The Ultimate USAEC secrets per the JFK hit.

[Harry J.Dean]

I was born under the questionable British flag, in Canada

as a United States citizen at birth as a result of my American

father. The British/Canada people and their government

along with the British homeland declared war on Germany

in September 1939. For the next two years until 7 December

1941 the United States was totally allied with Germany. So

there is no problem about why Americans generally dealt with

Germany!

Edited August 26, 2014 by Harry J.Dean

[Paul Brancato]

I would add to that Harry, by saying that elements of our government and our corporations remained allied with Nazi Germany during the war as well. These elements, and I would include the Dulles family, and the Bush family, and the Rockefellers, clearly saw the Soviets as the greater threat. In my mind there is a clear thread between these corporate entities who enlisted so many Nazis after the war, and the killing of JFK, who clearly had in mind and heart ending the Cold War. Khrushchev was no Stalin, and yet the idea of finding a way to peacefully coexist with the Communist regimes in Russia and China was still unacceptable to these families. Was it for ideological reasons - Capitalism vs Communism - or purely for economic reasons - war profiteering - is for me an open question. Perhaps this is a distinction without a difference.

[Paul Trejo]

I would add to that Harry, by saying that elements of our government and our corporations remained allied with Nazi Germany during the war as well. These elements, and I would include the Dulles family, and the Bush family, and the Rockefellers, clearly saw the Soviets as the greater threat. In my mind there is a clear thread between these corporate entities who enlisted so many Nazis after the war, and the killing of JFK, who clearly had in mind and heart ending the Cold War. Khrushchev was no Stalin, and yet the idea of finding a way to peacefully coexist with the Communist regimes in Russia and China was still unacceptable to these families. Was it for ideological reasons - Capitalism vs Communism - or purely for economic reasons - war profiteering - is for me an open question. Perhaps this is a distinction without a difference.

Well, Paul B., since we've already disagreed...

The clash between Capitalism and Communism cannot be made into a choice of EITHER ideology OR economic. It is both.

The ideology of Communism proposes (according to Marx and Engels and their Communist Manifesto of 1844) to abolish Private Property, abolish Religion, abolish Marriage and abolish Nationalism.

This is an attack on Western tradition both ideologically and economically. Our Family Law, Civil Law, Criminal Law and National Law have no other basis than Private Property, and the redress and settlement of Private Property disputes.

There is probably no Law at all without Private Property -- even if it's only about the Private Property of My Own Ownership of My Own Body (which was the issue of the Slavery Era).

The Communists knew good and well that by proposing to abolish Private Property, Religion, Marriage and Nationalism that these were fighting words -- and that they had declared war on the West.

The issue with the USSR, also, was that they had no real goal to abolish Nationaiism in *their* case -- and they were always loyal to Mother Russia. Also, Marriage was still the norm in the USSR. They also lied to the world about Race, saying that they had no Race problem, and no Crime problem, and even no Alcohol problem. All lies.

Communism was a pipe dream -- and this is easily seen a half-century later, after the USSR has fallen. It didn't even last out three generations -- despite every Police State trick in the book. Their culture was a disaster -- it would have been a joke if it was actually funny instead of perfectly tragic.

So, yes, the USA is based on Capitalism and its Profits -- but most profits aren't war profits. Most profits are due to Import and Export, and Wholesale and Retail, as one can easily imagine.

The big change in the USA from 1930 to 1950 was that the United Kingdom fell from its great height as the Global Empire, and the USA took over that role. The USA -- although we didn't seek it -- became the new Global Empire.

The big difference between the UK and the USA, as I see it, is that the UK was Colonial, and the USA is Anti-colonial. Still, after 9/11 the whole world can see that the USA inherited all of the problems that the UK used to manage on their own.

We've made some mistakes -- sure -- and Vietnam was admittedly one of them. But we're not Colonialists (as the USSR charged) and we absorbed countless thousands of Vietnamese Exiles in 1975 just as we absorbed thousands of Russian Exiles in 1917, and thousands of Cuban Exiles in 1960.

We aren't Colonialists -- but we are the Global Empire of the 21st century. That's not Nazi, by the way. The Nazi's are Aryan Supremacists, and in the USA these Nazi's are regarded as kooks.

Your view seems to be biased against the Rich in the USA -- yet if this was 1910 you'd probably be biased against the Rich in the UK. But all nations have their Rich people. It's the way it's always been since the days of the Old Testament.

To imagine that people can do without Private Property is a pipe dream. To hope for a world with greater equity is noble, and that was also the dream of JFK. But JFK was also one of the Rich people in the USA -- and JFK respected the Rich as well as the working class.

It's a mistake, IMHO, to think that the Rich and Powerful killed JFK. Instead, it was the paramilitary ultra-right-wing who killed JFK -- especially those mobilized against Fidel Castro on the one hand, and those mobilized against the Civil Rights Movement on the other hand.

These radicals had the help of rogues inside the CIA -- we have their names and their confessions.

One of those ultra-right-wing radicals was Ex-General Edwin Walker. Another was Loran Hall. It's not just that Harry Dean has identified these two with a first-hand witness, but we have personal papers by Walker that tend toward his guilt, and a near-confession from Loran Hall himself, dated 1968.

Read this interview of Loran Hall by Harold Weisberg and see for yourself. We're very close to solving the JFK murder at the ground-crew level.

http://www.pet880.com/images/19680903_Natl_Enquirer_NB.pdf

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 7, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[David Andrews]

The big change in the USA from 1930 to 1950 was that the United Kingdom fell from its great height as the Global Empire, and the USA took over that role. The USA -- although we didn't seek it -- became the new Global Empire.

To Churchill's chagrin, the price of the US entering WW II was the acquisition of US rights to British military bases, and the price of rescuing the Pacific Rim settlements was the dismantling of the Empire through contracted abandonment of its colonies. Roosevelt brokered the deals, detailed in multiple books as it is.

Edited August 9, 2014 by David Andrews

[Paul Trejo]

The big change in the USA from 1930 to 1950 was that the United Kingdom fell from its great height as the Global Empire, and the USA took over that role. The USA -- although we didn't seek it -- became the new Global Empire.

To Churchill's chagrin, the price of the US entering WW II was the acquisition of US rights to British military bases, and the price of rescuing the Pacific Rim settlements was the dismantling of the Empire through contracted abandonment of its colonies. Roosevelt brokered the deals, detailed in multiple books as it is.

Quite right, David, because Roosevelt was wise enough to know that we couldn't win without taking charge of the battle field. At that time it became clear that the USA was going to rise up a notch in World History, but even at that point, it was unclear how high the USA would rise.

We could not predict, for example, that London would be reduced to little pieces of rubble by the end of WW2. My argument remains -- Roosevelt did not aggressively seek to take the reigns of World Empire. That was Adolf Hitler who did that.

Roosevelt cooperated with London as far as possible -- but it was also clear that London had got its own self into this mess, and we certainly couldn't throw good money after bad. The USA had to take more responsibility once the UK begged for the USA to come to its aid.

However -- it was by no means clear that the USA would end up as the Global Empire of planet earth until WW2 was finally over.

I think history affirms my view.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 9, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

In response to posting the HSCA material, here's the way it goes...about 1998 I ordered a ton of files from NARA in regard to Vallee, it included all the contemporary Chicago material from 1963, follow on SS annual investigative reports because they checked on him for years afterwards, all the HSCA related documents etc. I spent month examining the whole story - many years later I located and talked to Vallee relatives. At the moment, the HSCA reports I refer to are smashed together amoung a ton of other folders in tertiary storage in my garage and honestly I have nither the time nor energy to go looking for them. And if I did I don't have a scanner...

Perhaps someone else can find copies of them online, I myself only saw paper copies and I assumed they would be among what is on line at MFF. The HSCA did seriously consider the Vallee story because there had been media coverage of it, and there were Chicago documents. But I'm afraid all I can do is give you my recollection on it. I'll also mention one more time that Vallee himself came to the attention of the SS because he shot off his mouth about the fact that something needed to be done about JFK while he was having a meal in a bowling alley - the guy next too him thought he was a nut case and might be dangerous so he reported it.....

For what it's worth:

Vallee, Thomas Arthur

(4614 N. Paulina and 1725 N. Wilson - Chicago IL)

327-30- 4015; b: 11-15-33 (Chicago); d: 03-26-88 (Chicago)

8/12/49 = Enlisted in Marine Corps in Green Bay WI

11/28/53 = honorably discharged

2/55 = re-enlisted in Marine Corps Reserve

11/28/55 = called to active duty while in Chicago and honorably discharged 9/14/56 due to physical disability (army doctors classified him as schizophrenic)

5/63 = Arrested in Knoxville TN for DWI

10/30/63 = interviewed by US Secret Service prior to JFK visit to Chicago; employed by IPP Printing Co. as lithographer

11/2/63 = Chicago PD arrested him and discovered guns/ammo in his car; had California driver’s license with address in Oakland

JBS member

Secret Service master file on Thomas Arthur Vallee, memorandum of Nov. 6, 1963, p. 2 (JFK Document 008581).

[Paul Trejo]

I was born under the questionable British flag, in Canada

as a United citizen at birth as a result of my American

father. The British/Canada people and their government

along with the British homeland declared war on Germany

in September 1939. For the next two years until 7 December

1941 the United States was in totally allied with Germany. So

there is no problem about why Americans generally dealt with

Germany!

I would add to that Harry, by saying that elements of our government and our corporations remained allied with Nazi Germany during the war as well. These elements, and I would include the Dulles family, and the Bush family, and the Rockefellers, clearly saw the Soviets as the greater threat. In my mind there is a clear thread between these corporate entities who enlisted so many Nazis after the war, and the killing of JFK, who clearly had in mind and heart ending the Cold War. Khrushchev was no Stalin, and yet the idea of finding a way to peacefully coexist with the Communist regimes in Russia and China was still unacceptable to these families. Was it for ideological reasons - Capitalism vs. Communism - or purely for economic reasons - war profiteering - is for me an open question. Perhaps this is a distinction without a difference.

In Harry Dean's Confessions we read that Harry's earliest memories as a poor American kid growing up in the UK formed his political orientation for life.

Harry was very pleased to be repatriated back in the USA when he was accepted into the US military near the end of World War Two.

The clash between England and Germany that formed the core of World War Two was confusing to many Americans, because after all, hadn't we attained our precious National Independence by our own war with England? Besides, isn't it a fact that more American citizens today can trace their heritage back to Germany than to England? (The German migration to the USA started in 1845, and never stopped.)

So, many Americans hoped the USA would side with Germany, and not with England in World War Two. JFK's own father, Joe Kennedy, publicly stated before the USA joined the war, that Germany would emerge the victor. He had to eat those words.

The UK today is a mere shadow of its former self. Oh, the UK is plenty rich -- but not in proportion to its wealth when it was the undisputed Empire of the World. Just look at all the Colonies that the UK has lost since WW2 -- not the least of which have been Hong Kong and Kuwait.

Instead the UK depends on the USA economy -- just as most of the world does. Today we see the flourishing of the American Empire -- vastly different than the British Empire because the British were Colonialists, while the USA is Anti-Colonialist.

It seems to me that the USA has a better grasp of the world situation today than the British Empire did a century ago.

As for Germany, however, by its Nazi episode (which they greatly regret today, and have made the Nazi Party illegal) it reduced its own capitol to rubble, and failed to take the title of World Empire which it so zealously envied.

Yet the Nazi nonsense is over and done with. There are still Aryan supremacists here and there, but they have NO POWER (which is the whole key). Also, the USA is more racially diverse than any other nation has ever been, and today the USA is more racially diverse than it ever has been in the past.

So, any notion that the Nazi ideas play any part at all in today's USA politics is ridiculous.

JFK was killed by right-wing extremists in the USA, some of whom held racist views. We know this was true for Robert Allen Surrey and Ex-General Edwin Walker, as well as Guy Banister. Yet the prime motive for the JFK murder was never race, it was always CUBA. Without CUBA there would have been no way to involve colored people like David Morales, Guy Gabaldon and Larry Howard into a right-wing plot.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 29, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[David Andrews]

Cuba was the bait, but the payoff for the fishermen was Southeast Asia.

[Paul Trejo]

Cuba was the bait, but the payoff for the fishermen was Southeast Asia.

Perhaps, David, but that appears more plausible in hindsight -- so many years later.

It is almost impossible to foretell the future. In 1963 the big news was Cuba, Cuba, Cuba -- some Civil Rights marches -- and more Cuba, Cuba.

The Bay of Pigs was still fresh in many minds. The Cuban Missile Crisis was barely one year old in late 1963. There were Cuban Exiles marching in the streets of many cities in the USA.

Cuban Raiders like Loran Hall and Carlos Bringuier were in demand for speeches before "Conservative" groups around the USA, including the John Birch Society, coast to coast.

The passionate people were still hot about Cuba. Not only the Cuban Exiles themselves, who were burning up, but also the ultra-rightists who were seeking some way to make JFK look bad. Cuba was their central target in 1963 (that and Civil Rights).

One only needs to read the John Birch Society literature from 1963 to recognize this -- what to speak of the radical right-wing newspapers that filled the newsstands in Los Angeles (where I grew up, and saw this as a kid).

In 1963 -- before JFK was killed, the mindset of the USA was practically in the 1950's. Vietnam was a passing comment on the back pages of newspapers. Cuba was making the political headlines.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 21, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[David Andrews]

Where did the game move to as soon as JFK was dead? How many poppy fields could be hidden in a reconquista Cuba? How much defense money could be amassed for a little war on a different continental plate than the one bearing Russia and China?

In some ways, Kennedy's death was needed to ring down the curtain and strike the scenery on the Cuban adventure. There was nothing left to confront there, and the small-picture minds of US intel could be tricked into killing Kennedy out of pride, because pride was all that could be satisfied over Cuba. Castro was made an isolato, Guevara even more so out of Castro's political trepidation at expanding the revolution beyond rhetoric. Any South American or African liberations Cuba undertook - even those with Soviet support - were quashed with indigenous police actions. I admire Castro in many ways - but I think that it's his irrelevance that has kept him alive.

Figuratively speaking, the casinos reopened in Saigon. And the lessons of the McKinley administration were heeded: budgets and imaginations swelled at China's doorstep, where the conquest was harder but the supply lines more lucrative.

The late John Judge's mother saw the immediate reversal of Kennedy's withdrawal policy in the last week of November, 1963, and in that week was ordered to project the military draft figures for a ten-year war in Vietnam. See 4:34 and after in the clip below:

Edited August 24, 2014 by David Andrews

[Paul Trejo]

Where did the game move to as soon as JFK was dead? How many poppy fields could be hidden in a reconquista Cuba? How much defense money could be amassed for a little war on a different continental plate than the one bearing Russia and China?

In some ways, Kennedy's death was needed to ring down the curtain and strike the scenery on the Cuban adventure. There was nothing left to confront there, and the small-picture minds of US intel could be tricked into killing Kennedy out of pride, because pride was all that could be satisfied over Cuba. Castro was made an isolato, Guevara even more so out of Castro's political trepidation at expanding the revolution beyond rhetoric. Any South American or African liberations Cuba undertook - even those with Soviet support - were quashed with indigenous police actions. I admire Castro in many ways - but I think that it's his irrelevance that has kept him alive.

Figuratively speaking, the casinos reopened in Saigon. And the lessons of the McKinley administration were heeded: budgets and imaginations swelled at China's doorstep, where the conquest was harder but the supply lines more lucrative.

The late John Judge's mother saw the immediate reversal of Kennedy's withdrawal policy in the last week of November, 1963, and in that week was ordered to project the military draft figures for a ten-year war in Vietnam. See 4:34 and after in the clip below:

www.youtube.com/watch?playnext=1&v=WQjbiHTeQp8&hl=en-GB&index=55&playnext_from=PL&feature=PlayList&p=66047063E91AE678&gl=AU

It's an interesting clip, David. Also -- I can't deny that the theory that the CIA/Pentagon killed JFK over Vietnam might possibly turn out to be the correct theory.

However, there are still too many doubts and questions. First, where is the ground-crew? The level at which the CIA/Pentagon theory operates just says the ground-crew doesn't matter.

I completely disagree with that.

Before we can name the plotters, we have to name the ground-crew. Some of them have already confessed. We have some of them. Now -- what can we make of this ground-crew? Can we blame the CIA/Pentagon and Vietnam? Nope.

Who confessed? Howard Hunt confessed that he was on the sidelines; proving he was not near the top. David Morales confessed to his friend Raoul, but we have no more details. Both these guys were LOOSE CANONS and hot-heads who were enraged over the BAY OF PIGS. Not Vietnam, but CUBA.

Who else confessed? There were several CIA flunkies, I call them, but they really weren't in the CIA, but they were mercenaries. Jim Garrison uncovered many of them, e.g. Jack S. Martin, David Ferrie ahd Thomas Edward Beckham. These are some truly low-level guys.

Also, there's Frank Sturgis, who basically bragged about it. Again Sturgis was merely a mercenary -- not a CIA Agent.

Also, there's John Martino. He knew Morales and Sturgis and the JBS sponsored his speeches.

Also, there's Johnny Roselli. Here's a low-level mercenary if there ever was one -- all Mafia.

Also, some say Loran Hall semi-confessed when he shouted out, "only me and Santos Traficante are left, and I ain't gonna say xxxx!"

Also, Harry Dean, who was part of the California Minutemen side of the plot, confessed in January 1965 and never changed his story.

Also, Gerry Patrick Hemming confessed to A.J. Weberman of his participation.

So, we have a fair portion of the ground-crew today! We don't have more confessions (to the best of my memory today) but we do know their comrades-in-arms. We can name Interpen, La Sambra, Guy Gabaldon, DACA, Carlos Marcello, Larry Howard, and several others.

What can we make of this ground-crew? Did they have the power to kill JFK? I think so, because David Morales supplied some of his mercenaries and underlings, and I think Edwin Walker supplied some of his Minutemen and underlings, and they had a tight control of the Dallas city machinery. I think we can explain everything having to do with ASSASSINATION of JFK with the ground-crew we can name so far.

Now -- as far as the COVER-UP of the assassination -- that's beyond our ground-crew. But my point this year has always been that the COVER-UP people (who held that Oswald was a Lone Gunman) were opposed to the murderous Ground-crew (who held that Oswald was a Communist).

So -- I take the COVER-UP off the table. The COVER-UP had different motives (i.e. National Security).

The question remains -- can we explain the murder of JFK with the ground-crew that Jim Garrison, Joan Mellen, Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich have identified so far? I SAY WE CAN!

Best regards,

--Paul Trejol

Edited August 29, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - the ground crew that Simpich and Hancock identify does not need to include your ground crew. Honestly, how can you read Simpich and Hancock and then add in Dean's ground crew and think you've solved the riddle? There is so much more evidence implicating Morales and his Cuban and mafia operatives than there is evidence for some California JBS cabal. Sure there are many tie ins between the racists and far right Americans in Dean's story and the CIA operatives in Simpich's Mexico City tale, but there is little evidence to back Dean's story, and much to implicate Morales.

Identifying the ground crew only solves part of the riddle, not the whole riddle. Deniability is SOP. You will not find the proof that the ground crew acted on orders, because they didn't. But they could certainly have known what was required of them, and what would happen to them afterwards, without any paper trail and with no fear of repercussions.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - the ground crew that Simpich and Hancock identify does not need to include your ground crew. Honestly, how can you read Simpich and Hancock and then add in Dean's ground crew and think you've solved the riddle? There is so much more evidence implicating Morales and his Cuban and mafia operatives than there is evidence for some California JBS cabal. Sure there are many tie ins between the racists and far right Americans in Dean's story and the CIA operatives in Simpich's Mexico City tale, but there is little evidence to back Dean's story, and much to implicate Morales.

Identifying the ground crew only solves part of the riddle, not the whole riddle. Deniability is SOP. You will not find the proof that the ground crew acted on orders, because they didn't. But they could certainly have known what was required of them, and what would happen to them afterwards, without any paper trail and with no fear of repercussions.

These are good questions, Paul B.

Yet I defend my position by noting that I don't suspect Ex-General Edwin Walker because of Harry Dean's story. On the contrary, I accept Harry Dean's story because I have suspected Edwin Walker for a long time.

I should add, also, that I don't accept everything Harry Dean has written, e.g. I don't buy the LDS angle. I made that clear to Harry when we wrote his CONFESSIONS last year. That's off the table for me. Harry Dean has eye-witness information about Ex-General Edwin Walker, Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Guy Gabaldon. However, about the LDS, Harry Dean is only speculating. That's where I draw the line.

So, I don't buy everything that Harry Dean wrote -- and I thought we were past the LDS story, until Harry broke off with me this year, and returned to his LDS story. Oh, well.

Back to the point -- Larry Hancock doesn't make much room for Guy Banister, either, or Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman or Thomas Edward Beckham -- although Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen spent years of research on these guys. We now have evidence linking Ex-General Edwin Walker with Guy Banister. This is not CIA -- but I say it is more important than the CIA when it comes to the JFK murder.

Also, although Banister and Walker were on the side of racial segregationists in 1961-1965, and they got lots of support and cash from that political spectrum -- I don't believe that the racist wing of the JBS led the charge against JFK. Instead, it was their CUBA wing that got all the traction.

It's well-known that the JBS had two great wings -- the South and the North. The South wanted to Impeach Earl Warren over the Brown Decision (1957) which mandated racial integration of US Public Schools. The North wanted to Impeach Earl Warren because Robert Welch said it was a good idea. But the main issue of the Northern JBS members from 1961 through 1963 was CUBA.

It was on the issue of CUBA that the JBS in New Orleans and Dallas (i.e. Banister and Walker) were able to cut a deal with low-level ROGUES in the CIA, who split off behind David Morales.

As David Andrews ably showed, David Morales was an officer who followed orders. So who gave him his orders? The answer is that the orders of David Morales and the CIA Rogues came from a wealthy authority who preached that JFK was a dirty rotten Communist, and a traitor betraying the USA who deserved a firing squad.

Despite the fact that the JBS waved the American flag more than anybody else, they preached this poison coast to coast. Anybody who liked Joseph McCarthy loved Robert Welch. Same story, only more of it.

David Morales finally found his leadership. We have Guy Banister and Edwin Walker -- peers in the fight against alleged Communists in Washington DC. They were well-connected and had tons of funds from sources as diverse as H.L. Hunt and Carlos Marcello, Howard Hughes and Santos Traficante. These rogues within the JBS were the real leaders, IMHO.

Jim Garrison is one of my main sources -- but I disagree with Garrison when he said that the CIA was the leader of the plot to kill JFK. I disagree. I don't see the evidence. (I can see the SUSPICION, but I can't see the EVIDENCE).

The evidence leads back to these two key members of the JBS, namely, Guy Banister and Edwin Walker, and their many underlings, many of whom have already confessed to the plot in one way or another (e.g. David Ferrie, Thomas Beckham, Loran Hall) or face overwhelming convicting evidence (e.g. Clay Shaw, Guy Banister and Edwin Walker).

On Larry Hancock's side, he has one person who openly and unambiguously confessed, namely, John Martino, who was never a CIA Agent, but only one more low-level mercenary.

Martino, in turn, was sponsored by the JBS.

So, Paul B., it all leads back to the Birchers, according to my theory. This plot includes the participation of David Morales and his bunch. The fact this year that Bill Simpich proved a BREAK in the CIA over the impersonation of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico, and the fact that Larry Hancock himself denies that Angleton took part in the JFK murder, only adds substance to my theory.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 29, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, you are not correctly describing John Martino. Martino was in no way a low level mercenary, he was intensely anti-Castro, publicly active in the media on that point after his release from a Cuban prison and emotionally involved with the exile cause. Key exile military activists trusted him because of his experience, his sincerity and his nerve. Given his anti-Castro and anti-Communist remarks, once his book was in print he was sponsored on speaking tours - as part of a group of much more ultra right and avowedly racist speakers. Martino took advantage of the speaking tour to promote his book - he was virtually out of money at that point - and because the believed in what he was saying. As it turned out some of the tour schedule provided a handy cover for his courier and liaison work on the conspiracy, whether he was approached before he joined the tour or whether he mentioned his travel to New Orleans and Dallas and was recruited a that time is an interesting question...

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, you are not correctly describing John Martino. Martino was in no way a low level mercenary, he was intensely anti-Castro, publicly active in the media on that point after his release from a Cuban prison and emotionally involved with the exile cause. Key exile military activists trusted him because of his experience, his sincerity and his nerve. Given his anti-Castro and anti-Communist remarks, once his book was in print he was sponsored on speaking tours - as part of a group of much more ultra right and avowedly racist speakers. Martino took advantage of the speaking tour to promote his book - he was virtually out of money at that point - and because the believed in what he was saying. As it turned out some of the tour schedule provided a handy cover for his courier and liaison work on the conspiracy, whether he was approached before he joined the tour or whether he mentioned his travel to New Orleans and Dallas and was recruited a that time is an interesting question...

OK, Larry, I'll step back and qualify my remarks about John Martino.

My phrase, that he was "low-level" was only a comparison of John Martino with actual CIA Agents, and in particular with the CIA high-command.

What I meant was that compared with Richard Helms, James Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, Bill Harvey, Theo Shackley and George Joannides -- all of whom had middle to high positions in the CIA -- John Martino was comparatively "low-level."

When observing charges that the Official CIA plotted to murder JFK, one mainly gets a list of low-level assets in that regard, e.g. John Martino, Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Johnny Roselli, Lee Harvey Oswald and so on.

These guys were certainly dedicated -- yet they weren't good enough to receive an actual SALARY from the CIA. (Much as they may have wanted that.) That was my point.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo