preparation for the assassination. But the only thing that this testimony really tells us for sure is that Ruth was in the garage.

I believe the Paines are significant persons in the lives of the Oswalds, and warrant further research. Although they probably did not participate in a plot to kill the president, and they might have downplayed their relationship with Oswald merely in an attempt to distance themselves from a tragic event, they are, I believe, nevertheless withholding evidence about Oswald. Robert Oswald himself claimed, right after the assassination, that he felt Michael Paine knew more about that event than he was revealing. I think we should take Robert Oswald's claim seriously, and look into the Paines further.

===

James DiEugenio, review of Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked (March, 2008)

Another interesting part of the book is how it deals with the experiences of the late Dallas detective Buddy Walthers. This is based on a rare manuscript about the man by author Eric Tagg. Walthers was part of at least three major evidentiary finds in Dallas. Through his wife, he discovered the meetings at the house on Harlendale Avenue by Alpha 66 in the fall of 1963. Second, he was with FBI agent Robert Barrett when he picked up what appears to be a bullet slug in the grass at Dealey Plaza. And third, something I was unaware of until the work of John Armstrong and is also in this book, Walthers was at the house of Ruth and Michael Paine when the Dallas Police searched it on Friday afternoon. Walthers told Tagg that they "found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, records and index cards with names of pro-Castro sympathizers." (Hancock places this statement in his footnotes on p. 552.) This is absolutely startling of course since, combined with the work of Carol Hewett, Steve Jones, and Barbara La Monica, it essentially cinches the case that the Paines were domestic surveillance agents in the Cold War against communism. (Hancock notes how the Warren Commission and Wesley Liebeler forced Walthers to backtrack on this point and then made it disappear in the "Speculation and Rumors" part of the report.)

====================

Who kept these surveillance files ? Were the files Ruth's or Lee's ? When Lee visited did Lee spend hours in the garage ??

===

To believe these were Lee's files is poor thinking at best. When the JFK files were relesed Ruth Paine was seen at NARA spending long hours taking notes. Said note taking was her habit from long practice as a domestic surveillance agent in the Cold War against communism.

Edited October 11, 2014 by Steven Gaal

[Paul Trejo]

[bill Simpich's] State Secret ... convinced me that the CIA was divided inside itself, so that whatever CIA Officer impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City on 28 September 1963 in order to FRAME Oswald as a COMMUNIST, was utterly and completely UNKNOWN to the CIA high-command.

Dear "Fast and Loose With Words" Trejo,

Just because a CIA agent might do something that he's not authorized to do doesn't necessarily mean that that agent is unknown to the "CIA high command".

D'oh.

--Tommy

You're missing the point, Tommy. CIA Officer David Morales did something he wasn't authorized to do (i.e. directing his underlings to impersonate Lee Harvey Oswald and Sylvia Duran in Mexico City on 28 September 1963).

Now -- the proof that David Morales' behavior was unknown to the "CIA high command" is that the CIA high-command started a mole-hunt to try fo find out who impersonated Oswald and Duran.

It's the fact of the mole-hunt that proves that the CIA high-command didn't know which of its CIA Officers did the impersonation. They knew it had to be an inside job, because only CIA (and FBI) people knew that: (1) the phone line between the Cuban consulate and the USSR consulate in Mexico City was wire-tapped with a 15-minute order for English transcripts; (2) that Lee Harvey Oswald was being observed by the CIA in Mexico City; and (3) that KGB Agent Valery Kostikov's name was a high-profile name on the CIA wanted list.

The impersonation of Lee Harvey Oswald made extra certain that KGB Agent Valery Kostikov's name was included in the English transcript.

So, the CIA high-command was very interested in this phone call, because it linked the names of Oswald and Kostikov -- however they knew within minutes of the English transcript that the caller wasn't really Lee Harvey Oswald. The only question was -- WHO made that impersonation?

The CIA high-command didn't know. The proof that they didn't know is shown by the fact that they started an internal mole-hunt inside the CIA to find the culprits.

It would take many years before David Morales would finally be named as the prime suspect. Bill Simpich used very recent CIA releases from the FOIA to demonstrate the nature and extent of this mole-hunt, which could only have been created by the CIA high-command.

This is an important point. I may be the only person today who is making this point -- but it is a plausible challenge to all those JFK researchers who promote the urban myth that the CIA high-command murdered JFK.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 12, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

Barbara Lamonica, Coalition on Political Assassination's Conference (21st October, 1995)

I find the Paines the most interesting, yet least studied, of the people surrounding the assassination. After all, they were the people who were closest to Lee Harvey Oswald - just prior, and leading up to, November 22. And wittingly or unwittingly, they contributed to the subsequent condemnation of Oswald, and therefore to the success of the conspiracy and coverup.

Furthermore, there are two timeframes, being the spring and fall of 1963, when the lives of the Paines and Oswalds are especially intertwined, that coincide with some very significant events.

Ruth Paine first makes contact after she first met (Marina Oswald) on February 22 at a party arranged by Everett Glover, who was a friend of

Michael Paine's and George DeMohrenschildt's. But she doesn't try to make contact with Marina until March 8, when she sends her a note. On March 20, she visits Marina. In between these two dates, on March 13, Oswald purchases, or orders, the rifle. On April 2 Ruth invites the Oswalds to dinner. On April 7, Ruth writes a note, asking Marina to come and live with her. She never sends this note, but she keeps it. On April 11 she visits Marina again. On April 20 there's a picnic with the Oswalds and Ruth Paine. And by the end of the month, Marina is staying with Ruth temporarily, while Lee goes to New Orleans to seek employment and try to find an apartment.

In the middle of this cluster of activity the Walker incident occurs on April 10. During the summer the Paines and Oswalds part company. They are reunited in the fall. Marina is again living with Ruth Paine. Now, Ruth and Michael have been separated. Michael has agreed to continue to support Ruth, naturally, and his children. But interestingly enough he has also agreed to contribute to the upkeep of Marina financially.

The Paines are significant in several ways. First they insured the continued separation of Lee and Marina, allowing Lee to live unencumbered, and with no witnesses to his activities or associates during the principal time leading up to the assassination. Secondly, they provided a storage space for evidence that would be used against Oswald. Almost everything that would convict him in the public mind, including the alleged murder weapon, came out of the Paine's garage. Also found in the garage, among other things, was the Walker photograph, the backyard photograph, the Klein's Sporting Goods tear-out order for the rifle, among other things... there was also some radical magazines.

One wonders why someone intending to commit a crime would allow such items to be stored in another's garage, instead of destroying the incriminating evidence. Michael Paine's testimony is used to confirm that Lee had a rifle, and indeed it had been stored in their garage - in retrospect, of course, because Michael Paine said he never realized it was a rifle... It's hard to believe that a man like Michael Paine, who had been in combat artillery in Korea, and then in the Army Reserves for six years, could not recognize the feel of a rifle. Especially since it belonged to someone who he considered a person who advocated violence.

I think maybe Michael Paine is lying here. He either knew it was a rifle, and is choosing to hide that fact, or maybe it wasn't a rifle at all... in either case he distances himself from the situation by saying he just didn't realize what was going on. And this is characteristic of the Paines all along - they try to distance themselves from Oswald.

Ruth's testimony pinpoints the time for placing the weapon in Lee's hands. She testified that on the Thursday night before the assassination Lee showed up unexpectedly at her house to visit her family. Now Lee Oswald's habit, if you will, was to visit his family on weekends, so he would usually be there on Friday nights... So during the course of the evening, Ruth comes in around o'clock, after dinner, she goes into the garage and finds that the light had been left on. Well she tells the Warren Commission that she would never, ever leave the light on. So therefore Lee Oswald must have been in the garage to retrieve some of his belongings. This allows the Warren Commission to infer that this was the moment that Oswald got his gun, in preparation for the assassination. But the only thing that this testimony really tells us for sure is that Ruth was in the garage.

I believe the Paines are significant persons in the lives of the Oswalds, and warrant further research. Although they probably did not participate in a plot to kill the president, and they might have downplayed their relationship with Oswald merely in an attempt to distance themselves from a tragic event, they are, I believe, nevertheless withholding evidence about Oswald. Robert Oswald himself claimed, right after the assassination, that he felt Michael Paine knew more about that event than he was revealing. I think we should take Robert Oswald's claim seriously, and look into the Paines further.

<snip>

I agree with Barbara Lamonica (Coalition on Political Assassination's Conference, 1995) when she suggests that Michael and Ruth Paine are among the most interesting and least studied of the people surrounding the JFK murder.

However, my questions for the Paines would be very, very different from Lamonica's questions. Also, I disagree with the hyperbole in Lamonica's words.

(1) Lamonica says that the Paines, "were the people who were closest to Lee Harvey Oswald - just prior, and leading up to, November 22."

That's simply untrue. The Paines were closest to Marina Oswald -- that's true. But the Paines hardly interacted with Lee Harvey Oswald for most of 1963, for the simple fact that Lee Harvey Oswald spent half of 1963 in New Orleans, and not Dallas.

Further, in New Orleans, Lee Harvey Oswald interacted on a most frequent basis with David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Guy Banister, Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, and various Cuban Exiles and their counter-revolutionary groups in New Orleans. Not with Michael Paine.

Further, even in Dallas, Lee Harvey Oswald preferred the company of George De Mohrenschildt and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt to that of Michael and Ruth Paine. Lee Oswald openly told Marina that he thought little of Ruth Paine -- and he barely spoke about Michael Paine to Marina.

(2) Lamonica says about the Paines that, "wittingly or unwittingly, they contributed to the subsequent condemnation of Oswald, and therefore to the success of the conspiracy and coverup."

The basic flaw in her argument is that she merges the JFK murder and the JFK cover-up into one contiguous activity -- in her words, the "conspiracy-and-coverup".

I have tried to show all year long that the JFK conspirators tried to make the "Communists" take the blame for the JFK murder, and that is why they spent MONTHS trying to FRAME Lee Harvey Oswald as an officer of the FPCC.

However, it was New Orleans DA Jim Garrison who showed conclusively that the FPCC in New Orleans (of which Oswald as the director) was a FAKE and had only ONE MEMBER, namely Alek Hidell (the alias of Oswald).

The JFK cover-up crew, I've been trying to show all year long, tried to make a "Lone Nut" take the blame for the JFK murder. This was intended to REVERSE the claim that the COMMUNISTS killed JFK. So the JFK Cover-up Team acted AGAINST the JFK Kill Team.

Lamonica didn't guess that back in 1995. In fact, nobody guessed that throughout the 1960's, the 1970's, the 1980's, the 1990's or the 2000's.

Only in the current decade did anybody (namely, me) come up with this new theory, which IMHO should start a completely new direction for JFK research from this point forward.

The works of Mark Lane, Harold Weisgerg, Jim Garrison, Gaeton Fonzi, John Newman, Jim Marrs, Fletcher Prouty, Dick Russell, Barbara Lamonica, David Lifton, Peter Dale Scott, Joan Mellen, James DiEugenio, Larry Hancock and even Bill Simpich continue to conflate the JFK Kill Team and the JFK Cover-up team.

(3) Lamonica is reduced to "two timeframes, being the spring and fall of 1963," when the fates of the Paines and Oswalds came together.

Yet Lamonica carelessly neglects the WINTER of 1963, before the Spring, when the Paines met and befriended the Oswalds at Dallas engineer parties organized by Volkmar Schmidt and George De Mohrenschildt.

Because she neglects the Winter 1963 events, Lamonica fails to mention Ex-General Edwin Walker as a key figure in the local politics of Dallas in January, February and early March of 1963.

It is a matter of urgent history that as the Winter of 1963 began our Ex-General Edwin Walker was on trial for his role in fomenting deadly race riot at Ole Miss University on 30 September 1962. Yet at the end of January 1963, Walker was acquitted by an all-White Mississippi Grand Jury, on the bogus claim that Walker was at Ole Miss that night "to calm the mob."

Because he was acquitted, Edwin Walker and his two lawyers, Robert Morris and Clyde Watts, went around the USA making lawsuits against newspapers who had printed the TRUTH about him, namely, that he really instigated that race riot in his radio and TV announcements. [BTW, I recently tried to buy these 1962 media clips of Edwin Walker from NARA, and was denied on grounds of "FOIA exceptions". ]

Because many people knew the truth, Walker, Morris and Watts lost 9 out of 10 of their lawsuits -- but they won 10% -- and that amounted to $3 million in winnings. Naturally the newspapers appealed, but Walker and his lawyers were now millionaires on paper. (We should also note that, adjusting for inflation, that $3 million would amount to $30 million in today's dollars.)

With his million dollar winnings, Edwin Walker became a new darling of Cuban Exile counter-revolutionary groups seeking money and support for their raids on Cuba. This included Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard and many others. We have letters from Hemming to Walker among Walker's personal papers that prove this was the case.

Yet Lamonica neglects this important aspect of the history.

Ruth Paine's ancestors might have been connected with the government, but that's irrelevant. They key factor is Ruth Paine herself -- she was a housewife, mother and a Quaker. As a Quaker she was an American liberal. Michael Paines' father was a Trotsky follower, but that is actually irrelevant. They key factor is Michael Paine himself -- an oil engineer, a father and an American liberal.

American liberals in the winter of 1963 were livid when Walker walked out of prison after causing the Ole Miss riots of 1962. Such liberals include Volkmar Schmidt and George De Mohrenschildt. They took steps that winter to brainwash Lee Harvey Oswald to their way of thinking. They both admitted this.

I believe Michael Paine did his part -- yet we have video and written confessions from Volkmar Schmidt and George De Mohrenshildt that they did their part to make Lee Harvey Oswald hate Ex-General Edwin Walker.

Nothing about this important political reality emerges from Lamonica's account, and instead she merely mentions the Walker shooting in passing, the way most JFK researchers do.

(4) It's my opinion that Ruth Paines' interest in taking care of Marina Oswald was entirely a humanitarian effort, based entirely on her liberal politics and the fact that she was a Quaker.

I find nothing suspicious in her care of Marina and June Oswald during this period. Further, it's incorrect to say that Ruth Paine got Lee Harvey Oswald his job at the TBSD building -- it was a neighbor woman who did that, during a social tea.

(5) As for the Paines' garage and all the evidence about Lee Harvey Oswald within it, there is nothing that I see to suggest forgery. Marina admitted that she took one of the Backyard Photographs, and we know that Lee Oswald had access to advanced photographic equipment at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall during that same period.

The fact that The Militant newspaper admitted in the 1970's that they received a copy of one of those photographs from Oswald himself, and that DPD officer Roscoe White had another pose of that Backyard Photograph (unknown even to the Warren Commission) again suggests Oswald as the composer of all the FAKES, because Roscoe White and Lee Oswald knew each other while in the US Marines.

Lamonica "wonders why someone intending to commit a crime would allow such items to be stored in another's garage."

In fact, Lee Harvey Oswald committed no such crime as shooting at JFK. This has been demonstrated amply since the days of DA Jim Garrison, and the multiplicity of shooters was proved conclusively by the US Government itself, with the HSCA (House Select Committee on Assassinations) in 1979.

In fact, Lee Harvey Oswald had no clue that he had been FRAMED as the Patsy of the murder of JFK, until the day after the murder. So, Lee Oswald had no motive to hide any contents in Ruth Paine's garage. Yet the FRAMING of Lee Oswald in New Orleans earlier in 1963 was professionally done -- very thorough.

(6) I don't suspect Michael Paine of lying -- I suspect Michael Paine of withholding everything he knew about Lee Harvey Oswald, especially with regard to the attempted assassination of Ex-General Edwin Walker. I do agree with Barbara Lamonica on a key point -- that the Paines from the very start tried very hard "to distance themselves from Oswald."

Yet for me, it isn't Ruth's testimony that places the murder weapon in Lee's hands -- instead, it's Gerry Patrick Hemming himself, who told A.J. Weberman that he personally called Lee Harvey Oswald from Miami on 11/21/1963 to promise Oswald double the price of his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle if only he would take it to the TSBD building on 11/22/1963, and hide it among some boxes on the 6th floor, for his underground friends to find. (Please notice the implication here -- that the plan to use the TSBD as part of the plot came very late in the JFK conspiracy -- only days before the murder.)

(7) On the positive side, I agree with Barbara Lamonica that "the Paines are significant persons in the lives of the Oswalds, and warrant further research." I also agree with her that we should take Robert Oswald's claim that Michael Paine knew more about the event than he revealed. My questions, however, about the Paines' withholding would focus on Ex-General Edwin Walker.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited October 15, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

What's more likely - that the CIA started a 'mole hunt' after Oswald's impersonation in MC because they genuinely did not know what happened, or that Morales and Phillips were working for the chain of command? The mole hunt does not prove what Paul T keeps saying it does. After all, if Morales et al were working within the chain of command it makes perfect sense to put something on the record that distanced Helms, Dulles, Angleton et al from the new escalation in Oswald's role, transforming him from a dangle to a patsy.

[Paul Trejo]

What's more likely - that the CIA started a 'mole hunt' after Oswald's impersonation in MC because they genuinely did not know what happened, or that Morales and Phillips were working for the chain of command? The mole hunt does not prove what Paul T keeps saying it does. After all, if Morales et al were working within the chain of command it makes perfect sense to put something on the record that distanced Helms, Dulles, Angleton et al from the new escalation in Oswald's role, transforming him from a dangle to a patsy.

More likely, Paul. B.? No, that's less likely. Only the CIA high-command can start a mole-hunt inside the CIA.

The existence of a CIA mole-hunt is solid proof that the CIA high-command did not know who was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald among its CIA staff.

If nothing else, Bill Simpich proved -- conclusively -- that the CIA was divided in its highest levels about this impersonation.

The most likely scenario is that the CIA high-command was clueless about which CIA staff impersonated Oswald.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 12, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Phillips and Morales worked within the chain of command. Until you provide proof that they did not, rather than conjecture, that is the only reasonable conclusion. You are constitutionally incapable of ever suspecting that the CIA could be culpable. Before Bill Simpich came along with his great research you posted on this board that if Morales was shown to be part of the conspiracy it would surely indicate CIA upper level involvement in the murder of our beloved president. Now you are sure that he was involved because of Simpich, but equally sure he was rogue. Need I say more? It is your bias, not Simpich's work, that explains that bit of intellectual sophistry. But hey, you supported Romney for president, so I am not really surprised.

[Paul Trejo]

Phillips and Morales worked within the chain of command. Until you provide proof that they did not, rather than conjecture, that is the only reasonable conclusion. You are constitutionally incapable of ever suspecting that the CIA could be culpable. Before Bill Simpich came along with his great research you posted on this board that if Morales was shown to be part of the conspiracy it would surely indicate CIA upper level involvement in the murder of our beloved president. Now you are sure that he was involved because of Simpich, but equally sure he was rogue. Need I say more? It is your bias, not Simpich's work, that explains that bit of intellectual sophistry. But hey, you supported Romney for president, so I am not really surprised.

However, Paul B., I AGREE with you that David Morales worked only within a chain of command.

Yet my point is that David Morales switched to a DIFFERENT chain of command, when he began to follow the CIVILIAN plot to murder JFK led by Guy Banister and Edwin Walker, two radical JBS ideologues.

David Morales had already been radicalized by the Bay of Pigs, and he expressed his certainty that JFK had BETRAYED the Cuban Exiles at the Bay of Pigs -- BECAUSE JFK WAS A COMMUNIST.

The belief that JFK was a Communist was already well-worn by the JBS in 1963. David Morales did not need to go far to find the JBS, which was established in every major American city.

This isn't bias -- Bill Simpich proved, IMHO, that David Morales was working OUTSIDE the view of the CIA high-command. This makes David Morales a ROGUE.

Yet even as a ROGUE, David Morales needed a chain of command -- and I believe he found that chain of command in these JBS players.

Finally -- where did you get the nonsense that I supported Willard Romney for President?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 13, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - if I misremembered something you said, or attributed something I read here on this forum to you when it was someone else, I am sorry, I could have sworn that I read something you wrote that indicated support for Romney. I cannot find it now.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - if I misremembered something you said, or attributed something I read here on this forum to you when it was someone else, I am sorry, I could have sworn that I read something you wrote that indicated support for Romney. I cannot find it now.

Well, Paul B., You're probably remembering that I interviewed Larrie Schmidt in 2012, and that he was an avid supporter of Willard (Mitt) Romney, and that he broke off our interviews (near the end) when he suspected that I wasn't supporting Romney for President. That's the only time I mentioned Romney on the Forum.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 14, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[David Andrews]

More likely, Paul. B.? No, that's less likely. Only the CIA high-command can start a mole-hunt inside the CIA.

What is there in Angleton's history to preclude him playing a double game: initiating a mole-hunt that would implicate no one publicly ("publicly" defined as "beyond Angleton's desk") in the Mexico City hoax, yet would dislodge information to be used in an actual investigation of KGB penetration and a possible purge or reshuffling of undesirable personnel? Change the circumstances and this type of opportunism is not beyond the thinking of a corrupt small-city police detective. They call it "Shaking the tree."

Edited October 15, 2014 by David Andrews

[Paul Trejo]

More likely, Paul. B.? No, that's less likely. Only the CIA high-command can start a mole-hunt inside the CIA.

What is there in Angleton's history to preclude him playing a double game: initiating a mole-hunt that would implicate no one publicly ("publicly" defined as "beyond Angleton's desk") in the Mexico City hoax, yet would dislodge information to be used in an actual investigation of KGB penetration and a possible purge or reshuffling of undesirable personnel? Change the circumstances and this type of opportunism is not beyond the thinking of a corrupt small-city police detective. They call it "Shaking the tree."

Well, David, you're speculating beyond speculation. It's an interesting "what-if" scenario, but nobody outside the CIA high-command even knew that there was a mole-hunt in place until a half-century later.

The only purpose of that mole-hunt (as well-demonstrated by Bill Simpich) was to find the mole. Identification of the mole would then disclose the intentions of the mole. Finding the mole was the urgent matter.

In your speculation, David, those who started the mole-hunt (e.g. Angleton) already knew who the mole was, but wanted to play some other game. But with whom? Only the CIA high-command would even know about a mole-hunt.

So, in your scenario, David, if the mole-hunters already knew who the mole was, then they were CIA high-command officers who were seeking to fool other CIA high-command officers.

If that's the case, then we are back to my theory -- that the CIA was sharply divided inside itself.

But we don't need to speculate so far afield to arrive at that conclusion. The existence of a mole-hunt, all by itself, shows that the CIA officer who impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City was operating below the vision of the CIA high-command.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 15, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Of course the CIA was divided in itself. It still is. That doesn't prove that the division was between the top of the chain of command and some rogues who had joined with a cast of characters from all over the hate map. It's so illogical.

[Paul Trejo]

Of course the CIA was divided in itself. It still is. That doesn't prove that the division was between the top of the chain of command and some rogues who had joined with a cast of characters from all over the hate map. It's so illogical.

Well, Paul B., I'm not merely speaking about differences of opinion within the CIA.

I'm speaking about (and Bill Simpich is speaking about) a mole-hunt. Somebody had impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City in order to link Oswald's name with the notorious KGB Agent Valery Kostikov.

That fact was known to the CIA within one hour of the impersonation.

Now, who would do such a thing? Clearly only a CIA Officer would know how to work the system in that way. Yet this wouldn't be a KGB mole -- because the KGB would never try to link itself with Lee Harvey Oswald.

So, the CIA high-command wasn't looking for a KGB mole -- they were looking for an ultra-right-wing mole. And they knew it.

Now, the CIA is largely considered right-wing by most Americans. But the CIA isn't "ultra" right-wing, that is, extremist, like, for example the members of the John Birch Society.

Somebody who wanted to link Lee Harvey Oswald with the COMMUNISTS, without the knowledge of the CIA high-command, was the mole they were looking for. But who?

We know now, a half-century later, that it was CIA Officer David Morales (almost certainly, given the work of Hancock/Simpich).

We also know from Joan Mellen (as I recall) that David Morales met with Guy Banister and Ex-General Edwin Walker in New Orleans in August 1963, at a hotel owned by Carlos Marcello.

The leaders of the JFK murder were therefore some radical elements of the John Birch Society. It's so logical.

IMHO, Michael Paine knew on 11/22/1963 that Ex-General Edwin Walker had led the plot to kill JFK.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 15, 2014 by Paul Trejo