Nixon Operative Roger Stone on JFK Assassination: "LBJ had it done. Mob, CIA, Hoover, all in on it. RFK knew. So did Nixon."

[Paul Trejo]

1. I'm curious you say Sturgis was short, do you know how tall Sturgis was?

2. That doesn't mean there is a problem with [Marita's] story, just because Hemming said something else, the question is which one do you beleive, or should I say, which one is telling the truth?

3. Do you have proof of Oswald in Mexico?

4. So that's where the money came from [HL Hunt], I should have known.

Scott, here are my replies to your questions and remarks:

(1) My measurements were relative: (i) Howard Hunt was very tall compared to Sturgis; and (ii) the tramp who looked like Sturgis was very tall compared to the tramp who looked like Howard Hunt. Therefore there was no match.

(2) I agree with you that either Marita Lorentz or Gerry Hemming was lying about who rode in that caravan. I don't know who was lying. When the late Gerry Hemming was on this Forum, he blatantly called Marita a xxxx. Yet in another context he softened his voice and admitted that he was invited to join the caravan. My point was that if (and only if) Marita was lying about Hemming, then she could have also been lying about Oswald. It is also possible that Marita was lying about Hemming and telling the truth about Oswald. (It is also possible that Marita was telling the truth about Hemming but lying about Oswald.) But if (and only if) Marita was telling the truth, then Hemming was lying.

Yet please remember that Marita was not an eye-witness to the JFK assassination - she was only an eye-witness to an illegal weapons deal, which she claims was consummated by Howard Hunt (and Howard Hunt did not have a believable alibi for that day, according to a duly appointed jury). So, even if Marita was telling the truth, we are left to guess whether these weapons were the weapons used to assassinate JFK, and whether these sharpshooters were the sharpshooters that assassinated JFK. She had no eye-witness information about that.

(3) While I'm no expert on the controversy over Oswald in Mexico, we have a Forum member (Harry Dean) who has also joined this thread, whose memoirs say that the famous war hero, Guy Gabaldon, was in Mexico at that time, working for the JBS, and that Gabaldon gave some money to Oswald in Mexico at that time. Oswald had no idea, according to Harry Dean, that the money came from the JBS, or that this money was buying Oswald's services as the patsy for a famous crime.

(4) The money for the dozens of hit squads who promised to kill JFK for a price came from many different sources, according to my reading. Some money came from Carlos Marcello. Some came from Santos Trafficante. Some came from Sam Giancana. Some possibly came from Howard Hughes (since his accountant coordinated all the Mafia money). Some money came from Joseph Milteer, some money came from Jimmy Hoffa, some money came from H.L. Hunt, and some money came from the JBS, according to sources. There were probably hundreds of rich individuals and groups that contributed whatever they could, because they truly, sincerely believed that JFK was a communist traitor to the USA. H.L. Hunt was particularly generous, according to reports.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 14, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Scott Kaiser]

1. I'm curious you say Sturgis was short, do you know how tall Sturgis was?

2. That doesn't mean there is a problem with [Marita's] story, just because Hemming said something else, the question is which one do you beleive, or should I say, which one is telling the truth?

3. Do you have proof of Oswald in Mexico?

4. So that's where the money came from [HL Hunt], I should have known.

Scott, here are my replies to your questions and remarks:

(1) My measurements were relative: (i) Howard Hunt was very tall compared to Sturgis; and (ii) the tramp who looked like Sturgis was very tall compared to the tramp who looked like Howard Hunt. Therefore there was no match.

(2) I agree with you that either Marita Lorentz or Gerry Hemming were lying about who was on the caravan. I don't know who was lying. When the late Gerry Hemming was on this Forum, he blatantly called Marita a xxxx. Yet in another context he softened his voice and admitted that he was invited to join the caravan. My point was that if (and only if) Marita was lying about Hemming, then she could have also been lying about Oswald. It is also possible that Marita was lying about Hemming and telling the truth about Oswald. (It is also possible that Marita was telling the truth about Hemming but lying about Oswald.) But if (and only if) Marita was telling the truth, then Hemming was lying.

But please remember that Marita was not an eye-witness to the JFK assassination - she was only an eye-witness to an illegal weapons deal, which she claims was consummated by Howard Hunt (and Howard Hunt did not have a believable alibi for that day, according to a duly appointed jury). So, even if Marita was telling the truth, we are left to guess whether these weapons were the weapons used to assassinate JFK, and whether these sharpshooters were the sharpshooters that assassinated JFK. She had no eye-witness information about that.

(3) While I am not an expert on the controversy over Oswald in Mexico, we have a Forum member (Harry Dean) who has also joined this thread, whose memoirs say that the famous war hero, Guy Gabaldon, was in Mexico at that time, working for the JBS, and that Gabaldon gave some money to Oswald in Mexico at that time. Oswald had no idea, according to Harry Dean, that the money came from the JBS, or that this money was buying Oswald's services as the patsy for a famous crime.

(4) The money for the dozens of hit squads who promised to kill JFK for a price came from many different sources, according to my reading. Some money came from Carlos Marcello. Some came from Santos Trafficante. Some came from Sam Giancana. Some possibly came from Howard Hughes (since his accountant coordinated all the Mafia money). Some money came from Howard Milteer, some money came from Jimmy Hoffa, some money came from H.L. Hunt, and some money came from the JBS, according to sources. There were probably hundreds of rich individuals and groups that contributed whatever they could, because they truly, sincerely believed that JFK was a communist traitor to the USA. H.L. Hunt was particularly generous, according to reports.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Scott, here are my replies to your questions and remarks:

You still didn't answer my question, I'm curious you say Sturgis was short, do you know how tall Sturgis was?

When the late Gerry Hemming was on this Forum, he blatantly called Marita a xxxx.

I certainly wouldn't believe everything that came out of Hemmings mouth, several people I know who knew Hemming personally would agree, most of his time was spent behind a computer talking a lot of crap, you don't have to beleive me, but I beleive those who knew Hemming well. Hell he got paid $65,000 for an interview by Noel Twyman who gave Twyman nothing but a whole lot of crap.

(4) The money for the dozens of hit squads who promised to kill JFK for a price came from many different sources, according to my reading. Some money came from Carlos Marcello. Some came from Santos Trafficante. Some came from Sam Giancana. Some possibly came from Howard Hughes (since his accountant coordinated all the Mafia money). Some money came from Howard Milteer, some money came from Jimmy Hoffa, some money came from H.L. Hunt, and some money came from the JBS, according to sources. There were probably hundreds of rich individuals and groups that contributed whatever they could, because they truly, sincerely believed that JFK was a communist traitor to the USA. H.L. Hunt was particularly generous, according to reports.

The problem I have with that is when you have to many people involved wanting to or contributing to an assassination you have to many cooks in the kitchen, someone is about to spill the beans if you're not careful. What I mean is that someone would have talked, take the Mob for example, someone is always wanting to be the top man on the totem pole, king of the mountain, always willing to whack the top guy so he the next guy could be (in charge). Its easy for word to get out on who is trying to kill the top dog, so the top dog has the guy whacked himself. To many people involved only spoils the account if you know what I mean, you can't have that many people involved without someone talking about it.

You have to keep a low profile, trust no one, there's a saying, those who are closest to you become your worst enemy, keep your friends close and your enemy closer.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Scott Kaiser

[Rodney Rivers]

Whenever we get quotes from Presidents or their Aides in black and white in reference to this conspiracy or any historical event, it's always intriguing.

I've never bought the reason LBJ didn't run for re-election was just solely Vietnam. My own theory is that RFK did his own investigation, got some of his contact in the government to press LBJ on it, and if they did find that LBJ was involved in any way, they threatened him with Impeachment. Of course, especially back then, they were not going to embarrass the President or the Office of POTUS. So maybe LBJ was told by the Kennedy people or AG/Justice Dept. that declining to run would save him a public trial. And that he would be under secret house arrest for the rest of his life as long as he stepped away quietly. And that his legacy would not be tarnished if he accepted this deal.

I know it all sounds like an episode out of '24', but maybe that's the way it happened.

But they in power will still not tell us the truth. The only reason I can ponder is that the truth is so disturbing that they will just not tell us. Say if it was LBJ behind it, I can see why. Why tarnish the office, it would be embarrassing for the nation. We would just be another Banana republic. Or there is something even greater that they think we can't handle.

[Scott Kaiser]

Whenever we get quotes from Presidents or their Aides in black and white in reference to this conspiracy or any historical event, it's always intriguing.

I've never bought the reason LBJ didn't run for re-election was just solely Vietnam. My own theory is that RFK did his own investigation, got some of his contact in the government to press LBJ on it, and if they did find that LBJ was involved in any way, they threatened him with Impeachment. Of course, especially back then, they were not going to embarrass the President or the Office of POTUS. So maybe LBJ was told by the Kennedy people or AG/Justice Dept. that declining to run would save him a public trial. And that he would be under secret house arrest for the rest of his life as long as he stepped away quietly. And that his legacy would not be tarnished if he accepted this deal.

I know it all sounds like an episode out of '24', but maybe that's the way it happened.

But they in power will still not tell us the truth. The only reason I can ponder is that the truth is so disturbing that they will just not tell us. Say if it was LBJ behind it, I can see why. Why tarnish the office, it would be embarrassing for the nation. We would just be another Banana republic. Or there is something even greater that they think we can't handle.

I think everybody here has their own theory, and there is nothing wrong with that so long as no one is trying to shove their theory down my throat, like Mr. Von for example, I respect his work as I do everyone else's. I am not a reseacher, or a CTer what ever that means, or a lone nutter, or an Oswald did it kinda guy. I'm me, with a personal vendetta.

But, that doesn't mean I can't express my thoughts, I beleive that if LBJ was the person behind the assassination he wouldn't have been so worried about who may be out to assassinate him. I beleive that LBJ created the cover-up hence the Warren Commission and wanted to put this to rest hoping that the American people would buy into what the Commission tried to sell in a short nine month period. That's my take on LBJ for JFK and I'm.

Scott Kaiser

[Scott Kaiser]

The Rockefeller Commission of the U.S. Congress in 1974 investigated Sturgis and E. Howard Hunt in connection with the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Specifically, it investigated allegations that E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis were CIA agents and were present in Dallas at the time of the assassination and could have fired the alleged shots from the grassy knoll. Some support for Hunt's involvement came from Kerry Wendell Thornley, who believed he had conversed with Hunt (who Thornley claimed used the alias "Gary Kirstein") on numerous occasions from 1961 to 1963 regarding plans to assassinate John F. Kennedy. Newsweek magazine reported and printed photographs of three men, including two supposedly resembling Hunt and Sturgis, who were detained at the grassy knoll shortly after the assassination. The Newsweek article stated the official reports that the men were released and were only "railroad bums" who would find shelter sleeping in the boxcars of the trains located near the grassy knoll. According to Newsweek, the men were released without further inquiry.

According to the 1975 Rockefeller Commission report, Hunt testified that he had never met Sturgis before they were introduced by Bernard Barker in Miami in 1972. Sturgis testified to the same effect, except that he did not recall whether the introduction had taken place in late 1971 or early 1972. Sturgis further testified that while he had often heard of "Eduardo," a CIA political officer who had been active in the work of the Cuban Revolutionary Council in Miami prior to the Bay of Pigs operation in April 1961, he had never met him and did not know until 1971 or 1972 that "Eduardo" was E. Howard Hunt.

In a deathbed statement released in 2007, Hunt named Sturgis as one of the participants in "The Big Event", which Hunt's son claims to be the code name for the assassination. However Hunt never mentions Kennedy, Oswald, Dallas, or the assassination in any way in the "confession".

[Paul Trejo]

(i) You still didn't answer my question, I'm curious you say Sturgis was short, do you know how tall Sturgis was?

(ii) The problem I have with that is when you have to many people involved wanting to or contributing to an assassination you have to many cooks in the kitchen, someone is about to spill the beans if you're not careful. What I mean is that someone would have talked, take the Mob for example, someone is always wanting to be the top man on the totem pole, king of the mountain, always willing to whack the top guy so he the next guy could be (in charge). Its easy for word to get out on who is trying to kill the top dog, so the top dog has the guy whacked himself. To many people involved only spoils the account if you know what I mean, you can't have that many people involved without someone talking about it.

You have to keep a low profile, trust no one, there's a saying, those who are closest to you become your worst enemy, keep your friends close and your enemy closer.

Scott, here are my replies to your question and your comment:

(i) I've read rumors that he was medium height and rumors that he was shorter than average, but one way to know for certain is to obtain his Police mugshots and booking record from the Watergate break in. So, I've requested that; then I'll be able to tell you for sure how tall Frank (Fiorini) Sturgis really was.

(ii) I believe that we had so many cooks in the kitchen (so many people contributing to any assassination plot against JFK that they heard about). But they weren't all contributing to the same ground-crew!

Probably a lot of people believed that their hit squad killed JFK, and so their cash contribution was the deciding factor. But in reallity, it was only a fraction of that money that was successful, just as it was only a fraction of the hired 'mechanics' who actually killed JFK.

Although the ground-crew that actually killed JFK was professional, and so they would not have talked, this would not prevent liars and boasters from claiming that they were the ones who killed JFK. It is almost a boast today - not really a confession - for somebody to say that his crew was the crew that killed JFK a half-century ago.

Would somebody have talked? Actually, plenty of people talked -- but most of them are fake.

For example, I don't believe the mob killed JFK, because, as Jim Garrison said, they did not have the means to cover it up, or the proper sniper's modus operandi. Yet Sam Giancana was going to testify, and Johnny Rosselli was going to testify, and others, also. Why? For prestige, probably. But the people who put up the cash for these hit-squads would never let them sing - so they were both murdered before they could testify to the HSCA.

I think we agree, Scott -- the mob lacks the discipline of a long-term chain-of-command. That's why I believe the actual assassins were from a different school -- one with more discipline and more honor. The actual JFK assassins were probably trained marksmen with military discipline.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Scott Kaiser]

(i) You still didn't answer my question, I'm curious you say Sturgis was short, do you know how tall Sturgis was?

(ii) The problem I have with that is when you have to many people involved wanting to or contributing to an assassination you have to many cooks in the kitchen, someone is about to spill the beans if you're not careful. What I mean is that someone would have talked, take the Mob for example, someone is always wanting to be the top man on the totem pole, king of the mountain, always willing to whack the top guy so he the next guy could be (in charge). Its easy for word to get out on who is trying to kill the top dog, so the top dog has the guy whacked himself. To many people involved only spoils the account if you know what I mean, you can't have that many people involved without someone talking about it.

You have to keep a low profile, trust no one, there's a saying, those who are closest to you become your worst enemy, keep your friends close and your enemy closer.

Scott, here are my replies to your question and your comment:

(i) I've read rumors that he was medium height and rumors that he was shorter than average, but one way to know for certain is to obtain his Police mugshots and booking record from the Watergate break in. So, I've requested that; then I'll be able to tell you for sure how tall Frank (Fiorini) Sturgis really was.

(ii) I believe that we had so many cooks in the kitchen (so many people contributing to any assassination plot against JFK that they heard about). But they weren't all contributing to the same ground-crew!

Probably a lot of people believed that their hit squad killed JFK, and so their cash contribution was the deciding factor. But in reallity, it was only a fraction of that money that was successful, just as it was only a fraction of the hired 'mechanics' who actually killed JFK.

Although the ground-crew that actually killed JFK was professional, and so they would not have talked, this would not prevent liars and boasters from claiming that they were the ones who killed JFK. It is almost a boast today - not really a confession - for somebody to say that his crew was the crew that killed JFK a half-century ago.

Would somebody have talked? Actually, plenty of people talked -- but most of them are fake.

For example, I don't believe the mob killed JFK, because, as Jim Garrison said, they did not have the means to cover it up, or the proper sniper's modus operandi. Yet Sam Giancana was going to testify, and Johnny Rosselli was going to testify, and others, also. Why? For prestige, probably. But the people who put up the cash for these hit-squads would never let them sing - so they were both murdered before they could testify to the HSCA.

I think we agree, Scott -- the mob lacks the discipline of a long-term chain-of-command. That's why I believe the actual assassins were from a different school -- one with more discipline and more honor. The actual JFK assassins were probably trained marksmen with military discipline.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

(i) I've read rumors that he was medium height and rumors that he was shorter than average, but one way to know for certain is to obtain his Police mugshots and booking record from the Watergate break in. So, I've requested that; then I'll be able to tell you for sure how tall Frank (Fiorini) Sturgis really was.

No need to go through the trouble, I'll tell you. My father stood at 5' 10". Frank was about four inches taller then my father. Frank would have stood at 6' 2", not short at all, by no means. Now,

I have a question for those who are researchers, I have searched and searched, I cannot find any public record or open testimony from those in Watergate, my father was called twice to testify on Watergate, my question is, can anyone find any information on my father's testimony or what he said at the Watergate Hearings, I would even be willing to pay you for your time and any services at any amount if that what it takes to find my father's information, can anyone please help me? Like I said, I'm no researcher and I don't know where to begin.

Scott

Edited February 15, 2012 by Scott Kaiser

[Thomas Graves]

(i) You still didn't answer my question, I'm curious you say Sturgis was short, do you know how tall Sturgis was?

(ii) The problem I have with that is when you have to many people involved wanting to or contributing to an assassination you have to many cooks in the kitchen, someone is about to spill the beans if you're not careful. What I mean is that someone would have talked, take the Mob for example, someone is always wanting to be the top man on the totem pole, king of the mountain, always willing to whack the top guy so he the next guy could be (in charge). Its easy for word to get out on who is trying to kill the top dog, so the top dog has the guy whacked himself. To many people involved only spoils the account if you know what I mean, you can't have that many people involved without someone talking about it.

You have to keep a low profile, trust no one, there's a saying, those who are closest to you become your worst enemy, keep your friends close and your enemy closer.

Scott, here are my replies to your question and your comment:

(i) I've read rumors that he was medium height and rumors that he was shorter than average, but one way to know for certain is to obtain his Police mugshots and booking record from the Watergate break in. So, I've requested that; then I'll be able to tell you for sure how tall Frank (Fiorini) Sturgis really was.

(ii) I believe that we had so many cooks in the kitchen (so many people contributing to any assassination plot against JFK that they heard about). But they weren't all contributing to the same ground-crew!

Probably a lot of people believed that their hit squad killed JFK, and so their cash contribution was the deciding factor. But in reallity, it was only a fraction of that money that was successful, just as it was only a fraction of the hired 'mechanics' who actually killed JFK.

Although the ground-crew that actually killed JFK was professional, and so they would not have talked, this would not prevent liars and boasters from claiming that they were the ones who killed JFK. It is almost a boast today - not really a confession - for somebody to say that his crew was the crew that killed JFK a half-century ago.

Would somebody have talked? Actually, plenty of people talked -- but most of them are fake.

For example, I don't believe the mob killed JFK, because, as Jim Garrison said, they did not have the means to cover it up, or the proper sniper's modus operandi. Yet Sam Giancana was going to testify, and Johnny Rosselli was going to testify, and others, also. Why? For prestige, probably. But the people who put up the cash for these hit-squads would never let them sing - so they were both murdered before they could testify to the HSCA.

I think we agree, Scott -- the mob lacks the discipline of a long-term chain-of-command. That's why I believe the actual assassins were from a different school -- one with more discipline and more honor. The actual JFK assassins were probably trained marksmen with military discipline.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

(i) I've read rumors that he was medium height and rumors that he was shorter than average, but one way to know for certain is to obtain his Police mugshots and booking record from the Watergate break in. So, I've requested that; then I'll be able to tell you for sure how tall Frank (Fiorini) Sturgis really was.

No need to go through the trouble, I'll tell you. My father stood at 5' 10". Frank was about four inches taller then my father. Frank would have stood at 6' 2", not short at all, by no means. Now,

I have a question for those who are researchers, I have searched and searched, I cannot find any public record or open testimony from those in Watergate, my father was called twice to testify on Watergate, my question is, can anyone find any information on my father's testimony or what he said at the Watergate Hearings, I would even be willing to pay you for your time and any services at any amount if that what it takes to find my father's information, can anyone please help me? Like I said, I'm no researcher and I don't know where to begin.

Scott

Scott,

You say your father was called twice to testify on Watergate. Did he testify both times?

Thanks,

--Tommy

Edited February 15, 2012 by Thomas Graves

[Scott Kaiser]

(i) You still didn't answer my question, I'm curious you say Sturgis was short, do you know how tall Sturgis was?

(ii) The problem I have with that is when you have to many people involved wanting to or contributing to an assassination you have to many cooks in the kitchen, someone is about to spill the beans if you're not careful. What I mean is that someone would have talked, take the Mob for example, someone is always wanting to be the top man on the totem pole, king of the mountain, always willing to whack the top guy so he the next guy could be (in charge). Its easy for word to get out on who is trying to kill the top dog, so the top dog has the guy whacked himself. To many people involved only spoils the account if you know what I mean, you can't have that many people involved without someone talking about it.

You have to keep a low profile, trust no one, there's a saying, those who are closest to you become your worst enemy, keep your friends close and your enemy closer.

Scott, here are my replies to your question and your comment:

(i) I've read rumors that he was medium height and rumors that he was shorter than average, but one way to know for certain is to obtain his Police mugshots and booking record from the Watergate break in. So, I've requested that; then I'll be able to tell you for sure how tall Frank (Fiorini) Sturgis really was.

(ii) I believe that we had so many cooks in the kitchen (so many people contributing to any assassination plot against JFK that they heard about). But they weren't all contributing to the same ground-crew!

Probably a lot of people believed that their hit squad killed JFK, and so their cash contribution was the deciding factor. But in reallity, it was only a fraction of that money that was successful, just as it was only a fraction of the hired 'mechanics' who actually killed JFK.

Although the ground-crew that actually killed JFK was professional, and so they would not have talked, this would not prevent liars and boasters from claiming that they were the ones who killed JFK. It is almost a boast today - not really a confession - for somebody to say that his crew was the crew that killed JFK a half-century ago.

Would somebody have talked? Actually, plenty of people talked -- but most of them are fake.

For example, I don't believe the mob killed JFK, because, as Jim Garrison said, they did not have the means to cover it up, or the proper sniper's modus operandi. Yet Sam Giancana was going to testify, and Johnny Rosselli was going to testify, and others, also. Why? For prestige, probably. But the people who put up the cash for these hit-squads would never let them sing - so they were both murdered before they could testify to the HSCA.

I think we agree, Scott -- the mob lacks the discipline of a long-term chain-of-command. That's why I believe the actual assassins were from a different school -- one with more discipline and more honor. The actual JFK assassins were probably trained marksmen with military discipline.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

(i) I've read rumors that he was medium height and rumors that he was shorter than average, but one way to know for certain is to obtain his Police mugshots and booking record from the Watergate break in. So, I've requested that; then I'll be able to tell you for sure how tall Frank (Fiorini) Sturgis really was.

No need to go through the trouble, I'll tell you. My father stood at 5' 10". Frank was about four inches taller then my father. Frank would have stood at 6' 2", not short at all, by no means. Now,

I have a question for those who are researchers, I have searched and searched, I cannot find any public record or open testimony from those in Watergate, my father was called twice to testify on Watergate, my question is, can anyone find any information on my father's testimony or what he said at the Watergate Hearings, I would even be willing to pay you for your time and any services at any amount if that what it takes to find my father's information, can anyone please help me? Like I said, I'm no researcher and I don't know where to begin.

Scott

Scott,

You say your father was called twice to testify on Watergate. Did he testify both times?

Thanks,

--Tommy

Yes he did, I'll attach the day and date he was called, here is some information you could go on, and Tommy if this is going to cost me anything or if someone is going to charge me please PM me at my private email at scott@kaiser-industries.com or this forum, and if we need to work something out or if I need to send you the money by Western Union I will, thank you for helping me in re-discovering who my father was, it means a lot.

Scott

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20673422/watergate%205.jpg

Edited February 15, 2012 by Scott Kaiser

[Scott Kaiser]

I found this to be very interesting, posted by Esther Howes in one of the Forums on Facebook.

Esther Howes

Excerpt from a letter from Billie Sol Estes' lawyer

August 9, 1984

Mr. Stephen S. Trott

Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, D. C. 20530

RE: Mr. Billie Sol Estes

Dear Mr. Trott:

My client, Mr. Estes, has authorized me to make this reply to your letter of May 29, 1984. Mr. Estes was a member of a four-member group, headed by Lyndon Johnson, which committed criminal acts in Texas in the 1960's. The other two, besides Mr. Estes and LBJ, were Cliff Carter and Mac Wallace. Mr. Estes is willing to disclose his knowledge concerning the following criminal offenses:

I. Murders

1. The killing of Henry Marshall

2. The killing of George Krutilek

3. The killing of Ike Rogers and his secretary

4. The killing of Harold Orr

5. The killing of Coleman Wade

6. The killing of Josefa Johnson

7. The killing of John Kinser

8. The killing of President J. F. Kennedy.

Mr. Estes is willing to testify that LBJ ordered these killings, and that he transmitted his orders through Cliff Carter to Mac Wallace, who executed the murders. In the cases of murders nos. 1-7, Mr. Estes' knowledge of the precise details concerning the way the murders were executed stems from conversations he had shortly after each event with Cliff Carter and Mac Wallace.

[Rodney Rivers]

C2C had a good show a few weeks ago about Nixon. The guest mentioned some of the same old JFK buddies (Smathers) who were buddies with people like BB Rebozo of Watergate Fame.

Take it for what it's worth, because the first two minutes of this theory are sort of questionable, but stick with it., The Author talks about White House Politics from the 50s - 70s.

Gets into JFK ASSASSINATION start of part 2.

Author : Don Fulsom

Book : Nixon's Darkest Secrets

Part 1 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtcpd5M6pKA

Part 2 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9K3Ffc8lI8

Edited February 15, 2012 by Rodney Rivers

[Paul Trejo]

I found this to be very interesting, posted by Esther Howes in one of the Forums on Facebook.

Esther Howes

Excerpt from a letter from Billie Sol Estes' lawyer

August 9, 1984

Mr. Stephen S. Trott

Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, D. C. 20530

RE: Mr. Billie Sol Estes

Dear Mr. Trott:

My client, Mr. Estes, has authorized me to make this reply to your letter of May 29, 1984. Mr. Estes was a member of a four-member group, headed by Lyndon Johnson, which committed criminal acts in Texas in the 1960's. The other two, besides Mr. Estes and LBJ, were Cliff Carter and Mac Wallace. Mr. Estes is willing to disclose his knowledge concerning the following criminal offenses:

I. Murders

1. The killing of Henry Marshall

2. The killing of George Krutilek

3. The killing of Ike Rogers and his secretary

4. The killing of Harold Orr

5. The killing of Coleman Wade

6. The killing of Josefa Johnson

7. The killing of John Kinser

8. The killing of President J. F. Kennedy.

Mr. Estes is willing to testify that LBJ ordered these killings, and that he transmitted his orders through Cliff Carter to Mac Wallace, who executed the murders. In the cases of murders nos. 1-7, Mr. Estes' knowledge of the precise details concerning the way the murders were executed stems from conversations he had shortly after each event with Cliff Carter and Mac Wallace.

Well, this came out in 1984, when LBJ (d. 1973), Mac Wallace (d. 1971) and Cliff Carter (d. 1971) were long dead.

He was the only survivor of these alleged conspiracies -- so who could contradict his evidence?

Also, he did not claim knowledge of the "precise details" of number 8, the JFK killing, which is our main concern here.

Therefore, it is entirely possible that he was: (i) mistaken; (ii) exaggerating; (iii) trying to make a book deal real quick.

Unless we can actually view the details of how the JFK assassination was allegedly "executed" by Mac Wallace, everything Mr. Estes claims is subject to skepticism, doubt and dismissal.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...My father stood at 5' 10". Frank was about four inches taller then my father. Frank would have stood at 6' 2", not short at all, by no means...

Scott

Scott, if Frank Sturgis was 6'2" tall, then the man standing to his right in the videos you kindly shared in this thread must be 6'8" tall, since he's much taller than Frank.

Is it possible Frank Sturgis wore high-heel boots in his later years?

--Paul

[Scott Kaiser]

...My father stood at 5' 10". Frank was about four inches taller then my father. Frank would have stood at 6' 2", not short at all, by no means...

Scott

Scott, if Frank Sturgis was 6'2" tall, then the man standing to his right in the videos you kindly shared in this thread must be 6'8" tall, since he's much taller than Frank.

Is it possible Frank Sturgis wore high-heel boots in his later years?

--Paul

Paul,

I'm not sure if you've been missing any of my pass posts or you're just trying to give me a hard time, I really don't know what it is, and I thought perhaps you would have just let it go by now, but it seems you want to drag this on and for what reason? I really don't know, you're a reseacher why don't you find out yourself how tall Frank is. I really don't care to argue the fact of Frank hight. Is it not enough that (you) don't want to believe me? I guess it wouldn't help telling you that I knew Frank for nine years either would it? In that film, I'm telling you, its Frank Sturgis, Lee Harvey Oswald, Marita Lorenz and Gerry Droller aka Frank Bender, so how hard is that to understand? Or should I say what part of that don't you understand? UGH!

Sometimes we just need to except it when we're wrong and leave it alone, but not you! You want to drag this out and I'm okay with that, but in the end you're the one who is going to come out loosing on this one. When I'm wrong I except it and move on, I will go as far as saying I'm wrong. But that's not your intention, so what is?

And Paul, you can easily tell by looking at that film that the terrain is uneven. And yes, that white guy standing next to Sturgis looks like a tall skinny white dude, I'm sorry I don't know how tall he is, but it appears he does look taller then Frank. Perhaps, someone can find how tall Frank was, maybe you could ask James Hunt Frank nephew, maybe he knows or ask his step daughter, maybe you'll find it somewhere, but I'm telling you he was taller then my dad, I do remember.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Scott Kaiser

[David Boylan]

(i) You still didn't answer my question, I'm curious you say Sturgis was short, do you know how tall Sturgis was?

(ii) The problem I have with that is when you have to many people involved wanting to or contributing to an assassination you have to many cooks in the kitchen, someone is about to spill the beans if you're not careful. What I mean is that someone would have talked, take the Mob for example, someone is always wanting to be the top man on the totem pole, king of the mountain, always willing to whack the top guy so he the next guy could be (in charge). Its easy for word to get out on who is trying to kill the top dog, so the top dog has the guy whacked himself. To many people involved only spoils the account if you know what I mean, you can't have that many people involved without someone talking about it.

You have to keep a low profile, trust no one, there's a saying, those who are closest to you become your worst enemy, keep your friends close and your enemy closer.

Scott, here are my replies to your question and your comment:

(i) I've read rumors that he was medium height and rumors that he was shorter than average, but one way to know for certain is to obtain his Police mugshots and booking record from the Watergate break in. So, I've requested that; then I'll be able to tell you for sure how tall Frank (Fiorini) Sturgis really was.

(ii) I believe that we had so many cooks in the kitchen (so many people contributing to any assassination plot against JFK that they heard about). But they weren't all contributing to the same ground-crew!

Probably a lot of people believed that their hit squad killed JFK, and so their cash contribution was the deciding factor. But in reallity, it was only a fraction of that money that was successful, just as it was only a fraction of the hired 'mechanics' who actually killed JFK.

Although the ground-crew that actually killed JFK was professional, and so they would not have talked, this would not prevent liars and boasters from claiming that they were the ones who killed JFK. It is almost a boast today - not really a confession - for somebody to say that his crew was the crew that killed JFK a half-century ago.

Would somebody have talked? Actually, plenty of people talked -- but most of them are fake.

For example, I don't believe the mob killed JFK, because, as Jim Garrison said, they did not have the means to cover it up, or the proper sniper's modus operandi. Yet Sam Giancana was going to testify, and Johnny Rosselli was going to testify, and others, also. Why? For prestige, probably. But the people who put up the cash for these hit-squads would never let them sing - so they were both murdered before they could testify to the HSCA.

I think we agree, Scott -- the mob lacks the discipline of a long-term chain-of-command. That's why I believe the actual assassins were from a different school -- one with more discipline and more honor. The actual JFK assassins were probably trained marksmen with military discipline.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

(i) I've read rumors that he was medium height and rumors that he was shorter than average, but one way to know for certain is to obtain his Police mugshots and booking record from the Watergate break in. So, I've requested that; then I'll be able to tell you for sure how tall Frank (Fiorini) Sturgis really was.

No need to go through the trouble, I'll tell you. My father stood at 5' 10". Frank was about four inches taller then my father. Frank would have stood at 6' 2", not short at all, by no means. Now,

I have a question for those who are researchers, I have searched and searched, I cannot find any public record or open testimony from those in Watergate, my father was called twice to testify on Watergate, my question is, can anyone find any information on my father's testimony or what he said at the Watergate Hearings, I would even be willing to pay you for your time and any services at any amount if that what it takes to find my father's information, can anyone please help me? Like I said, I'm no researcher and I don't know where to begin.

Scott

Lots of stuff here...

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Watergate_Documents

And here - http://www.pimall.com/nais/pivintage/watergatebug.html

Edited February 15, 2012 by David Boylan