JOACHIM JOESTEN How Kennedy Was...

[John Dolva]

Are you sure it's going to be fine if I scanned How Kennedy was Killed and sent them to you? From OZ by mail to the US or as a pdf electronically. I'm trying to dodge any copyright issues that may result. If there are none I guess I can do that. The frontpage has the altgens in (to me) unusually wide greyscale value. I'd need to clean that without damaging it before scanning. Remember it's a cheaply made paperback near fifty years old, and spreading the pages for scanning damages the spine.

[Paul Trejo]

...By the way, Joachim Joesten's fabulous research and reporting on the JFK assassination in the 1960's sure has held up with the passage of time. Joesten may be the greatest commentator ever on the JFK assassination...

Robert, the most intriguing point of Joesten's, How Kennedy Was Killed (1968) was, IMHO, his opening salvo at the Dallas Police Department (DPD) in chapter one.

The DPD had sealed off the area behind the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll at Dealey Plaza. Anybody who traveled behind that fence would have been immediately known to them.

Everybody knows the story about eye-witness Lee Bowers who saw two men standing behind the picket fence at the time that the JFK motorcade drove by, and he also saw a flash of light at the picket fence at that moment. What the Warren Commission didn't pursue in his story was the question about how these two men bypassed the DPD blockade of that area.

Joesten also reports that Chief of Police Jesse Curry called the DPD station and ordered an immediate search of the TSBD building. Why? -- he was asked. Because, he replied, the sounds seemed to him to come from that building. Joachim Joesten did not accept that explanation -- the motorcade was very loud, the crowd was very loud, there were echoes all across Dealey Plaza. Besides, the Secret Service men in the cars ahead agreed that the sounds came from the Grassy Knoll. Joesten cannot help suspecting that Jesse Curry was following a plan -- a plot.

Joesten is also willing to suspect the involvement of DPD officer J.D. Tippit in the JFK slaying. This is a near-sacrilege, since Tippit is most often identified as an innocent bystander and victim of the JFK slaying. Yet the behavior of Tippit is suspicious to Joesten, and I wonder if what he would have thought about R.D. Morningstar's photographic speculation about Jack White's "Badgeman" as a clear portrait of J.D. Tippit.

It will always puzzle the public that Jack Ruby was able to silence Oswald while surrounded by DPD officers. Yet Jack Ruby was also armed and present the night before -- twice -- when Oswald was paraded before the press. It was as though the DPD gave Ruby three chances to make his move.

When I visited the TSBD museum at Dealey Plaza in Dallas some years ago, the officials displayed an impressive, graphic chart of possible suspects in the slaying of JFK -- there were over a hundred suspects on that chart. The DPD, of course, was absent from the list of suspects.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Are you sure it's going to be fine if I scanned How Kennedy was Killed and sent them to you? From OZ by mail to the US or as a pdf electronically. I'm trying to dodge any copyright issues that may result. If there are none I guess I can do that. The frontpage has the altgens in (to me) unusually wide greyscale value. I'd need to clean that without damaging it before scanning. Remember it's a cheaply made paperback near fifty years old, and spreading the pages for scanning damages the spine.

Check your PM mailbox. Usually when authors are long dead and the book is not commercially selling, there are no copyright problems. I wish someone would PDF scan every single one of Joesten's books and put them up on the internet - they are that valuable and that rare.

[Paul Trejo]

In his suspicions of J.D. Tippit as one of the DPD officers who might be involved in the JFK assassination, Joachim Joesten writing in 1968 was 30 years ahead of this web site that attempts to use quantitative methods to detect the face of J.D. Tippit in the "Badgeman" photograph identified by Jack White: http://www.jfkresearch.com/morningstar/morningstar5.htm

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Michael Hogan]

.......It isn't difficult to fake a reading of Das Kapital -- Marxist vocabulary was bandied about on newspapers found on many streetcorners in the 1960's. I don't think Oswald had the brains to finish the first chapter of Das Kapital. I also doubt that Oswald finished Mein Kampf, or any serious book of any length. His library card records show that he liked 007 novels.

From de Mohrenschildt's manuscript:

Instead of playing basketball or baseball, like any other red-blooded American youth, he read voraciously. Among the books he read was

Marx's "The Capital" which made a deep impression on him. Ironically, he said, he borrowed this book from the Loyola University library .

"What did you like in it?" I remember asking him. "It made clear to me the intolerable fact of the exploitation of the poor by the rich ."

.....I read similar opinions recently in several liberal books and Lee was way ahead in thought of all of them .

.....Lee read Russian classics and discussed some at length with me, especially I remember "The Idiot" by Dostoievski, a psychoanalytical study.

He understood the pre-revolutionary life in Russia, which I did not know but heard about from my parents . Russian classics belong exclusively

to the pre-revolutionary or early revolutionary days and modern Russians are fascinated by those days of extravagant aristocracy, tzarist power

and abuses of it.

[John Dolva]

from vol II Kapital 500 pages, (Vol III is fatter, I don't have vol I)

5 Recapitulation

... sorry. I'm going to have to read up on 007 in order to just be able to type one paragraph, let alone understand it.

edit add. I can say this however: the 'book' is big. It's a big book. It is big. Its size is large.

Maaybe he read the Communist Manifesto? That's a thin publication that's easy to understand and as it is a 'common mans' summary of the relevant conclusions that the scholarly Kapital arrives at I suppose one could turn that into a little fib like having read Kapital?

Edited February 6, 2013 by John Dolva

[Ian Kingsbury]

Frustration at not being able to express exactly what you are thinking taints

What you do write and alters the way it comes across .

I understand why professionals use a "strange " language when

Writing to each other. An epitaph is always conveyed on paper and copied

Exactly some clients even gave me the book with the quoted words circled

(Got some great classics but no first editions).

I am having to do something I should have paid more attention to

Meaning I now have to write more than just a note or quick memo

To convey the message .

[John Dolva]

I don't know. The best I've heard was something like 135 IQ. I've scored higher than that.

The background to understanding Kapital by just reading it means learning a whole lot of other stuff. I don't know if he had that background.

Afa being smart goes a lot of his actons were very stupid. The only way I can understand that is by seeing his actions as part of a larger picture and a good indicator of conspiracy.

[Ian Kingsbury]

Lee

I think the guys running Oswald were smarter and he appears to have

Fallen for a bigger lie followed by a bigger lie, sound familiar?

Ian

[Paul Trejo]

.......It isn't difficult to fake a reading of Das Kapital -- Marxist vocabulary was bandied about on newspapers found on many streetcorners in the 1960's. I don't think Oswald had the brains to finish the first chapter of Das Kapital. I also doubt that Oswald finished Mein Kampf, or any serious book of any length. His library card records show that he liked 007 novels.

From de Mohrenschildt's manuscript:

Instead of playing basketball or baseball, like any other red-blooded American youth, he read voraciously. Among the books he read was

Marx's "The Capital" which made a deep impression on him. Ironically, he said, he borrowed this book from the Loyola University library .

"What did you like in it?" I remember asking him. "It made clear to me the intolerable fact of the exploitation of the poor by the rich ."

.....I read similar opinions recently in several liberal books and Lee was way ahead in thought of all of them .

.....Lee read Russian classics and discussed some at length with me, especially I remember "The Idiot" by Dostoievski, a psychoanalytical study.

He understood the pre-revolutionary life in Russia, which I did not know but heard about from my parents . Russian classics belong exclusively

to the pre-revolutionary or early revolutionary days and modern Russians are fascinated by those days of extravagant aristocracy, tzarist power

and abuses of it.

Michael, I never said Oswald was stupid -- I just don't find evidence from his writing that Oswald was truly well-read.

Just because George De Mohrenschildt said Lee read Das Kapital, that's no proof. The proof would show in Oswald's writings, and when I personally read those writings, I find them to be superficial.

But more to the point, even George De Mohrenschildt would express disappointment in Oswald. Here are some sentences from George De Mohrenschildt's own responses to the Warren Commission (i.e. his testimony to attorney Jenner on 23 April 1964). Notice the change of tone from the words that you cited from him:

1. He had a chance to be a Marine. Here was a perfect life for him -- this was my point of view. He was a man without education; in the Marines -- why didn't he stay in the Marines all his life? You don't need a high degree of intelligence to be a Marine corporal or solider.

2. He was clinging to me...When I talk to people, I am interested in them. And he appreciated that in me. The other people considered him, well, he is just some poor, miserable guy, and disregarded him.

3. I do not remember any particular incident, but I knew that he wanted the attention to himself, always. Not in any particular case, but always.

4. But Lee did not want to take anything. He had a very proud attitude. That is one of the reasons I sort of liked him, because of that. He was not a beggar, not a sponger.

5. It was a very strong resentment on his part. It was almost an insane jealousy of people who succeeded where he could not succeed.

6. And they (Marina and Lee) were very miserable, lost, penniless, mixed up. So as much as they both annoyed me, I did not show it to them because it is like insulting a beggar -- you see what I mean.

7. One conversation I had with him -- I asked him, "Would you like to be a Commissar in the United States," just teasing him. And he sort of smiled -- you could see that it was a delightful idea. To me it was a ridiculous question to ask. But he took me seriously.

8. Possibly he was seeking for something, but knowing what kind of brains he had, and what kind of education, I was not interested in listening to him, because it was nothing, it was zero.

Furthermore, the following excerpt from his sworn testimony completely contradicts the text that you cited from him:

------------- Begin Excerpt from Warren Commission 23 April 1964 -----------------------

Mr. JENNER. Did you have the feeling that his views on politics were shallow and surface?

Mr. DE MOHRENSCHILDT. Very much so.

Mr. JENNER. That he had not had the opportunity for a study under scholars who would criticize, so that he himself could form some views on the subject?

Mr. DE MOHRENSCHILDT. Exactly. His mind was of a man with exceedingly poor background, who read rather advanced books, and did not understand even the words in them. He read complicated economical treatises and just picked up difficult words out of what he has read, and loved to display them. He loved to use the difficult words, because it was to impress one.

Mr. JENNER. Did you think he understood it?

Mr. DE MOHRENSCHILDT. He did not understand the words - he just used them. So how can you take seriously a person like that? You just laugh at him. But there was always an element of pity I had, and my wife had, for him. We realized that he was sort of a forlorn individual, groping for something.

Mr. JENNER. Did you form any impression in the area. let us say, of reliability -- that is, whether our Government would entrust him with something that required a high degree of intelligence. a high degree of imagination. a high degree of ability to retain his equilibrium under pressure, a management of a situation, to be flexible enough?

Mr. MOHRENSCHILDT. I never would believe that any government would be stupid enough to trust Lee with anything important.

------------- End Excerpt from Warren Commission 23 April 1964 -----------------------

So, to be fair to my point, Michael, we should really look at both sides of George De Mohrenschildt's opinions about Oswald's intelligence.

Even apart from this I reaffirm, based on my own reading of Oswald's amateur political writings, that he showed no depth in political science. He was a rank beginner.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 6, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Hogan]

Michael, I never said Oswald was stupid -- I just don't find evidence from his writing that Oswald was truly well-read.

Just because George De Mohrenschildt said Lee read Das Kapital, that's no proof. The proof would show in Oswald's writings, and when I personally read those writings, I find them to be superficial.

Paul, I made no claims about what you said. Now you are modifying and explaining what you wrote. It was clear enough the first time:

"I don't think Oswald had the brains to finish the first chapter of Das Kapital."

But more to the point, even George De Mohrenschildt thought little of Oswald. Here are some sentences from George De Mohrenschildt's own responses to the Warren Commission (i.e. his testimony to attorney Jenner on 23 April 1964). Notice the change of tone from the words that you cited from him:

(Testimony omitted)

------------- End Excerpt from Warren Commission 23 April 1964 -----------------------

From his manuscript:

....It should be useful, as I had known him well, better than anybody else, according to the Warren Report, better than

his mother and wife, according to the lengths of our depositions .

How the oppressive-weight influenced my testimony can be seen so clearly by me now, looking at it after several years,

as if it were somebody else's deposition, deprived of a warm feeling for Lee, full of my own stupid jokes, which make me

sad now. I was not expressing myself really, I didn't defend Lee vigorously and passionately enough, which I am sure he

would have done if he had to defend me in a similar situation. I was cleverly led by the Warren Committee counsel, Albert

Jenner, into saying some things I had not really wanted to say, to admit certain defaults in Lee, which I wasn't sure were his,

in other words I consider myself a coward and a slob who did not stand up to defend proudly a dead friend, whatever odds

were against him. That big, clever boy, the trial lawyer handled me like a baby: first he bullied me, then he led me to tell him

carefully all about my life by saying :"don't conceal anything, we know more about yourself than you do."

Notice the change of tone from the exchanges you posted.

So, to be fair to my point, Michael, we should really look at both sides of George De Mohrenschildt's opinions about Oswald's intelligence.

No Paul. To be fair you should really look at both sides. You present just one side for no other reason than you think it will support your grand theory.

I'm not the one making the claims about Oswald and de Mohrenschildt. You are.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Michael Hogan

[Paul Trejo]

Michael, I never said Oswald was stupid -- I just don't find evidence from his writing that Oswald was truly well-read.

Just because George De Mohrenschildt said Lee read Das Kapital, that's no proof. The proof would show in Oswald's writings, and when I personally read those writings, I find them to be superficial.

Paul, I made no claims about what you said. Now you are modifying and explaining what you wrote. It was clear enough the first time:

"I don't think Oswald had the brains to finish the first chapter of Das Kapital."

Michael, I think you misunderstood my point -- when I doubt that Oswald didn't have the brains to finish the first chapter of Das Kapital, that should not equate to the charge that "Oswald was stupid."

It just so happens that Das Kapital is a very difficult book to read, even for scholars. It takes special brains to read even the first chapter of Das Kapital.

Furthermore, when somebody does read Das Kapital, really and truly, and not in a superficial way (in that superficial way that George De Mohrenschildt, by his own words, admitted that Oswald read the book) one does not emerge from that experience with the amateur vocabulary that Oswald evidenced in his political writings.

Aside from the obvious fact that Oswald's political writings were sophomoric, he was still a promising candidate for a low-level spy -- he was a capable radar operator, a capable code-writer, he learned to speak the Russian language with some fluency, and clearly had an IQ above average.

That still didn't give him the necessary brains to finish the first chapter of Das Kapital. Oswald was not stupid, but I object to any hint that Oswald was a political prodigy.

Finally, I realize that George De Mohrenschildt contradicted himself about Lee Harvey Oswald. That was one of my key points. That was the point that I clearly made with my quotations from him that flatly contradicted the quotations you cited.

The fault does not rest with you or with me, IMHO, but with George De Mohrenschildt himself -- the opportunist, the xxxx, who withheld vital information from the US Government under oath -- and who preferred to end his own life than to face that oath again.

One need only read George De Mohrenschildt's farewell address, his booklet, I'm A Patsy! I'm a Patsy! to clearly make out the depth of his deception -- not only of the public, but also of Lee Harvey Oswald, whom he pretended to befriend to so many, but whose actions proved his disdain.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 7, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Hogan]

Michael, I never said Oswald was stupid -- I just don't find evidence from his writing that Oswald was truly well-read.

Just because George De Mohrenschildt said Lee read Das Kapital, that's no proof. The proof would show in Oswald's writings, and when I personally read those writings, I find them to be superficial.

Paul, I made no claims about what you said. Now you are modifying and explaining what you wrote. It was clear enough the first time:

"I don't think Oswald had the brains to finish the first chapter of Das Kapital."

Michael, I think you misunderstood my point -- when I doubt that Oswald didn't have the brains to finish the first chapter of Das Kapital, that should not equate to the charge that "Oswald was stupid."

Paul, for the second and hopefully last time, I made no claims about your point. I simply posted what you wrote. And then I posted what George de Mohrenschildt wrote about the exact same thing.

Ergo, I wish you would refrain from claiming I misunderstood your point. And despite your efforts to modify it, your original statement remains..

Finally, I realize that George De Mohrenschildt contradicted himself about Lee Harvey Oswald. That was one of my key points. That was the point that I clearly made with my quotations from him that flatly contradicted the quotations you cited.

No Paul. The express point you said you were making with the excerpts of de Mohrenschildt's WC testimony that you posted was this (bold added):

But more to the point, even George De Mohrenschildt would express disappointment in Oswald. Here are some sentences from George De Mohrenschildt's own responses to the Warren Commission (i.e. his testimony to attorney Jenner on 23 April 1964). Notice the change of tone from the words that you cited from him:

If you realize George de Mohrenschildt contradicted himself, it did not stop you from using quotes from him in an attempt to buttress your speculative theories.

I'll give some more examples in my next post. (Due to the restrictions on number of quotes allowed per post.)

Edited February 7, 2013 by Michael Hogan

[Michael Hogan]

(Continued from previous post)

The fault does not rest with you or with me, IMHO, but with George De Mohrenschildt himself -- the opportunist, the xxxx, who withheld vital information from the US Government under oath -- and who preferred to end his own life than to face that oath again.

One need only read George De Mohrenschildt's farewell address, his booklet, I'm A Patsy! I'm a Patsy! to clearly make out the depth of his deception -- not only of the public, but also of Lee Harvey Oswald, whom he pretended to befriend to so many, but whose actions proved his disdain.

Of course the fault does not rest with me, Paul. I am not the one making claims about de Mohrenschildt and about what he meant. You have used

out of context snippets of what de Mohrenschildt said or wrote in the belief that they would support your speculative theories.

It's important to re-read George DM's, I'm a Patsy, I'm a Patsy (1977) to know his views on Oswald. Also, review George DM's s testimony to the WC on Oswald. He didn't respect Oswald -- but George DM did say he preferred Oswald's conversation to the conversation of his own children.

George de Mohrenschildt's manuscript clearly indicates that he respected Oswald, yet there is no mention of this by you. You refrain from commenting on his reasonable reasons (and apology) for telling Jenner what he did. And you ignore all the good things he wrote about Oswald in his manuscript.

You did not hesitate in using de Mohrenschildt to refute the notion that that Oswald was an FBI informant (as Harry Dean clearly claimed on national television.

And Dean did not state it as an opinion, he stated it as if it were a fact.)

On the contrary, I'm convinced that my theory about Oswald is correct, and there are others on my side -- Gerry Patrick Hemming thought of Lee Harvey Oswald as a bumbler. George De Mohrenshildt -- perhaps the closest companion to Lee Harvey Oswald in 1962-1963, regarded Oswald as unworthy of trust. It is a matter of opinion, of course, but my research about the personality (and the psychology) of Lee Harvey Oswald resonates more closely with Hemming and De Mohrenschildt.

(13) We have no evidence that Oswald was on assignment (by the FBI or CIA) to spy on Guy Banister and David Ferrie. On the contary, George De Mohrenschildt stated very clearly to the Warren Commission that "there was no government agent so stupid as to trust Lee Harvey Oswald with anything important."

Paul, I have read your posts on this thread very carefully. I see clearly that you carefully select de Mohrenschildt's quotes

when it suits your arguments and that you dismiss them when they don't.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Michael Hogan

[Paul Trejo]

Lee

I think the guys running Oswald were smarter and he appears to have

Fallen for a bigger lie followed by a bigger lie, sound familiar?

Ian

Yes, Ian, it sounds very familiar. I'm not sure what some theorists are aiming at by defending the alleged "brilliance" of Lee Harvey Oswald, but the evidence suggests to me that Oswald was smart-but-not-smart-enough.

Now, I happen to believe Marina Oswald's sworn testimony, so that structures my own theory. She portrayed him as somebody who lied to her continually, who kept secrets from her continually, who bullied her, who beat her, and generally kept her in a closet. That's not the mark of "brilliance" in any definition I know. It's the mark of a petty person.

George De Mohrenschildt provided sworn testimony that was damaging and even insulting to Lee Harvey Oswald. Later, instead of appearing before the HSCA for more sworn testimony, he offered a booklet, I'm A Patsy! I'm A Patsy! in which he pretended he loved Oswald dearly. But we must remember that this booklet does not represent sworn testimony.

The great value of this booklet is its confirmation of Volkmar Schmidt's interview by William Kelly in 1995, in which Schmidt tells of a party in Dallas dedicated to convincing Lee Oswald to kill ex-General Edwin Walker.

Schmidt admitted he used an advanced psychological technique, and he worked on Oswald for hours -- and after that session Oswald went out and bought the weapons used in the Backyard photographs -- one of which was signed by Oswald and given to George De Mohrenschildt. George De Mohresnschildt was at that party. His 1977 booklet admits this important party -- but he had withheld the truth from the Warren Commission in 1964.

George De Mohrenschildt was about to be caught in a lie -- that is why, IMHO, he could not face the HSCA.

What does this say about Oswald's intelligence? He was smart but not-smart-enough -- that is, an amateur psychologist like Volkmar Schmidt could manipulate Oswald's mind and send him on a self-destructive mission. That's my interpretation.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo