Jump to content

JOACHIM JOESTEN How Kennedy Was...


John Dolva
 Share

Recommended Posts

You talk nice "Paul" but you seem more and more just to be an apologist at the least and a cover up artist most likely...

Best,

Peter

Peter, it's true that over the years I've come to defend LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, the FBI and the CIA more than I expected to.

I don't believe Oswald was JFK's shooter -- although I do believe that Oswald was up to his neck in the JFK conspiracy.

The missing piece is the General Walker shooting. To deal with this, I've found that most critics of the Warren Commission do a terrible job of trying to dismiss the Walker shooting -- i.e. they will develop elaborate, ridiculous CIA theories with fictitious plots going back to 1962 and even 1961. It's all bizarre invention, worthy of Rube Goldberg.

The Backyard photographs were faked -- I do agree with that -- however, I think it was Lee Harvey Oswald himself who faked them when he worked at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall (and that was why he was fired from there in late March, 1963).

When I affirm that Oswald was deeply involved in the JFK assassination, some theorists suspect that I'm a cover-up artist, or that I'm just trying to get back to the Warren Commission. But I'm not. The Warren Commission insisted on a Lone Nut shooter, and I reject that 100%. Still, the best eye-witness testimony we will ever possess in this case is from the Warren Commission (and from Mark Lane; yet Mark Lane was also a witness for the Warren Commission).

(As for Blackbird -- it's not so hard. You won't need three full months if you analyze the chord progression.)

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Robert Morrow

Marina Oswald in 2010 was telling Jesse Ventura that the backyard photos were NOT faked and that she took them. I believe her. They were a part of Oswald's sheep dipping operation.

http://www.democrati...ess=389x9636631

And if I had to guess I would say Oswald was involved the JFK assassination because he was US intelligence.

But he shot no one on 11/22/63 nor did he shoot at Gen. Edwin Walker.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marina Oswald in 2010 was telling Jesse Ventura that the backyard photos were NOT faked and that she took them. I believe her. They were a part of Oswald's sheep dipping operation.

http://www.democrati...ess=389x9636631

And if I had to guess I would say Oswald was involved the JFK assassination because he was US intelligence.

But he shot no one on 11/22/63 nor did he shoot at Gen. Edwin Walker.

Robert, when I follow the links you provided above, they offer video apps that display, "Video no longer exists", or similar words.

Marina told the Warren Commission she took one and only one photograph. They bullied her into saying that she "must have" taken two, because they waved two different photographs (CE-133A and CE-133B) under her face.

But she insisted that if she did take two, it must have been because she didn't understand the camera -- she only pressed the button once.

These facts were taken out of context for 49 years -- but Marina always stuck to her story, to the best of my knowledge.

What did Marina tell Jesse Ventura that contradicts this? The links you provided above are no longer in service.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<YouTube video of Marina Oswald with Jack Anderson>

The Jesse Ventura/Marina Oswald segment begins about the 24-minute mark. She does not go on camera.

<YouTube video of Marina Oswald with Jesse Ventura>

Michael, thanks very much for posting these videos. They're very helpful in the context of this thread.

I note the consistency in Marina's WC testimony and both of these videos. In the first, short video with Jack Anderson, she emphasized that she took one photo, just as she told the Warren Commission. She added that maybe she took two or more, just as she told the Warren Commission after their extended harassment over the fact that they were holding two photographs in their hands.

The FBI impatiently demanded from Marina an explanation. She was being honest (I paraphrase): "I only snapped the button once. That's all I remember. But you are waving two photographs at me, and so it appears that I "must have" taken two, even though I only took one -- I suppose I don't know much about cameras."

Later, when two more photographs were produced, one with a larger background, and one with a completely different pose, Marina was even more confused than ever.

But she stood firm in her memory -- "I only remember taking one photograph."

This is important because in the video recently produced by Jesse Ventura, Marina confessed to him that she took one and only one photograph.

So, I was pleased to see those videos, because they confirm again that Marina, though lied to continually by Lee Harvey Oswald, stuck to her sworn testimony as told to the Warren Commission, and never changed her story after half a century.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is important because in the video recently produced by Jesse Ventura, Marina confessed to him that she took one and only one photograph.

So, I was pleased to see those videos, because they confirm again that Marina, though lied to continually by Lee Harvey Oswald, stuck to her sworn testimony as told to the Warren Commission, and never changed her story after half a century.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Perhaps on that one point. IMO Marina's statements are full of excuses. "I don't know anything about cameras" could even be just another convenient one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Backyard photographs were faked -- I do agree with that -- however, I think it was Lee Harvey Oswald himself who faked them when he worked at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall (and that was why he was fired from there in late March, 1963).

Paul, I've been busy and traveling lately, so I may have missed it above. Can you point me to why Oswald would have put together composite body photos with his own head on them? Why not just pose for the photos himself? What do you think happened during the backyard phototaking scenario? Were only Oswald and Marina present?

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Backyard photographs were faked -- I do agree with that -- however, I think it was Lee Harvey Oswald himself who faked them when he worked at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall (and that was why he was fired from there in late March, 1963).

Paul, I've been busy and traveling lately, so I may have missed it above. Can you point me to why Oswald would have put together composite body photos with his own head on them? Why not just pose for the photos himself? What do you think happened during the backyard phototaking scenario? Were only Oswald and Marina present?

David, in my opinion, Oswald was a highly trained OSI intelligence cadet, and he loved spy work. Tom Hume, for example, explored Oswald's "Undeliverable Package" and found ample evidence of secret codes all over it.

In my further opinion, Oswald wanted to have plausible deniability for these photographs, in case one was ever found. Notice how quickly Oswald responded to the DPD when shown one of these photographs -- he said (I paraphrase), "that is my head stuck onto somebody else's body -- I know photography and that is a fake photo, and in time I will prove it."

It is likely, IMHO, that he knew it was a fake because he made it fake. He knew he could prove it was a fake, because he knew exactly how it was made. He knew exactly the methodology of the faking -- "my head stuck onto somebody else's body."

Further, we should recognize that the photo equipment at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall was state-of-the-art in 1963, and they held government agencies among their clients. So the sophistication of this fakery was well within Oswald's personal reach.

Why bother making the photos at all? IMHO this was one of Oswald's weaknesses -- he loved to boast. He could not keep his mouth shut. (This is confirmed by George De Mohrenschildt.) Oswald's signature on the back of one of the photos, sent as a gift to the DeMohrenschidlt's, is sufficient evidence, IMHO.

Now, why did he proceed with only Marina and himself? This question is related to the question regarding why he wore all black. (We should note that in his personal effects, this black outfit was never found.)

I personally believe that Oswald did not act alone -- in anything. He had accomplices even in this photography. He wore a black outfit so that the cutting and pasting could be better concealed -- and so that his "body double" could also wear black to make the cutting and pasting easier.

So, the first photograph (for which we have the negatives, i.e. CE-133B) was taken by Marina and Oswald alone. She was unaware of any accomplices. The other photographs were taken later by Oswald himself with his "body double". That's my theory today.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, I myself suspect that the photos were not a lark, and that Oswald was directed to make them as a sheep-dipping aid. Perhaps we should look at what else was happening in Oswald's life within a month on either side of the picturetaking, and try to relate events and tendencies in context..

However, he may have been crafty enough to cut and overlay obviously, to create plausible deniability for himself. This is as much as I have time to imagine today.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, I myself suspect that the photos were not a lark, and that Oswald was directed to make them as a sheep-dipping aid. Perhaps we should look at what else was happening in Oswald's life within a month on either side of the picturetaking, and try to relate events and tendencies in context..

However, he may have been crafty enough to cut and overlay obviously, to create plausible deniability for himself. This is as much as I have time to imagine today.

Excellent questions, David. This might clarify a lot. The sheep-dipping question runs deep -- and its starting point is disputed.

Let's look at the sheep-dipping in New Orleans -- something most of us agree upon, following Jim Garrison. Here is Oswald pretending to be an FPCC officer in an obviously fake FPCC branch in New Orleans (with no members). This occurred only in August, 1963. In August, Oswald hands out FPCC fliers, picks a fight with Carlos Bringuier, gets jailed, gets his name in the newspapers, gets on the radio, and finally gets on TV. All in August.

At the end of August, Oswald simply gathers up all his newspaper clippings and takes them to Mexico. He demands instant access into Cuba, on the basis of his "leadership role in the FPCC". The Cubans and the Soviets dismiss him as an idiot.

OK, let's stop here for a minute. In Oswald's mind he was part of a plot to sneak into Cuba. (Probably this was related to Operation Mongoose, in his own mind, i.e. this is what he was probably told by Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, et. al.)

However, in reality (or as a backup plan) Oswald was being framed as a Communist in a way that he could hardly deny -- there were police records, there were newspaper reports, there was a radio program and there was even a TV program. How could he possibly deny he was a Castro-loving Marxist after all this sheep-dipping?

Yet Oswald had no idea that he was being sheep-dipped -- he wanted to get to Cuba, take care of business there, and return home to a hero's welcome. He told Marina during this period, "I'm going to be Prime Minister of the USA." Oswald was playing along - but he didn't see all the angles.

Now, we must back-pedal back to April, 1963. Was he already approached as a potential killer of Castro back in April? I don't see the evidence.

On the contrary, the evidence we see tends to support the Warren Commission account,IMHO. Even if we add new information from Volkmar Schmidt (thanks to Bill Kelly) and from George De Mohrenschildt (and his booklet in lieu of testimony for the HSCA) we have confirmation of the Warren Commission account, namely, that the Dallas bourgeoisie (Schmidt, De Mohrenschildt, Paines, et. al.) worked hard to turn Oswald away from his Marine orientation and, to transfer his hostility away from revenge for the Bay of Pigs, and onto ex-General Edwin Walker, who was leading a band of white-supremacists, starting with the Ole Miss riots of September, 1962.

In late January, 1963, Walker was acquitted of his crimes at Ole Miss (where hundreds were wounded and two were killed). In February, 1963, Volkmar Schmidt and friends worked on Oswald to make him hate General Walker. In March, 1963, Oswald bought his weapons, and took the Backyard photographs.

It seems to me that Oswald was smitten by George De Mohrenschildt. Here was a true father figure for him. Oswald wanted to please George De Mohrenschildt more than anything else in the world. We have Oswald's signature on the back of one of the Backyard photographs, and George believed it was Marina who wrote sarcastically, "Hunter of fascists, ha ha ha" on that same backside of that photo.

It seems to me that Oswald was fairly easily manipulated -- he was always hungry for a father-figure. In Dallas that father-figure was George De Mohrenschildt. In New Orleans that father-figure was Guy Banister.

So -- I cannot find my way clear to think of the Backyard photographs as part of the same sheep-dipping program that Oswald endured in New Orleans. Yet I still do see a connection -- but it's a negative connection.

IMHO, the connection between the Walker incident (of which the Backyard photos are an obvious part) is that George De Mohrenschildt correctly guessed (as Marina said) that Oswald was Walker's shooter (or at least one of two) and on Easter Sunday, four days after the shooting, George De Mohrenschildt told his good friends, Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin about his suspicions of Lee Harvey Oswald. Mrs. Voshinin told Dick Russell that she called the FBI as soon as George left her home, and told the FBI all about what she heard.

Now the story about Oswald became semi-public. Now the story had the legs needed to reach the ears of General Walker. General Walker, already paranoid after his clash with the Kennedys the previous October, suspected that RFK was behind the Oswald shooting at him on 10 April 1963. So, in revenge, IMHO, Walker called Guy Banister (as they were both leaders of the Minutemen organization) and they planned a sweet revenge on Oswald.

It was then - on Easter Sunday, 1963, that Oswald was first identified as the patsy in the JFK assassination plot (which was already under way, but was on the hunt for patsies of various types). That's how I see it.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

"It seems to me that Oswald was fairly easily manipulated -- he was always hungry for a father-figure. In Dallas that father-figure was George De Mohrenschildt. In New Orleans that father-figure was Guy Banister." That is probably true.

I may or may not agree with what the manipulation was, but that was the psychology of it. And before them Oswald was manipulated to go to Russia as a fake defector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It seems to me that Oswald was fairly easily manipulated -- he was always hungry for a father-figure. In Dallas that father-figure was George De Mohrenschildt. In New Orleans that father-figure was Guy Banister." That is probably true.

I may or may not agree with what the manipulation was, but that was the psychology of it. And before them Oswald was manipulated to go to Russia as a fake defector.

I fully agree with the "fake defector" theory, Robert.

BTW, David Lifton has information to the effect that Oswald briefly met General Edwin Walker on a plane ride to Germany before going to Russia in October, 1959, and that General Walker gave Oswald some tips and tricks for sneaking his way "behind enemy lines."

So, it's not impossible that General Walker was also one of Oswald's "father figures" when he was 20 years old.

And before that, David Ferrie was manifestly a "father figure" to Oswald, when he was 17 years old.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps on that one point. IMO Marina's statements are full of excuses. "I don't know anything about cameras" could even be just another convenient one.

Pamela, perhaps you're right, yet her position sounds logical to me. Marina Oswald thought she knew enough about cameras to know that when she pushed the button only once, that she took only one photograph.

That's what she told the Warren Commission. She pushed the button only once. That was her best recollection.

The Warren Commission refused to believe her. They held in their hands two photographs, not one. The photographs had different poses of the body, but were clearly of the same day and time, with Lee Oswald holding the same guns and newspapers.

The Warren Commission made Marina examine the two photographs. She scratched her head. She said (I paraphrase), "Well, I know for a fact that I pushed the button only once, but here in my hands I now see two photographs. Therefore, I must not know very much about cameras."

Marina never changed her story. She was convinced by the Warren Commission pressure that she had taken two pictures, although her memory was clear on the topic -- she pushed the button only once. Therefore, she must not have known much about cameras at all.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion is that the Dallas Police Dept. was deeply involved in the cover up of the JFK assassination, but not the crime itself...

Robert, I'd like to get back to the Joesten book, How Kennedy Was Killed (1968), and his opening chapter that demands a review of the Dallas Police Department.

Joesten was convinced that the DPD was involved in the crime itself. The Dallas DPD had control of the Grassy Knoll. That statement is startling in itself. Yet I found a little bit more on this topic of the DPD involvement in the JFK assassination in the book, Treachery in Dallas (1995), by Walt Brown.

For Walt Brown, the members of the JFK conspiracy had to have specific characteristics: (1) to be home-grown American; (2) to dislike of JFK sufficiently that nobody would have a change of heart; (3) to be talented with high powered rifles; (4) to blend in with the Dallas scenery seamlessly; (5) to be beyond the investigation of local authorities.

For Walt Brown, "one group and only one group fits this profile perfectly." That group, he claimed, would be a rogue handful of DPD police officers, with at least "two key people at, near or above the chain of command."

The Dealey Plaza kill zone was known pat by the DPD police who were in the best position to come and go casually from Dealey Plaza. Furthermore, says Brown, the DPD controlled the motorcade route, the manpower allocation, the crime scenes, the "evidence," even the media placement. The DPD could also control the suspects, which suspects to ignore, the release of suspects, the custody and safety of the prisoner, the prisoner's visitors and the entire investigation.

Brown objects that "no crime scene involved in the assassination was ever truly sealed." More puzzling, the DPD had several witnesses who pointed to the sixth floor of the TSBD building, yet it took the DPD forty-two minutes before they arrived at the sixth floor to look around.

On this point I remember an exclamation by Harold Weisberg in 1968 -- a film was taken of the TSBD a few minutes after the JFK assassination, and it showed that somebody was building a sniper's nest there on the sixth floor near the window -- after the fact.

At the DPD station, the media was allowed to run rampant throughout the hallways. This, suggests, Walt Brown, is only the beginning of the problems he has with the DPD on 22 November 1963. Brown's writing, though 30 years after Joesten's, raises the same questions that Joesten raised.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...For the last few months I've followed Paul Trejo's posts with interest. Not in the way that I follow, let's say, Robert Howard's or Bill Kelly's posts with interest. The interest I have with Trejo specifically centres around his very genial and accommodating approach to other members, combined with an ever so subtle manipulation of the evidence in an effort to shoehorn and crowbar it into a overall conclusion that he had more than likely reached before he even joined the forum.

At the end of 1963 and into 1964, the Warren Commission started their perverted and fraudulent investigation into the assassination of John F. Kennedy from an already determined conclusion. They manipulated evidence, they ignored important information and witnesses whilst placing great emphasis on other information and witnesses that helped their "hypothesis" and they knew exactly what they were doing every step of the way. If it didn't fit the already established conclusion then it was either changed and shoehorned in, or it was discarded and forgotten.

Paul Trejo's approach to "solving" the assassination mystery has been no different.

I am posting this today to ask that evidence be presented concerning one particular series of conclusions that he has recently posted.

As you can see from his previous statements that I have quoted above, Trejo has, over the last few weeks, reached and proclaimed (multiple times) a series of "dynamite" conclusions, namely:

i) Oswald made copies of and "faked" the Backyard Photographs using the "sophisticated" camera equipment at JCS.

ii) Oswald was "fired" from Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall because he made these "fake" photographs

iii) The Managers at JCS handed over certain materials to the Dallas Police showing the BYP's with a figure cut out. They gave this to the DPD to show them "Oswald's dark side."

I would like to know how a man gets "fired" from a job for what amounts to gross misconduct and is allowed to continue working. If the "fake" photos were made on Monday April 1st then the JCS management team must have "fired" him for misuse of company property by printing photographs of himself in quite a "communistic" pose, but they then not only let him finish his normal week's work but also allowed him to work overtime on the Saturday! They also let him keep his ill gotten wares.

Mr. JENNER. Did he have difficulty obtaining Saturday work from the company?

Mr. OFSTEIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Why?

Mr. OFSTEIN. Well, they go on an experience and seniority basis as to overtime. The people with more seniority have a choice as to whether they want to work or not and usually they do.

Mr. JENNER. To make that extra money?

Mr. OFSTEIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And also, does skill have anything to do with it--you mentioned experience---you meant to include in that experience his skill for the level of attainment?

Mr. OFSTEIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER, And he had not reached the point at which all of these factors combined enabled him to command or be reasonably fortunate in respect to having overtime work?

Mr. OFSTEIN Right.

Mr. JENNER. Had your skills reached the point at which you had overtime work on Saturday when you sought it?

Mr. OFSTEIN. Yes, sir.

I would like to know when and how Lee Oswald made fakes of the backyard photos at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall using the equipment they had on site. What process did he utilise and what specific cameras did he use? What evidence does Trejo have that this took place other than the fact that he says so?

I would like an explanation as to how Trejo believes Oswald even landed himself the job at a company that did confidential map work for the United States Army. How does a guy with a "dishonorable discharge" gain employment in such a place to begin with? What was the Texas Employment Commission's role in "acquiring" this job for Lee? What was the FBI's influence over the TEC? Can Trejo do the impossible and make sense of the TEC records concerning Oswald's employment history?

I would like Trejo to explain who it was within JCS that gave the "fake" BYP exposures to the Dallas Police? When did this take place? Why didn't the Dallas Police (and any subsequent investigation) ever make use of this very clear evidence that Oswald was a "braggart" and made the pictures himself?

It's easy to make claims if you don't have to back them up with anything. The reason these type of claims are generally made on this forum, accompanied by an absence of evidence, is because the person making them has an agenda to promote.

The fact that Trejo has been repeating these statements for a substantial amount of time and afterwards announced that he is now off to research them just goes to show the other members here the methodology he uses.

Could I also request that the answers he provides to my questions be as succinct and waffle-free as possible please? Waffle-free is much more preferable than evidence-free. And could he also leave his shoehorn in the cupboard?

P.S. The name of the company Lee Oswald worked for was Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall.

Lee, thanks for the opportunity to respond.

(1) The notion that Lee Harvey Oswald himself made his own fake Backyard photographs when he worked at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall does not appear in the Warren Commission investigation. It does not appear in the Jim Garrison investigation. It does not appear in the HSCA documents. Nor did I consider this possibility when I joined this Forum some fifteen months ago.

(2) The idea occurred to me late last year as I've enjoyed these several debates on the Forum. Here's a possibility that nobody has considered before -- not because it's a wacky idea, but because it is one of those possibilities right under people's noses that we simply overlook.

(3) I agree with you that the Warren Commission manipulated evidence to fit J. Edgar Hoover's well-publicized and hasty conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK -- the so-called lone nut. Since I began reading about this topic, inspired by the 1991 movie, JFK, by Oliver Stone, I have agreed with that the Warren Commission conclusions are unreliable.

(4) So, I cannot agree when you suggest that my approach to the problem of Lee Harvey Oswald has been no different than the Warren Commission's. I categorically reject any notion that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK alone. I have always written that Oswald had accomplices.

(5) You ask for evidence concerning my theory that Lee Harvey Oswald made his own fake Backyard photographs sometime during his employment at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall (JCS), between March and early April, 1963, and that this was among the main reasons that Oswald was fired from JCS. Yet you also portray my theory as a "conclusion".

(6) I don't call my theory a conclusion -- it's a proposition. It's a theory to be disproved or proved, and not a conclusion of any sort.

(7) The fact that the Dallas Police Department (DPD) had materials showing Oswald's Backyard photograph with the figure cut out suggests to me (not as a conclusion but as a working theory) that the managers at JCS provided these to the DPD after the JFK assassination. This follows logically from the premise that Oswald made the BYP at JCS and left scraps behind.

(8) You kindly ask for technical details. So far I don't have details -- and neither does anybody else. This theory of mine is new in this discussion -- I have never seen it posed before, in fifty years of JFK literature. If it has been posed before, I'd like to see it in print.

(9) Now, one reason that it hasn't been posed before is that the managers at JCS never told the Warren Commission that anything like this happened. However, as you noted, Lee, the Warren Commission (or the Warren Omission) would manipulate testimony in order to crowbar the conclusions of J. Edgar Hoover through. So, I think we must take the Warren Commission testimony with more than one grain of salt.

(10) You ask a valid question -- how would a man be fired for gross misconduct and still be allowed to finish his final two weeks of employment? One possible reason is that the managers at JCS wished to avoid any publicity about this internal matter. By letting go of Oswald in a casual manner, they would have avoided negative publicity from Oswald (who was quick to complain to the governor himself, if he thought he was being treated unfairly, e.g. his case against his dishonorable discharge from the Marines).

(11) Another reason could be that the managers at JCS never actually saw the photographs, but only saw the droppings and scraps created by this photographic labor (e.g. the BYP cut-out). It is possible that Oswald worked on the Backyard photographs for several days, and left behind scraps that were clearly alien from any legitimate customer contract (e.g. his Alek J. Hidell card), so that the JCS managers never actually saw the ill-gotten wares themselves, but only the scraps of evidence left behind.

(12) If so, then the abuse of company equipment would be just cause for firing, but without final evidence, the JCS managers could simply end Oswald's employment normally -- i.e. with a layoff of the least productive trainee on the staff.

(13) This correlates with Jenner's interview of Ofstein that you cited above.

(14) As for the details, Lee, that will take some further research. I would start with fixing the dates.

(15) We have some evidence from the sworn testimony of Marina Oswald (which, by the way, I accept fully, and I know that some JFK researchers do not) to the effect that Oswald was occupied with taking photographs of Walker's personal house throughout the month of March, 1963.

(16) We also have some evidence that Oswald received his rifle and pistol through the mail in March -- again this is confirmed by Marina's sworn testimony.

(17) As for the technical details of Oswald's using the sophisticated equipment at JCS (which Oswald was clearly qualified to do, according to the same citation from Jenner and Ofstein that you provided above) I am not technical enough with that equipment to describe those details. However, I do claim that the photographic equipment at JCS was clearly sophisticated enough to accomplish this technical feat. If somebody has proof that the photographic equipment at JCS was not sophisticated enough to do this, I would like to see that.

(18) As for Lee's obtaining the job at JCS in the first place -- it is tangental to my theory to consider how Oswald got that job in the first place. The fact is that he got the job, despite his dishonorable discharge from the Marines.

(19) I realize there are different theories regarding how Oswald got the job at JCS. George De Mohrenschildt, for example, testified that he, George Bouhe and Sam Ballen hooked Oswald up with the TEC and with friends they had, to put in a good word for him, so to speak. But this question is a side-bar from my theory.

(20) My theory begins with the fact that Oswald did work at JCS, however he got the job.

(21) As for the BYP fakes, I believe that they are fakes. I know that some JFK researchers deny this, and they have also challenged me to prove scientifically that they are fakes, and actually I am interested in repeating the experiments done by Major John Pickard (but first I must obtain authentic facsimiles of CE-133A and CE-133B).

(22) As far as proving my theory, of course, that will take time. I am only one person. I present my ideas to this Forum in order to find clues and pointers and help with my theories -- or proof to the contrary. So far, I'm still waiting for any of these.

(23) As for my theory that the JCS managers gave the DPD the BYP cut-outs, that is suggested by the simple fact that the DPD actually had these BYP cut-outs in their possession. So if (and only if) Oswald made the fake Backyard photographs at JCS when he worked there, and if (and only if) the managers at JCS used the scraps of this abuse of their equipment to justify laying off Oswald, then the scraps would have been in the possession of the JCS managers at the time of the JFK assassination, and the JCS managers would have that incentive to hand the scraps over to the DPD.

(24) Again, that is a theory that logically follows from the premises. I readily admit that evidence is needed to prove this, and I openly seek such evidence on this Forum.

(25) Again, if my theory is correct, why didn't this information come forward in the Warren Commission investigation, or in any subsequent investigation? I believe that the JCS managers asked to keep a low profile. After all, they worked on secret government contracts in their shop.

(26) Finally, Lee, I never once stated my theory as a foregone conclusion. You will see in all the snippets you cited above, that I continually admit that this is a theory, or is presented "in my humble opinion" (IMHO). Like yourself, I have no agenda but the truth.

(27) As for my methodology, I use Occam's Razor; that is: (i) in the presence of sufficient evidence, I will avoid inventing a scenario; and (ii) I will accept all sworn testimony until a contradiction is found.

(28) I trust, Lee, that my answers to your questions are succinct and as waffle-free as possible.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...