Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent?

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Trejo,

I've come to believe you are correct in one respect. Post-assassination one sees two themes: [1] Oswald was a lone nut. [2] Oswald was a commie who supported Castro, etc. The lone-nut depiction won out. The Oswald-as-commie depiction was used to fortify his image as a lone-nut.

I believe both depictions are irrelevant to the assassination. I believe Marina's husband was set up. I believe the killers hold power today.

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, I'm not sure how you differentiate the following:

"However, on 11/22/1963, the JFK Cover-up Team saw right through their Big Lie, and quickly opposed them, on grounds of National Security, by using another Big Lie -- the "Lone Nut" theory."

That's exactly what I wrote i.e. that suppression of conspiracy began immediately, from the very top with Johnson and his aides and proceeded through the evening and weekend. I describe it as being

iterative and sloppy since nobody was sitting there at 12:30 Dallas with a concrete and well organized suppression plan in place...that indeed would mean the assassination and cover up were tied

together.

I wouldn't call the cover up team the good guys although as I stated, they were ostensibly acting in the interest of national security. Of course often times that simply means preserving the status quo, keeping the public

from panic and maintaining at least an image of control over a crisis.

Of course the lies of a Castro plot and a Lone Nut shooter would be mutually exclusive.

So how is your scenario different again...the only difference I see is your "keystone cops" remark related to my description of the cover up as an ongoing, damage control process. However if it were

otherwise, that would imply it was structured, prepared in advance and well executed - which it certainly was not given how many loopholes we all discuss over and over.

[Jon G. Tidd]

There is nothing innocent in the JFK assassination. JFK was killed for a purpose. Marina's husband was set up as the killer.

That's it. Period.

[Thomas Graves]

Word Twister,

You accused Larry twice in your pedantic 2 point zero point of not having a "guess" about a "precise scenario" (why not use the more civil word "idea," instead?), but then you use your evidently God-given artistic license in saying (guessing?) that Hall and Howard asked Silvia Odio for money.

So with you the devil is in the details, isn't it.

You should feel flattered that I read your posts.

--Tommy

[...]

[...]

Word Twister Trejo wrote: "First, Tommy ... [P]lease stop reading my posts -- your comments are useless to me."

Oh, but I shall indeed continue to read them, Word Twister. I need a good laugh from time to time! The way I see it, anyone who preaches on an internet forum that Oswald was materialistic (i.e., wanted lots of money and material possessions) because he claimed to be a Marxist (one who believes in the Hegel-and-Marx-based philosophy of dialectical materialism) is absolutely hilarious and really should go on tour as a stand up comedian. I must say that I rather look forward to your humor-filled posts and I get a little "blue" when they don't appear!

Word Twister Trejo then wrote: "Silvia Odio herself said that" Leopoldo" came to her with a fund-raising letter."

Do please try to get it straight, Word Twister. Leopoldo and Angel (whom you call Loran Hall and Larry Howard) didn't go to her with a fund-raising letter. They asked her to write a fund-raising letter for them to use in soliciting funds for JURE activities. In your original post you said that Hall and Howard drove Oswald from New Orleans to Dallas and in Dallas asked Silvia Odio for money.

Asking someone to write a fund-raising letter for you to send to other people is not the same as asking the letter writer herself to give you money!

From Word Twister's original bad joke post: "...It was OK with Oswald that Loran Hall chose to stop for a half-hour at the apartment of Sylvia Odio to ask for money and favors ..."

OK, now that I've corrected you on the "asking Odio for money" bit, I gotta ask you-- what could have possibly been the "favors" that you claim Hall and Howard asked of Silvia Odio, other than the writing of the fund-raising letter? To use her potty? To take a group shower? To wash their dirty undies in her washing machine? To catch a few winks in her living room? To use her telephone to call "Guy Baby" down in Mexico just to let him know they had Ozzie the Patsy with them and that they were on the way? To scratch their hairy backs? To make them some yummy, yummy peanut butter and jelly sandwiches "for the road?"

What "favors," Word Twister? Oh, I see. You only meant the writing of the fund-raising letter...

LOL

--Tommy

Word Twister Trejo is a perfect example of someone who has a little bit of poorly-remembered "knowledge," who loves to use artistic license to further his brand of historical revisionism, and who just loves to talk, to "inform." Unfortunately, he's dangerous for the more naiive and gullible readers who might read and uncritically accept his posts.

One of Word Twister's big problems is that whenever he makes a factual error and it is brought to his attention, rather than admitting his mistake (no matter how small it might be), he invariably "digs in his heals" and throws as much self-serving "spin" into the conversation as he possibly can with his masterly use of word-twisting, trying to convince you that he was right all along and that he never ever makes factual errors. By doing this, he is only showing us how desperate he is to appear to be infallible and oh-so knowledgeable, and how afraid he is of losing what little credibility he has.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Paul Trejo,

I've come to believe you are correct in one respect. Post-assassination one sees two themes: [1] Oswald was a lone nut. [2] Oswald was a commie who supported Castro, etc. The lone-nut depiction won out. The Oswald-as-commie depiction was used to fortify his image as a lone-nut.

I believe both depictions are irrelevant to the assassination. I believe Marina's husband was set up. I believe the killers hold power today.

Well, Jon, I think you're beginning to see glimmers of the implications of my proposal -- but you arrive at a different conclusion.

I agreed with everything you said -- except for these two sentences:

(i) "I believe both depictions are irrelevant to the assassination."

(ii) "I believe the killers hold power today."

It seems to me that the opposite conclusion is not only warranted, but decisive. For most of the Post-assassination there were only two themes: [1] Oswald was a "Lone Nut"; and [2] Oswald was a Communist who supported Fidel Castro.

The Warren Commission (and the whole US Government) pushed for #1 and we've heard it for a half-century now, and you're right; #2 was simply used to fortify #1 -- only a "Lone Nut" would be a Communist in the USA. It was an emotional statement.

Yet how can you say these are "irrelevant to the assassination," Jon?

Do you mean that both positions are Big Lies? Then I agree with you 100%. However, even as Big Lies, they were both very, very relevant to the outcome of the JFK assassination. We must remember that JFK was killed for an "outcome". Therefore, the "outcome" of the JFK assassination is very relevant.

What was not a Lie? Actually, for just a few hours after JFK was killed -- and very quickly forgotten by everybody -- is the third option that you didn't mention, Jon, namely: [3] Oswald was working with the far-right. That is the only other option, IMHO, and I say that was the Real Truth.

Both the JFK Killers and the JFK Cover-up people combined forces to smash the True position. The idea that Oswald was working with (even as a naive Patsy) the far-right, has plenty of evidence -- most of it already provided by Jim Garrison in 1968.

So, Jon, clearly the two main depictions: Lone Nut or Communist; were relevant to the JFK assassination and its "outcome."

We both agree that Marina Oswald's husband was set up. On this point we also agree with Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, Jim Marrs, Harold Weissman, Robert Groden, David Lifton and perhaps most JFK researchers.

However, Jon, I deny your final conclusion, that the JFK Killers "hold power today." It seems crystal clear to me that the JFK Killers wanted to invade Cuba and kill Fidel Castro. Since that never happened, I must conclude that lost their bid for for a coup d'etat in the USA.

Instead, the JFK Cover-up Team held power in 1963-1964, namely, LBJ, FBI, CIA, Media, Joint Chiefs. They kept the secret of who killed JFK strictly and solely for the purpose of National Security.

They did the USA a favor by preventing local riots, a new US Civil War and World War III. One day the USA will see all the facts, and this will become clear. For the past half-century, however -- by the design of Hoover, Warren and Dulles themselves -- the Truth about the JFK murder has been hidden (and would have remained hidden for another quarter-century, if it had not been for President GHW Bush's JFK Records Act of 1992, which promises to reveal the Truth on 26 October 2017).

Because of that Cold War suppression of the Truth about the JFK murder, many well-meaning US critics said that US credibility was damaged, and that our key institutions like the FBI, CIA and Mass Media, took a black eye in the process.

For two decades I thought that they were right. Today I say that they were mistaken -- and actually J. Edgar Hoover wasn't the Bad Guy -- he will turn out to be the Good Guy -- even as we learn without any doubts that his "Lone Nut" theory was a Big Lie.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 17, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Harry J.Dean]

Jon Tidd

Those who lived as adults, before JFK's death and that listened to Eisenhower's dire warning

of what would be and what JFK tried to avoid as mentioned in his speeches for a peaceful

United Nations world can see from being present before and after, the more complete picture

as it passed so clearly in their adult years.

From 1990 Manuscript/book CROSSTRAILS

As conservative political followers in the 1960s....we unknowingly were being used to help install

this present system that is surreptitiously wielding every power of the U.S. government to force

the extension of a purely materialistic-religious empire that is intent on redesigning the entire

world into it's own "communal" image!. An effort that includes brute force and/or isolation of

resistant individuals and entire nations.

Upon JFK death

This planned "New Americanist scheme" with it framework so cunningly in place for near a half century,

moved quickly to consolidate and hold perpetual power over a bewildered government and confused nation.

Who then can ever be tried or convicted for the awful crime, when the guilty control, all legal and

moral judgments, and dictate their own version of history?

[Thomas Graves]

Word Twister,

You accused Larry twice in your pedantic 2 point zero point of not having a "guess" about a "precise scenario" (why not use the more civil word "idea," instead?), but then you use your evidently God-given artistic license in saying (guessing?) that Hall and Howard asked Silvia Odio for money.

So with you the devil is in the details, isn't it.

You should feel flattered that I read your posts.

--Tommy

[...]

[...]

Word Twister Trejo wrote: "First, Tommy ... [P]lease stop reading my posts -- your comments are useless to me."

Oh, but I shall indeed continue to read them, Word Twister. After all, I do need a good hard laugh from time to time! The way I see it, anyone who preaches on an internet forum that Oswald was materialistic (i.e., wanted lots of money and material possessions) simply because he claimed to be a Marxist (one who believes in the Hegel-and- Marx-based philosophy of dialectical materialism) is absolutely hilarious and really should go on tour as a stand up comedian. I must say that I rather look forward to your humor-filled posts and I get a little "blue" when they don't appear!

If my comments are useless to you, it's because you refuse to be corrected!

Word Twister Trejo then wrote: "Silvia Odio herself said that" Leopoldo" came to her with a fund-raising letter."

Do please try to get it straight, Word Twister. Leopoldo and Angel (whom you seem to think were Loran Hall and Larry Howard) didn't go to Silvia Odio with a fund-raising letter. They visited her and asked her to write a fund-raising letter for them, to help them solicit funds for JURE activities. No matter how you "spin" it, Word Twister, asking someone to write a letter for you use in soliciting funds is not the same as asking the letter writer herself to give you money! D'oh!

From Word Twister's original bad joke post: "...It was OK with Oswald that Loran Hall chose to stop for a half-hour at the apartment of Sylvia Odio to ask for money and favors ..."

OK, now that I've corrected you on the "asking Odio for money" bit, I gotta ask you-- what could have possibly been the "favors" that you claim "Hall and Howard" asked of Silvia Odio, other than the writing of the fund-raising letter? To let them use her potty? To let them take a group shower? To wash their dirty undies for them? To let them catch a few winks in her living room? To let them use her telephone to call "Guy Baby" down in Mexico just to let him know they had Ozzie the Patsy with them and they were on the way? To scratch their hairy backs for them? To make them some yummy, yummy peanut butter and jelly sandwiches "for the road?"

What "favors," Word Twister? Oh, I see. You only meant the favor of writing for them the aforementioned fund-raising letter!

Please keep it up, Word Twister. The combination of eating an apple a day, reading your hilarious posts, and drinking a little prune juice is adding years to my life!

--Tommy

Word Twister Trejo is a perfect example of someone who has a little bit of poorly-remembered "knowledge," who loves to use half-truths and artistic license to further his brand of historical revisionism, and who just absolutely loves to talk, to pedantically "inform" the ignorant and the uneducated. Unfortunately, he's dangerous for the more naiive and gullible Forum members and guests who might read and uncritically accept his posts.

One of Word Twister Trejo's biggest problems is that whenever he makes a factual error and it is brought to his attention, rather than admitting his mistake (no matter how small it might be), he invariably "digs in his heals" and throws as much self-serving "spin" into the conversation as he possibly can with his masterly use of word-twisting, trying to convince you that he was right all along and that he never ever makes factual errors. By doing this, he is only showing us how desperate he is to appear to be infallible and oh-so knowledgeable, and how afraid he is of losing what little credibility he has.

But then again those are just his tactics.

His ultimate strategy is to engage you in "dialog" and then just wear you down with the tactics, man, until you absolutely refuse to argue with him anymore, at which point he probably takes your silence as proof that he has finally convinced you to see things his way; another victory!.

LOL

edited and bumped

Edited February 17, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, I'm not sure how you differentiate the following:

"However, on 11/22/1963, the JFK Cover-up Team saw right through their Big Lie, and quickly opposed them, on grounds of National Security, by using another Big Lie -- the "Lone Nut" theory."

That's exactly what I wrote i.e. that suppression of conspiracy began immediately, from the very top with Johnson and his aides and proceeded through the evening and weekend. I describe it as being iterative and sloppy since nobody was sitting there at 12:30 Dallas with a concrete and well organized suppression plan in place...that indeed would mean the assassination and cover up were tied together.

I wouldn't call the cover up team the good guys although as I stated, they were ostensibly acting in the interest of national security. Of course often times that simply means preserving the status quo, keeping the public from panic and maintaining at least an image of control over a crisis.

Of course the lies of a Castro plot and a Lone Nut shooter would be mutually exclusive.

So how is your scenario different again...the only difference I see is your "keystone cops" remark related to my description of the cover up as an ongoing, damage control process. However if it were otherwise, that would imply it was structured, prepared in advance and well executed - which it certainly was not given how many loopholes we all discuss over and over.

Larry, if you're correct and this is "exactly what I wrote," then perhaps I'm mistaken, and you should be given credit for this major innovation in JFK research -- namely -- that the JFK Kill Team and the JFK Cover-up Team were opposed from the very start.

If this is true, then we must all take off our hats to you and Bill Simpich, who have worked as a team, for a sea-change in JFK Research, namely, that the CIA could not have known about Oswald being the JFK Patsy ("State Secret" (2014) on the one hand, and J. Edgar Hoover as the benevolent inventor of the last-minute "Lone Nut" fiction which opposed the JFK Killer's claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was working with Communists.

You claim to be the first to have written that Hoover and the Warren Commission were "acting in the interest of national security", and so, perhaps I actually got this idea from reading your book, Someone Would Have Talked[/b] (2010), without consciously realizing it.

What chapter in your book should I review to confirm this, Larry?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 17, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Steven Gaal]

Larry Hancock

Super Member

• 
• Gender:Male
• Location:Oklahoma USA

Posted Today, 12:24 AM

Paul, I'm not sure how you differentiate the following:

"However, on 11/22/1963, the JFK Cover-up Team saw right through their Big Lie, and quickly opposed them, on grounds of National Security, by using another Big Lie -- the "Lone Nut" theory."

That's exactly what I wrote i.e. that suppression of conspiracy began immediately, from the very top with Johnson and his aides and proceeded through the evening and weekend. I describe it as being

iterative and sloppy since nobody was sitting there at 12:30 Dallas with a concrete and well organized suppression plan in place...that indeed would mean the assassination and cover up were tied

together.

I wouldn't call the cover up team the good guys although as I stated, they were ostensibly acting in the interest of national security. Of course often times that simply means preserving the status quo, keeping the public

from panic and maintaining at least an image of control over a crisis.

Of course the lies of a Castro plot and a Lone Nut shooter would be mutually exclusive.

So how is your scenario different again...the only difference I see is your "keystone cops" remark related to my description of the cover up as an ongoing, damage control process. However if it were

otherwise, that would imply it was structured, prepared in advance and well executed - which it certainly was not given how many loopholes we all discuss over and over.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Larry my idea ,if you have followed at all, was that there were 3 different patsies.

1. JJA had his FRENCH PATSY

2.HELMS/CIA HAD LHO (Castro association)

3.Part of Joint Chiefs who provided military hit team (as opposed to the CIA Lansdale hit team) had Walker.

+++++++++++++++++
Some were #2 was selected

Edited February 17, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, I'm not looking for any particular credit and as I mentioned earlier, the thought of a "disconnected" two phase scenario is certainly not original to me. Many people have discussed the concept that the cover up was a national security exercise, intended to ensure that there was no military response against either the Cubans or Soviets....especially when you had headlines showing up in newspapers on Saturday morning such as that in San Antonio - where the paper bannered the headline "Castro Supporter Shoots President"...that's a paraphrase, I have the paper. Historically the idea is not at all new, the first response out of the power centers in DC (or anywhere else) is always to maintain control, and to minimize public and political pressure to rush off into immediate action of some sort. There exceptions of course, when the emergency fits an existing political agenda like the Gulf of Tonkin incidents fit Johnson's. Control is all important, avoiding knee jerk reaction is all important.

In Chapter 15 of SWHT write first of the conspiracy failure in Dallas, the failure to fully patsy Oswald so that there could be no doubt of his motive and connections. Then I write about the elements who rushed to push a Castro conspiracy, and sway public opinion even post-assassination. The next segment is a discussion of the Danger to the Country and the immediate and ongoing high level push back to forestall charges of conspiracy, investigation of conspiracy and to establish the lone nut scenario. I continue that by discussing the pressures from Washington, the almost immediate order to produce an FBI report on Oswald as a lone nut, etc. That occurred at a time when a variety of people ranging from Hoover to the folks in MC were still raising issues of conspiracy and pointing fingers at Cuba. Hoover himself wanted to leave the FBI report open to Cuban connections.

Again, I'm not the first person to discuss or propose any of this...its been circulating for years. I simply tried to get it all down in a structured fashion. Readers of this forum over the years know that we have often discussed - and debated - whether on not the coverup (I prefer damage control since damage control can imply that there is no priority on investigating or finding the actual truth, even in secret) was linked or not linked to the conspiracy. Most who believe in a grand conspiracy generally see them as linked; I don't. Part of the reason I don't is the utter ineptness of phase 2 and the horrendous number of loose ends left behind during the medical work, the evidence collection and the "official" reports. The other part is that I've spent a lot of time studying the reaction of the government and the national command authority to crises and damage control/minimization is almost always the order of the day.....nobody in DC really wanted to deal with a possible commie plot or worse yet, a domestic one involving its own CIA officers. Following 9/11 nobody definitely wanted to see any Saudi connections or trace the money that went to the attackers....CYA always rules.

[David Josephs]

Hope you dont mind my weighing in... I was under the impression it was Peter Dale Scott's Phase 1-Phase 2 which first identified this duality in the cover-up.

Mexico City was only 7 weeks before the assassination. (Granted, if Tampa or Chicago were successful I wonder how important the Oswald calls in Mexico would have been. And is one of the reasons I believe "Oswald in Mexico with co-conspirators" was the inital plan all along. The records and testimony points towards an Oswald entering and leaving Mexico in a car with others. The earliest reports of this activity are channeled thru INS and the State department to the CIA on 11/23 (I will be covering this in the final part © of my Mexico series - Part B is in process for posting shortly) yet the FBI report we get to see is dated January 13 and claims that CASH, a consulate staffer is actually at the Nuevo Laredo INS office with Tijerina as the FM-11 info is typed onto cards...

Fromthe 23rd of Nov on the FBI/CIA/STATE trifecta does its best to refute, disprove and replace with other evidence the conclusion that their Oswald was in a car, with others in favor of a LONE bus ride which I believe I have proven never happened. Alvarado, a CIA asset with a story to tell, was completely a Phase 1 incrimination. The taps and tapes and photos attributed to Oswald are looking more and more like a completely separate situation than to incriminate Oswald for the upcoming assassination. It is very likely that this trip would give extra credibility to Oswald in order to infultrate FPCC more effectively. (again, if the assassination occurs in Chicago, is there a vault of incriminating evidence on Vallee just waiting to be discovered?)

In any case, I believe it is important to separate the only evidence of Ozzie in Mexico - the hotel and embassy/consulate evidence - from the trip details which, as hard as it may seem to accept, were created after the fact to give Oswald a LONER persona. Whether an Oswald or Oswald impersonator (other than his name on a phone call) was actually in Mexico continues to be my focus. There remains ZERO EVIDENCE that an Oswald was ever there, only photos of someone else, a coerced statement from Duran and transcripts claiming the man speaking on Oct 1 is the same as Sept 27 & 28. Even after it becomes obvious there is no evidence, the ASSUMPTION that we are talking about Oswald never goes away.

As I showed earlier, the 15 day FM-8 was actually applied for and approved on a FM-5 180 day application #24085. The authenticity of this visa has to be questioned since we learned from another Kline to Lester Johnson memo that CASH is already at Nuevo Laredo with Tijerina when Kline calls. CASH has with him "some immigration cards" https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10850&relPageId=4

of which #24085 must have been included.

Trouble for CASH is that the FM-11 as reflected in these typed cards shows a mode of transportation on Oct 3rd for HARVEY OSWALD LEE (Mr. O.H. LEE) and yet he denies it. The report of 11/23 recounts verbatim the details from these cards and is the only mention of this information until the above January 13th memo. Memo's in the interim (thru the publishing of the WCR) are consistantly trying to determine Oswald's mode and means of travel to and from Mexico and explain away the simple mistake of putting the wrong info on the FM-11 while forgetting to put the correct info on the FM-8 tourist visa...

Once again - the lack of info on the visa conflicts with what the FM-11 has - which was taken from this visa. The info taken from this visa includes a mode of transportation yet the visa in evidence does not specify "Viaja en Auto". So did the info come from a different FM-8 visa - or was the visa created for the purpose of changing the after-the-fact conspiracy incrimination to a Lone Nut incrimination - remove the Auto and find him another way in and out of Mexico.

I hope the last two parts of my series helps to explain these hypotheses.

--------------------

Finally - regarding the conclusion the "far-right" and that the JFK killers are not in power today.

Those who pulled the trigger are indeed not in powere and never were.

Those who ordered it, who ordered the Bethesda autopsy cover-up, who ordered the FBI to harass and invent and destroy and create towards a single purpose

Does Bundy get included in the "far-right" group you refer to Paul?

Those on the ground doing the killing worked under the ultimate control of the military.

Those running the military were in bed with the industrial and congressional parts of the equation.

The invasion of Cuba was ideology, not necessity.

While everyone is looking over HERE at Cuba, not much attention was being placed on Vietnam and what the Military CIA was already doing there. Cuba was a pawn in order to get the bigger guns into position for SE Asia where the money, drugs, and arms was to be had.

There are those who planned and accomplished the deed and those who benefitted and continue to benefit. Thinking that these are one and the same seems to me as dismissing the reality and repitition of history.

DJ

[Paul Trejo]

Hope you dont mind my weighing in... I was under the impression it was Peter Dale Scott's Phase 1-Phase 2 which first identified this duality in the cover-up.

<snip>

Finally - regarding the conclusion the "far-right" and that the JFK killers are not in power today.

Those who pulled the trigger are indeed not in powere and never were.

Those who ordered it, who ordered the Bethesda autopsy cover-up, who ordered the FBI to harass and invent and destroy and create towards a single purpose

Does Bundy get included in the "far-right" group you refer to Paul?

Those on the ground doing the killing worked under the ultimate control of the military.

Those running the military were in bed with the industrial and congressional parts of the equation.

The invasion of Cuba was ideology, not necessity.

While everyone is looking over HERE at Cuba, not much attention was being placed on Vietnam and what the Military CIA was already doing there. Cuba was a pawn in order to get the bigger guns into position for SE Asia where the money, drugs, and arms was to be had.

There are those who planned and accomplished the deed and those who benefitted and continue to benefit. Thinking that these are one and the same seems to me as dismissing the reality and repitition of history.

DJ

Well, David, I'm pretty sure it was Jim Marrs in 1995 who first said that there were TWO Plots -- the Plot to kill JFK -- which worked very well, and the Plot to Cover it up, which didn't work very well.

Yet in essentials, the Jim Marrs theory and the Peter Dale Scott theory are identical in the sense that they see both Plots as two different "Phases" of activity from One and the Same Set of Conspiracy Leaders.

I had mistakenly believed that Larry Hancock was on their side -- it hadn't registered with me, as Larry clarified today, that he doesn't believe that the Two Plots were managed by the same Group.

Yes -- it's admitted that the Two Plot theory (in the "Phases" sense) is quite old. However, my take on it (and apparently Larry Hancock's take on it) has nothing to do with "Phases" but with actual conflict between two groups that were hostile to each other -- the JFK Killers and the US Government.

Regarding your final comment, David, regarding my claim that the JFK Kill Team (leaders) are not in power today -- I still think that you're under the impression that the Kill Team and the Cover-up Team had the same Leaders.

That is, you think that those who ordered the JFK Killing are the same ones who ordered the Bethesda autopsy cover-up, and the same ones who ordered the FBI to manipulate all evidence of anything more than a "Lone Shooter."

That is where we sharply disagree, you and I. As Larry Hancock suggests, the JFK Killers had months to plan their crime, while the JFK Cover-up team had only hours to plan their response.

That is why the JFK Cover-up has so many holes in it. The Bethesda autopsy cover-up is a case in point. Their only response was to hide the X-rays forever, and claim that JFK's brain was "lost." How stupid can it get?

So, no, David, I don't include McGeorge Bundy in the JFK Kill Team. Again, I *sharply* divide the JFK Kill Team from the JFK Cover-up Team. They had opposing purposes.

The US Military did not, IMHO, kill JFK -- however it looks that way, because of the Military Precision with which the crime was done -- but I explain that by reference to Ex-General Edwin Walker -- a JBS member who quit the Army in a huff, and went about making trouble for JFK for three years.

Walker lived in Dallas and was very active in Dallas. The humiliation of Adlai Stevenson in Dallas was done under the leadership of Edwin Walker, on behalf of the JBS ideology. That was only one month before JFK was killed. I say that Walker and select conspirators from the DPD (who were also former military men) were the Kill Team. They had confederates in New Orleans -- all the people that Jim Garrison exposed. Plus two Rogues from the CIA. That's the Kill Team.

So I repeat -- the JFK Kill Team failed in their attempt at a coup d'etat in the USA. One day J. Edgar Hoover and the Warren Commission will finally be regarded as Heroes for the way they handled the crisis of the JFK murder. Today, however, perhaps most JFK researchers still suspect Hoover, LBJ, Dulles, Warren, FBI, CIA, WC and so on.

I think my position is solid -- if the JFK Killers had really taken power, the USA would have invaded Cuba within weeks of the JFK murder.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 17, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

It's become clear to me over the years as I've studied the assassination and the post-assassination events related to it that [a] the cover-up is the most important aspect of the assassination, and there were two parts to the cover-up: the pre-assassination part and the post-assassination part; and that the pre-assassination part and post-assassination part served the same purpose, which was to nail Oswald alone, but are un-connected. Not manipulated or carried out by the same persons.

James Humes, M.D., did not plant a Mannlicher-Carcano in the TSBD or anywhere else. Yet he, for his own reasons, aided those who connected C.E.-399 to Oswald. C.E.-399 was part of the pre-assassination set-up, if one believes C.E.-399 was found in the TSBD. Humes was part of the post-assassination cover-up.

The individuals who were responsible for JFK's murder were necessarily responsible for the pre-assassination set-up of Oswald. Somehow they were sure actors like Humes would play along to cover up their deed.

The hard part is separating the pre-assassination set-up of Oswald from the post-assassination cover-up. The cover-up was carried out by guys like Humes, Hoover, and Warren -- all acting for their own reasons but toward a common goal. The pre-assassination set-up is much less clear. For example, what is the provenance of C.E.-399? Did the FBI, once Hoover saw the deal, simply "create" C.E.-399 post-assassination? I don't know.

At this point, I'm not sure there was a pre-assassination set-up. I am sure Oswald was fingered by the DPD right away. I'm also sure J. Edgar Hoover had powerful reasons to pin the assassination on Oswald.

Maybe the plan was to let Oswald do his thing. Frame him. And let nature take its course.

[Paul Trejo]

It's become clear to me over the years as I've studied the assassination and the post-assassination events related to it that [a] the cover-up is the most important aspect of the assassination, and there were two parts to the cover-up: the pre-assassination part and the post-assassination part; and that the pre-assassination part and post-assassination part served the same purpose, which was to nail Oswald alone, but are un-connected. Not manipulated or carried out by the same persons.

James Humes, M.D., did not plant a Mannlicher-Carcano in the TSBD or anywhere else. Yet he, for his own reasons, aided those who connected C.E.-399 to Oswald. C.E.-399 was part of the pre-assassination set-up, if one believes C.E.-399 was found in the TSBD. Humes was part of the post-assassination cover-up.

The individuals who were responsible for JFK's murder were necessarily responsible for the pre-assassination set-up of Oswald. Somehow they were sure actors like Humes would play along to cover up their deed.

The hard part is separating the pre-assassination set-up of Oswald from the post-assassination cover-up. The cover-up was carried out by guys like Humes, Hoover, and Warren -- all acting for their own reasons but toward a common goal. The pre-assassination set-up is much less clear. For example, what is the provenance of C.E.-399? Did the FBI, once Hoover saw the deal, simply "create" C.E.-399 post-assassination? I don't know.

At this point, I'm not sure there was a pre-assassination set-up. I am sure Oswald was fingered by the DPD right away. I'm also sure J. Edgar Hoover had powerful reasons to pin the assassination on Oswald.

Maybe the plan was to let Oswald do his thing. Frame him. And let nature take its course.

Well, Jon, there is a simple, single answer to all of your doubts above:

The Lone Shooter theory, invented by J. Edgar Hoover at 3pm CST on 11/22/1963 (Wrone) became US Law by order of LBJ at that precise hour.

Therefore, Hume and everybody else who manipulated evidence to fit the Lone Shooter theory (including Arlen Specter with CE-399) were bending to the will and force of the FBI -- who pushed their way into every scenario -- witnesses, ballistics, medical evidence, everything.

This explains the entire Warren Commission Report nonsense. The rationale was exactly as LBJ, Hoover, Warren and Dulles had said all along -- NATIONAL SECURITY.

Yet the truth would be told in 75 years, said Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren. They did not lie about lying to us.

To argue that the JFK Kill Team and the JFK Cover-up Team were run by the same people, with the same motive, Jon, is to totally ignore my challenge to you, namely this:

- How could the JFK Kill Team insist that that OSWALD had Communist accomplices, and the JFK Cover-up Team insist that OSWALD had "no accomplices that are still at large?"

Those are opposite positions. How can you explain that, please?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 18, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Trejo,

You write:

"How could the JFK Kill Team insist that that OSWALD had Communist accomplices, and the JFK Cover-up Team insist that OSWALD had "no accomplices that are still at large?"

Paul, in what way, in your opinion, did "the JFK Kill Team insist that Oswald had Communist accomplices"? Second question: Is it the case, in your opinion, that the assertion, by whomever, Oswald had Communist accomplices arose strictly post-assassination?

Your statement, which I've quoted, is centrally important in my opinion.