Michael Paine

[Paul Trejo]

Flaw in my logic? Nobody pointed out any flaw in my logic, Paul B.

A difference of opinion -- certainly -- but no flaw.

Other JFK researchers will use that same excerpt from the writings of David Atlee Phillips in their own ways -- and they are surely welcome to do that.

My interpretation of that writing is valid on multiple grounds.

Firstly, Phillips writes from his past experiences. Secondly, Phillips is only human, and wants to leave a legacy.
Thirdly, Phillips might also wish to confess, to the best of his limited ability.

Based on this, my theory is plausible -- certainly as plausible as anybody else's that I've seen here.

The only choices that I see are these:

(1) Phillips was really working with Guy Banister to make Lee Harvey Oswald believe that he was going to assassinate Fidel Castro and get a big reward and an official, salaried job with the CIA for for eliminating Castro -- knowing that this was all baloney and that Oswald was really being framed to be the patsy for the JFK murder; or

(2) Phillips was really fooled along with Lee Harvey Oswald to believe that Oswald was part of Operation Mongoose and AMLASH, which related to Phillips' official role in the CIA.

For the time being, I will presume #2 is true, until somebody shows me some SOLID evidence to the contrary. The mole-hunt evidence presented by Bill Simpich this year tends to argue for #2.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited October 18, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Does anybody have any CLUE about how to get into contact with Michael Paine?

Anything? Any lead?

Thanks,

--Paul Trejo, MA

[Paul Brancato]

The last query I agree would be useful. But fat chance Michael Paine will make himself available.

[Paul Brancato]

Maybe I wasn't clear. The flaw is that you are using a work of Fiction by a master psyops xxxx to buttress your theory. You can spin it any way you want, saying that Phillips was leaving us something for posterity or whatever, but it is just as likely, maybe more so, that he was leaving us the way he came in - as a professional xxxx.

[Paul Trejo]

Maybe I wasn't clear. The flaw is that you are using a work of Fiction by a master psyops xxxx to buttress your theory. You can spin it any way you want, saying that Phillips was leaving us something for posterity or whatever, but it is just as likely, maybe more so, that he was leaving us the way he came in - as a professional xxxx.

OK, Paul B., that's a fair objection. Yes, the paragraph we cited from David Atlee Phillips last unpublished manuscript, The AMLASH Legacy (1987), was a bio-fiction. That is, it was a biographical memoir told within a dramatic and therefore a fictitious narrative.

It wasn't presented as a work of history or a police confession. Everybody knew that.

What makes it interesting -- not only to me but to people like John Simkin, who first posted it on the Forum years ago -- is that we have something from David Atlee Phillips about Lee Harvey Oswald in his own words.

This is rare. He didn't speak about Oswald in his other novels.

Also, the title of his book is revealing -- it is called The AMLASH Legacy. It is a matter of known history that David Atlee Phillips was a CIA Officer in charge of the project known as AMLASH (which was finally revealed in the wake of Watergate and in the context of the HSCA). The goal of AMLASH was to murder Fidel Castro.

Also, Phillips uses the word, "Legacy", which suggests that he cared about the Legacy that he was leaving behind for family and his country. Since Phillips was a world authority on AMLASH, we can expect to read some nuggets of historical fact in that manuscript, along with his "changing the names to protect the innocent" and so on.

The paragraph is very suggestive. In this snippet he admits that he knew Lee Harvey Oswald personally. Yet we already knew that from the account that Gaeton Fonzi obtained from Alpha 66 leader, Antonio Veciana. But now Veciana's account is confirmed by Phillips himself.

Also -- Phillips in this snippet explains that he was training Oswald in the context of AMLASH -- the plot to kill Fidel Castro. Yet this is also suggested by Antonio Veciana in his account to Gaeton Fonzi.

Also -- Phillips in this snippet claims that he participated in the SHEEP-DIP of Lee Harvey Oswald, that is, FAKING Oswald's "Marxist bona fides." We have historical evidence that Oswald had help in faking his "Marxist bona fides" from Jim Garrison himself, who proved that the Communist FPCC chapter in New Orleans was a FAKE, and that it was run by Guy Banister himself, out of Guy Banister's own offices (with leaflets stamped with Banister's address).

So -- yes -- this is indeed a work of fiction -- but just look at how much HISTORICAL FACT is already confirmed just in its first few sentences!

So, Paul B., it's fiction, but it's not PURE fiction -- not just invented out of imagination. David Atlee Phillips used REAL HISTORY as his model for his narrative about Oswald.

It's up to readers today to discern using arguments exactly where the truth ends and the fiction begins. That's why there will be differences of interpretation of that passage.

As I said before, I see two broad choices for interpretation:

(1) Phillips was really working with Guy Banister to fool Lee Harvey Oswald into believing that he was going to assassinate Fidel Castro and get a big reward and an official, salaried job with the CIA for that; while Phillips and Banister knew that this was all baloney and that Oswald was really being framed to be the patsy for the JFK murder; or

(2) Phillips was really fooled along with Lee Harvey Oswald to believe that Oswald was part of Operation Mongoose and AMLASH, which related to Phillips' official role in the CIA, and the movement to switch Oswald from the Fidel plot to the JFK plot occurred outside the vision of David Atlee Phillips.

In his bio-fiction of The AMLASH Legacy, David Atlee Phillips tells us that choice #2 is what really happened. For the time being, I will presume choice #2 is true until somebody shows me some SOLID evidence to the contrary.

My main reasoning for selecting choice #2 isn't just to give Phillips the benefit of the doubt. My main reason is that the mole-hunt evidence presented by Bill Simpich this year tends to argue for #2.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 18, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, David Phillips was not in charge of AMLASH (AMLASH was not a project, it was the crypt for Cuebela) nor was that project specifically an assassination project. It, along with the AMWHIP series of internal Cuban assets were derivatives of AMTRUNK (which actually was a project)- all of which involved a project started under Fitzgerald after Mongoose ended to stage a coup to overthrow Castro.....one of the aspects of the effort was that their Cuban contacts kept saying that somebody had to take out Castro first and indeed Cubela was eventually persuaded to assume that role....part his idea, part his case officers it appears but he kept pushing that button - very possible in a Castro orchestrated sting against the project.

All of that started before Phillips even began to move under SAS. Beyond that, again, please cite some corroboration for Phillips working with Bannister in 1963, for AMLASH involving the Mafia in any way (per your post in the other thread) and for Morales meeting with Marcello - unless you already did that and I missed it.

Edited October 18, 2014 by Larry Hancock

[Thomas Graves]

Paul, David Phillips was not in charge of AMLASH (AMLASH was not a project, it was the crypt for Cuebela) nor was that project specifically an assassination project. It, along with the AMWHIP series of internal Cuban assets were derivatives of AMTRUNK (which actually was a project)- all of which involved a project started under Fitzgerald after Mongoose ended to stage a coup to overthrow Castro.....one of the aspects of the effort was that their Cuban contacts kept saying that somebody had to take out Castro first and indeed Cubela was eventually persuaded to assume that role....part his idea, part his case officers it appears but he kept pushing that button - very possible in a Castro orchestrated sting against the project.

All of that started before Phillips even began to move under SAS. Beyond that, again, please cite some corroboration for Phillips working with Bannister in 1963, for AMLASH involving the Mafia in any way (per your post in the other thread) and for Morales meeting with Marcello - unless you already did that and I missed it.

Larry,

Please don't confuse Trejo with the facts.

LOL

--Tommy

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, David Phillips was not in charge of AMLASH (AMLASH was not a project, it was the crypt for Cuebela) nor was that project specifically an assassination project. It, along with the AMWHIP series of internal Cuban assets were derivatives of AMTRUNK (which actually was a project)- all of which involved a project started under Fitzgerald after Mongoose ended to stage a coup to overthrow Castro.....one of the aspects of the effort was that their Cuban contacts kept saying that somebody had to take out Castro first and indeed Cubela was eventually persuaded to assume that role....part his idea, part his case officers it appears but he kept pushing that button - very possible in a Castro orchestrated sting against the project.

All of that started before Phillips even began to move under SAS. Beyond that, again, please cite some corroboration for Phillips working with Bannister in 1963, for AMLASH involving the Mafia in any way (per your post in the other thread) and for Morales meeting with Marcello - unless you already did that and I missed it.

OK, Larry, point taken. Yet it's a fine point -- project or scenario. Yes, AMLASH was a code name for Rolando Cubela, a key figure who volunteered to murder Fidel Castro.

Yet the central purpose of the AMLASH scenario was to assassinate Fidel Castro. Rolando Cubela was its superstar, focal point -- so as you suggest, Cubela was AMLASH.

But there was more to it than that.

David Atlee Phillips was associated at a level of CIA responsibility to the AMLASH scenario, and at one point, as testified by former CIA Director Richard Helms before the Senate, it involved a vial of poison that Rolando Cubela would hopefully administer to Fidel Castro -- but how? That was the question.

Mafia figures were also called into the AMLASH scenario. Sam Giancana was allegedly aware of it, and may have been murdered because of what he knew, and because he agreed to testify before the HSCA that Santos Trafficante was also involved. But at their level it was mainly a round-table of discussions -- what Italian-Cuban assets could get close enough to Fidel Castro to give him this poison?

That poison is now famous -- Judyth Vary Baker, chemistry student, claims to have been a part of its design when she met Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans.

ANYWAY -- the point is that the PLOT TO KILL FIDEL CASTRO was a project that was near and dear to David Atlee Phillips. I think that's clear. And when David Atlee Phillips himself writes about The AMLASH Legacy (1987), he is speaking broadly about a CIA scenario to murder Fidel Castro -- a scenario in which he held some official responsibility.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 19, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, this is getting a bit embarrassing but you are confusing and entangling two completely separate sets of events. The activities with Cubela occured during 63 and 64 and involved his request for first a pen which could dispense poison at close range and later focus on a sniper rifle. Helms did testify about these activities, to the Church Committee inquiry. Please cite a reference that indicates he stated that Phillips was directly involved in the AMLASH activities - which were extremely compartmentalized.

You seem to be confusing this with the pre-BOP, 1961 activities involving John Roselli which did indeed focus on poison attempts. While certain former Havana crime associated contacts were used to move the poison into Cuba, that has nothing to do with 1963 and had absolutely nothing to do with David Phillips. That poison came from the CIA's own tech services area. You said that you had read NEXUS and I go though all this in great detail there...

As to Judyth Vary Baker, its best I hold my piece on that but I can assure you she had nothing to do with the poison used in 1961 and absolutely noting to to with the Cubela activities two and three years later....we will leave it at that.

Now I admit that the thought of killing was near and dear to Phillips - his first contact with such an effort had been inside Cuba in 1959, with a group including Antonio Veciana - and that he personally pursued similar efforts (apparently not CIA sanctioned) well beyond the United States in later years, but he did that using his own personal Cuban exile assets and they made their plans around rifles and bombs - and that is another story indeed.

The point being that when Phillips wrote his fictional piece, both the 61 poison attempts and the later AMLASH story ahd been related to the the Church committee hearings, so he simply worked it into the piece - ensuring that if it went anywhere the Agency could not come down on him for violating his security agreements on confidential information.

[David Andrews]

Commentary on the Forum thread started in 2008, "David Phillips's Unpublished Novel," seem worth rereading and absorbing here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12974

For old litterateurs like me, it is noteworthy that the scenario Phillips presented in his book proposal for The AMLASH Lagacy was to be revealed as a KGB hoax by the novel's anticipated end. This would include the concept that two CIA case officers handled Oswald - presented with the "plot gone wrong" scenario of the assassination in a letter mysteriously forwarded to the son of a dead CIA officer named "Harry Harrison."

A fine point: at the time Veciana encountered Phillips and Oswald in Dallas, could Phillips be described as a case officer? His involvement with Oswald may have begun at a time when he could be called that. However, the "Harry Harrison" character in AMLASH Legacy is not, from what we know of the project, directly identifiable with Phillips.

It's dangerous to history to impute motive to writers in the creation of their characters, but Phillips at the time had children nearing adulthood, and a brother that suspected him of involvement in the assassination. His creation of the Harry Harrison character may have some bearing on how he wanted the Phillips legacy to be recalled: patriotic service gone wrong through an unforeseeable twist of fate - in which the Agency was, of course, as guiltless as "Harry Harrison" was, the whole business being a rotten Soviet hoax.

So - a hoax in which no guilt whatsoever is imputed to the CIA or its valiant "Harry Harrison." What sort of scurvy Russki trick could this be, in which no capitalist corruption is even imputed? Just the thing to send a lot of good Americans chasing around without hope of a payoff, suspecting each other wildly for no reason.

As apparently departed Forum member Emil Snizek wrote on the "Unpublished Novel" thread regarding "Harry Harrison's" mystifying loss of control of Oswald after Mexico City, "Surely Oswald would not be left to roam free upon leaving Mexico in this vulnerable moment after he has either been following direction very well or running from his commitments..."

So, even the title "I Was a Dumba** for the CIA" fails to cover Phillips' literary non-event, this money-generating placebo that never was, and is in the end beneath serious consideration as an assassination rationale.

Edited October 19, 2014 by David Andrews

[Paul Trejo]

Commentary on the Forum thread started in 2008, "David Phillips's Unpublished Novel," seem worth rereading and absorbing here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12974

...A fine point: at the time Veciana encountered Phillips and Oswald in Dallas, could Phillips be described as a case officer? His involvement with Oswald may have begun at a time when he could be called that...

So, even the title "I Was a Dumba** for the CIA" fails to cover Phillips' literary non-event, this money-generating placebo that never was, and is in the end beneath serious consideration as an assassination rationale.

David, I'm glad you posted the 2008 thread by John Simkin on "David Phillips Unpublished Novel" to bring everybody up to speed on it.

I'm certainly not arguing that The AMLASH Legacy was a "confession" or anything other than a fiction with an unknown amount of biographical data.

Yet the biographical data is crystal clear, because we have historical evidence (from Antonio Veciana and others) of its authenticity; somewhat as follows, tracing the main character of his "novel":

(1) DAP's character had some responsibility in a CIA activity surrounding a covert agent code-named AMLASH (in the context of CIA project, AMTRUNK) who had the ultimate goal of assassinating FIdel Castro. DAP really did have responsibilities for AMTRUNK, along with CIA Officers like William Harvey, David Morales and Howard Hunt, and along with many civilians, like Johnny Roselli, Carlos Marcello, Santos Trafficante, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Antonio Veciana, Frank Sturgis, Marita Lorentz and John Martino.

(2) DAP's character knew Lee Harvey Oswald personally. DAP really did know Oswald, as shown by Antonio Veciana, who told Gaeton Fonzi that in September 1963, in Dallas, he met Oswald and Phillips who was going by the name of Maurice Bishop at that time.

(3) DAP's character was training Oswald within the context of the AMLASH legacy, "to kill Fidel Castro in Cuba." Given Antonio Veciania's claim, and the anti-Castro context of their relationship, we can easily argue that DAP believed that Oswald was one of his assets with regard to AMTRUNK.

(4) DAP's character helped Oswald to establish his "Marxist bona fides" to enable him to infiltrate Cuba to get close enough to Fidel Castro to kill him. (Jim Garrison proved that Lee Oswald worked for much of 1963 in New Orleans to establish his "Marxist bona fides" as a Fake FPCC officer in a Fake FPCC in New Orleans, under the guidance of Guy Banister. This was almost enough to crack the JFK murder case wide open in 1968.)

(5) DAP's character was also in Mexico City, helping Oswald get a Visa to get to Cuba to get close enough to Fidel Castro to kill him. (Recently released Mexico City documents provide much detail about Lee Harvey Oswald at Mexico City consulates trying to get a hasty Visa to Cuba.)

So -- yes -- The AMLASH Legacy is a work of fiction -- but it's biographical fiction, and see how much real, historical data is already included in it. It isn't simply imaginative fiction.

The only question, IMHO, is where does the fiction end and the truth begin (and vice verse).

So, David, what do you think of my two broad choices for interpretation, as follows?

(i) DAP was really working with Guy Banister to fool Lee Harvey Oswald into believing that he was going to try to assassinate Fidel Castro to earn an official, salaried job with the CIA; yet DAP and Banister were laughing behind Oswald's back, knowing Oswald was being framed to be the patsy for the JFK murder;

(ii) DAP was also fooled by Guy Banister to believe that Oswald was going to try to Fidel Castro, as DAP's job in the CIA demanded; and therefore Guy Banister in New Orleans (like David Morales in Mexico City) blindsighted DAP and turned Oswald from a Kill-Fidel plot to a Kill-JFK plot.

In his novel, The AMLASH Legacy, DAP basically gives us the #2 scenario. Why would anybody think that's difficult to believe?

Especially since the mole-hunt evidence provided by Bill Simpich in his new book, State Secret (2014), can also be used to argue for scenario #2.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 19, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Mark Knight]

Questions for Paul Trejo: At what point can you connect Phillips and Banister? Were they ever seen together? Any phone records? Any written accounts of their meetings?

If you cannot show that they ever met, how can you prove that they worked together on anything...including "the Oswald project?"

Or is this something to simply be assumed, with no verification of any kind? If so, with no evidence, why should we believe it?

For that matter, at what point can you place Walker and Banister in the same room? Failing that, can you produce any phone records? How about any written records of correspondence between them? I'm not talking about "he said" stuff; I mean evidence that would hold up in court.

Because I don't think you can, aside from Harry Dean's account, connect Walker and Banister. And I don't think you can directly connect Phillips and Banister.

If you can--aside from Harry Dean's word--then I think it's high time we saw it. Bring it on. Otherwise all you have is speculation.

Asking me to prove that Walker didn't know Banister, or that Phillips didn't meet Banister, is simple: Absent any evidence that these men DID meet or know one another, we MUST assume they didn't know one another. YOU make the claims, YOU show us the proof.

[David Andrews]

So, David, what do you think of my two broad choices for interpretation, as follows?

(i) DAP was really working with Guy Banister to fool Lee Harvey Oswald into believing that he was going to try to assassinate Fidel Castro to earn an official, salaried job with the CIA; yet DAP and Banister were laughing behind Oswald's back, knowing Oswald was being framed to be the patsy for the JFK murder;

(ii) DAP was also fooled by Guy Banister to believe that Oswald was going to try to Fidel Castro, as DAP's job in the CIA demanded; and therefore Guy Banister in New Orleans (like David Morales in Mexico City) blindsighted DAP and turned Oswald from a Kill-Fidel plot to a Kill-JFK plot.

In his novel, The AMLASH Legacy, DAP basically gives us the #2 scenario. Why would anybody think that's difficult to believe?

Especially since the mole-hunt evidence provided by Bill Simpich in his new book, State Secret (2014), can also be used to argue for scenario #2.

It's Number One if it's going to be either of these choices. However, I would not be surprised if Oswald was prepped by Phillips and others at CIA (and possibly at ONI) into believing that he, Oswald, was a singularity, intended to dangle among left- and right-wing elements and report upwards on all of them. This explains why Oswald is so visible, so flamboyant as a supposed leftist and a supposed right-winger. The method drew Oswald into associations that steered him into actions that were later used to set him up alternately as a comsymp or a deranged loose cannon who could be written off as a lone nut in the political climate. He encouraged these associations and performed the actions they set before him because it was his mission to dangle and report. His dangle-and-report Mission to Moscow was both the bona fide that earned him his stateside mission, and the ostensible bait that would attract pro- and anti-Castro elements to him...on which he would report.

Why else would a former defector go to work along the parade route on assassination Friday, unless he felt that he was protected, was an intelligence singularity? Why would Oswald, in front of Will Fritz, blurt out Ruth Paine's name in connection with a Rambler station wagon, and then moan, "Now everybody will know who I am"? It was a name-dropping technique he'd learned in interrogation resistance training - and he used it to inculpate someone he knew had set him up, and to hint that he was an intelligence operative, one of the good guys. Who am I? I'm a singularity above your pay grade. See how good my act is? Now let me go.

The post-assassination mole hunt was Angleton's baby, and Angleton, I suspect, used it not only to cover the CIA's tracks, but to search out actual KGB moles and others who might be unreliable supporters of the coup and cover-up.

Why would anybody not believe scenario Number Two? Because the AMLASH Legacy tale is a limited hangout that points to nothing. It exculpates the Agency entirely. It supports the alternate scenarios that Oswald was either Soviet controlled, or a lone "psycho." It eliminates the notion of a domestic conspiracy entirely, even a "conspiracy of rogues." At the end of the novel, the scenario was to be revealed as a nasty Soviet plot to ruin reputations - a forged letter delivered by the side of a flag-draped coffin, no doubt while Taps still sounded on the bugle.

Who was AMLASH meant to be in the novel? Oswald? Rolado Cubela? Cubela, suspected of being a double agent for Castro, was in the end personally handled by Desmond FitzGerald, who denied him a high-powered rifle and gave him a poison pen instead. Why did FitzGerald take the Cubela mission out of the hands of his subordinates, and eliminate the shooting aspect?

Did Phillips want us to believe that Oswald was AM/LASH? Or was the novel to be called AMLASH Legacy because the computer-chosen digraph AM/LASH was sexier - with its connotations of whips and conspiracy backlash - than the more prosaic AM/TRUNK, the actual name of a particular Castro assassination op. The whole business is a load of sound and fury, signifying nothing except that the 1970s Agency may have wanted to make a big confusing noise and blame our discomposure on the KGB, and that Phillips may have wanted to get paid for it, and sop his conscience a bit through a limited confession.

Edited October 19, 2014 by David Andrews

[Paul Trejo]

Questions for Paul Trejo: At what point can you connect Phillips and Banister? Were they ever seen together? Any phone records? Any written accounts of their meetings?

If you cannot show that they ever met, how can you prove that they worked together on anything...including "the Oswald project?"

Or is this something to simply be assumed, with no verification of any kind? If so, with no evidence, why should we believe it?

For that matter, at what point can you place Walker and Banister in the same room? Failing that, can you produce any phone records? How about any written records of correspondence between them? I'm not talking about "he said" stuff; I mean evidence that would hold up in court.

Because I don't think you can, aside from Harry Dean's account, connect Walker and Banister. And I don't think you can directly connect Phillips and Banister.

If you can--aside from Harry Dean's word--then I think it's high time we saw it. Bring it on. Otherwise all you have is speculation.

Asking me to prove that Walker didn't know Banister, or that Phillips didn't meet Banister, is simple: Absent any evidence that these men DID meet or know one another, we MUST assume they didn't know one another. YOU make the claims, YOU show us the proof.

Well, Mark, these are the correct questions to be asking at this point.

Please remember that I'm trying to formulate a theory, and I'm welcoming everybody on the Forum who is willing to help, to help me. We currently have no hard evidence that DAP and Banister knew each other.

We do, however, have soft evidence, as follows:

(1) They both knew Lee Harvey Oswald in the summer of 1963;

(2) They both worked with Lee Harvey Oswald in the context of anti-Communist activities;

(3) They both worked with Lee Harvey Oswald in the company of Cuban Exile counter-revolutionaries;

(4) They both sought to sheep-dip Lee Harvey Oswald with "Marxist bona fides" to make him look as Communist as possible -- per The AMLASH Legacy;

(5) They both sought to exploit Oswald's "Marxist bona fides" in Mexico City, to try to get Oswald a hasty Visa to Cuba (e.g. as Marina said, Lee took all his NOLA newspaper clippings with him to Mexico City, and as Sylvia Duran said, Lee spread out all these 'bona fides' on the consulate desk to convince them to hand over a Visa, and also per The AMLASH Legacy).

So, I surely don't want to ASSUME anything without verification. I do, however, want to point out that we have something MORE than nothing -- as soft as it is today.

As for placing Walker and Banister in the same room, I'm not the only one who claims they have a relationship. This has been proposed years ago by rare researchers here and there. Also, there is a new book coming out -- possibly next year -- tracing the relationships between Banister and Walker and all of Walker's political connections in the South, by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, which will offer detail. (It was due out this year, but publishing can be a slow business).

Walker and Banister were both active in assorted Southern political groups surrounding what were called White Citizens Councils. Banister was still trying to get into office based on their platform. Walker was a frequent speaker for their events. We even have Walker on film for such events.

As for getting records on Edwin Walker, however, I've run into FOIA exceptions for years. For example, I'm still asking the NARA to release to me the Radio and TV clips of Ex-General Edwin Walker in September 1962 as he calls for a massive protest at Ole Miss later in the month, "ten thousand strong from every State in the Union!" But NARA denies my request on FOIA exceptions. I'm also asking NARA to release to me all of its footage on that deadly Ole Miss riot itself on 30 September 1962 into the wee morning hours. NARA continues to deny my request.

So, at this early stage in the Edwin Walker theory of the JFK murder, the absence of records is not yet a proof that they might not exist.

By the way, Mark, it isn't Harry Dean who connects Walker and Banister. Harry Dean's account is limited to Southern California, and has no knowledge of the New Orleans aspect. The witness who connects Walker and Banister in New Orleans is Ron Lewis (FLASHBACK: The Untold Story of Lee Harvey Oswald, 1995). Yet as I say, Dr. Jeffery Caufield also connects them, and he's not alone in that.

As for Phillips and Banister, they can be connected indirectly today through Lee Harvey Oswald, based again on soft evidence.

But soft evidence is more than mere speculation. I'm slowly building the evidence. These things take time. It would be nice if I had some help, though -- I'm only one guy.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 21, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Mark Knight]

Paul, let me explain something to you.

I know, and am friends with, local radio and TV personality John Ramsey. World-famous boxing legend Muhammad Ali knows, and is friends with, John Ramsey.

In YOUR world, this might be "soft evidence" that I'm connected with Muhammad Ali. But here in the REAL world, it is nothing of the sort. Ali and I have never met, nor has either of us passed a message through Ramsey to the other.

But if we follow YOUR "logic," Ali and I are "connected" by this "soft evidence."

Paul, PLEASE check out my post, "The 10 Commandments of Logic." I think many of your arguments fail to meet the standards of those 10 Commandments.