Paul Trejo Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) Paul - what is Mellen's source for this meeting? Besides, you made a leap of faith in order to connect your gang of villains with Morales, without a shred of actual evidence. Face it man, your grasping at straws. If Morales was involved it leads upwards in the CIA, not outwards to the crazy New Orleans crew.... Well, Paul B., I'm clearly not grasping at straws -- Joan Mellen is my source, and she's a good source. Because Bill Simpich provides evidence that the CIA Top Brass was engrossed in a MOLE HUNT for the OSWALD Impersonators, they were clearly not involved in the JFK Murder. I realize this contradicts fifty years worth of JFK "Research," but that's OK since the past fifty years of JFK "Research" has failed to solve the JFK Murder. As one great Liberal said last December, if a strategy fails for fifty years, it's time to try something new. The CIA didn't kill JFK. Get over it. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited March 7, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Paul - what is Mellen's source for this meeting? Besides, you made a leap of faith in order to connect your gang of villains with Morales, without a shred of actual evidence. Face it man, your grasping at straws. If Morales was involved it leads upwards in the CIA, not outwards to the crazy New Orleans crew.... Well, Paul B., I'm clearly not grasping at straws -- Joan Mellen is my source, and she's a good source. Because Bill Simpich provides evidence that the CIA Top Brass was engrossed in a MOLE HUNT, they were not involved in the JFK Murder. I realize this contradicts fifty years worth of JFK "Research," but that's OK since the past fifty years of JFK "Research" has failed to solve the JFK Murder. As one great Liberal said last December, if a strategy fails for fifty years, it's time to try something new. The CIA didn't kill JFK. Get over it. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo You got that right... it was Military all the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Agree David. Paul - what is Joan Mellen's source? Why do you think Morales was there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) While I think Bill has done an amazing job, it's a theory. A well sourced and wonderfully presented possibility. There are other explanations which fit the evidence.. All depends on your perspective which is why it's so hard to agree on a single explanation. I think we greatly underestimated what the FBI really knew about mexico Edited March 7, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 ...As one great Liberal said last December, if a strategy fails for fifty years, it's time to try something new. The CIA didn't kill JFK. Get over it. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo You got that right... it was Military all the way. Well, yes and no -- a former General of the US Army did it -- he was the only US General to resign in the 20th century, Ex-General Edwin Walker; that's my theory. He had all the skill of a victorious WWII General -- including Special Operations. He was a tactical wizard. Intellectually he was limited by the John Birch Society. But tactically, he had few peers on Planet Earth. He not only hated JFK and RFK for political reasons, but he seriously and honestly believed that RFK was trying to murder him. We have proof of this in his personal papers. He had a large army of followers among the Minutemen and radical JBS followers -- armed, trained and ready to go. He had supporters among the Cuban Exile Community and Bay of Pigs veterans in Louisiana and Florida, too. This was his route to meeting CIA Officer David Morales. Keep looking at Ex-General Edwin Walker -- and you'll see that most of the pieces from most of the witnesses from 50 years ago fall into place. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Paul - what is Mellen's source for this meeting? Well, Paul B., I'm clearly not grasping at straws -- Joan Mellen is my source, and she's a good source. Because Bill Simpich provides evidence that the CIA Top Brass was engrossed in a MOLE HUNT, they were not involved in the JFK Murder. I realize this contradicts fifty years worth of JFK "Research," but that's OK since the past fifty years of JFK "Research" has failed to solve the JFK Murder. As one great Liberal said last December, if a strategy fails for fifty years, it's time to try something new. The CIA didn't kill JFK. Get over it. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo I don't see where you answered Paul B's question, Mr. Trejo. [You sure talked AROUND the question, though!] Is it because you CAN'T, or because you WON'T? [Just curious...] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Paul - what is Mellen's source for this meeting? Well, Paul B., I'm clearly not grasping at straws -- Joan Mellen is my source, and she's a good source. Because Bill Simpich provides evidence that the CIA Top Brass was engrossed in a MOLE HUNT, they were not involved in the JFK Murder. I realize this contradicts fifty years worth of JFK "Research," but that's OK since the past fifty years of JFK "Research" has failed to solve the JFK Murder. As one great Liberal said last December, if a strategy fails for fifty years, it's time to try something new. The CIA didn't kill JFK. Get over it. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo I don't see where you answered Paul B's question, Mr. Trejo. [You sure talked AROUND the question, though!] Is it because you CAN'T, or because you WON'T? [Just curious...] Mark, Maybe he can't answer that question, Mark, Maybe he hasn't read the book yet. I mean, that is a possibility I suppose. --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) Paul - what is Joan Mellen's source? Why do you think Morales was there? Joan Mellen's source was Thomas Beckham, who was present at that meeting. Beckham only reported what he saw. The reason I place David Morales in the topical vicinity of that meeting is because only the CIA knew about William Atwood, and only David Morales had suggested a plot against JFK at this point. We know this from Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis. Frank Sturgis -- a hothead Anticommunist if there ever was one -- was working directly with David Morales on a plot to kill JFK. Frank Sturgis went up to Howard Hunt and invited him into the plot, probably because he heard Howard Hunt cursing JFK up and down. Howard Hunt joined. But based on Howard Hunt's eye-and-ear-witness account, we have only Hunt, Morales and Sturgis as conspirators. Maybe there were more -- maybe not. Hunt also named LBJ, but that is his rank speaking -- a CIA Agent must take orders ultimately from the US President -- therefore, a traitor like Howard Hunt must rationalize in his mind that his real President was LBJ, and so Howard Hunt blamed LBJ for his own acts. It is likely that Howard Hunt had no clue at all who was really in charge. As he said -- "I was only on the sidelines." But Howard Hunt directly named David Morales in the CIA. This corresponds with David Morales' personal confession to his friend, Ruben Carbajal. So, with two witnesses, we have a conviction. Although Howard Hunt also named CIA officer Cord Meyer, that was an emotional assignation -- JFK had an affair with Cord Meyer's wife, Mary. This was an insult not only to Cord Meyer, but to all officers of the CIA. Cord Meyer was delighted when JFK was killed. But that's no proof that Cord Meyer was part of the plot to kill JFK. I think that Howard Hunt named LBJ and Cord Meyer because he was ashamed of his treason to the USA, and wanted to drag other names down with his own. This leaves David Morales as the only important CIA figure in the JFK assassination -- and he could not have done it alone. But he could have been of great service to the plotters. It's my guess that David Morales learned about the Ex-General Walker/Guy Banister plot from Bay of Pigs affiliates like Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Guy Gabaldon, and other Latino Americans in 1963, and their hangers on, like Gerry Patrick Hemming. All these people were close to Ex-General Walker. Guy Banister had secret CIA information. This is supported by Joan Mellen via Tom Beckham. I say Banister got this data from David Morales -- who CONFESSED to a role in the JFK murder, and his confession was SECONDED by Howard Hunt's confirmation. This is not grasping at straws -- this is a new paradigm that challenges 50 years of JFK "Research" that blindly blames the CIA, endlessly, decade after decade, without resolution. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited March 7, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 It's my guess that David Morales learned about the Ex-General Walker/Guy Banister plot from Bay of Pigs affiliates like Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Guy Gabaldon, and other Latino Americans in 1963, and their hangers on, like Gerry Patrick Hemming. All these people were close to Ex-General Walker. Guy Banister had secret CIA information. This is supported by Joan Mellen via Tom Beckham. I say Banister got this data from David Morales -- who CONFESSED to a role in the JFK murder, and his confession was SECONDED by Howard Hunt's confirmation. This is not grasping at straws -- this is a new paradigm that challenges 50 years of JFK "Research" that blindly blames the CIA, endlessly, decade after decade, without resolution. Regards, --Paul Trejo "It's my guess..." "I say...." That's the entire basis of your theory. So if the "crucial" documents to prove your theory don't appear in 2017, will it be because "they were destroyed because they didin't support the original narrative," or some other such reason? Because it certainly can't be because "It's my guess..." and "I say..." are NOT provable facts...right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted March 7, 2015 Author Share Posted March 7, 2015 This diary asks whether Oswald was an intelligence agent. Intelligence agents become agents by being recruited by an intelligence service. They are recruited because they are able and willing to provide certain information. Question: What valuable information did Oswald possess that some intelligence service wanted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 ...As one great Liberal said last December, if a strategy fails for fifty years, it's time to try something new. The CIA didn't kill JFK. Get over it. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo You got that right... it was Military all the way. Well, yes and no -- a former General of the US Army did it -- he was the only US General to resign in the 20th century, Ex-General Edwin Walker; that's my theory. He had all the skill of a victorious WWII General -- including Special Operations. He was a tactical wizard. Intellectually he was limited by the John Birch Society. But tactically, he had few peers on Planet Earth. He not only hated JFK and RFK for political reasons, but he seriously and honestly believed that RFK was trying to murder him. We have proof of this in his personal papers. He had a large army of followers among the Minutemen and radical JBS followers -- armed, trained and ready to go. He had supporters among the Cuban Exile Community and Bay of Pigs veterans in Louisiana and Florida, too. This was his route to meeting CIA Officer David Morales. Keep looking at Ex-General Edwin Walker -- and you'll see that most of the pieces from most of the witnesses from 50 years ago fall into place. Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul, I appreciate the passion you put into your work and convictions. If we agree that we are dealing with a 1000 piece puzzle where only 100 pieces are available and there is no picture on the box, and no color on the pieces... then anyone with a theory and the evidence to support it could be closer than anyone knows. We know more about what it wasn't than what it was... the evidence for what it was, is imo, gone and only the shadow it may have cast here and there will ever be seen. Attempting to put things into context has been the most difficult hurdle due to our vantage points and states of mind and the difficulty of understanding CI planning. The Evidence bears this shadow, but only faintly. The Conspiracy reeks within the Evidence. I can't reconcile why Galloway and Burkley would cover for Walker, or how the CIA or FBI would not be aware of his activities in pursuit of this end nor have I done the work necessary to come to an educated opinion. Even a Walker does not attempt to pull it off without knowing his back was covered... If you can clarify the Walker-Bethesda/Galloway connection for the autopsy's cover-up it would be appreciated DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 This diary asks whether Oswald was an intelligence agent. Intelligence agents become agents by being recruited by an intelligence service. They are recruited because they are able and willing to provide certain information. Question: What valuable information did Oswald possess that some intelligence service wanted? And people who wanted to stay at Shakespeare and Company in Paris back in the day had to be an indigent or passing-through writer or poet. But when owner George Whitman (RIP) asked me if I could "pretend" (I had already given him my letter of introduction written by a bookseller friend of his in La Jolla), I told him, "No problem. I drove taxi cabs for five years in San Diego, so I can fake just about anything" and he let me stay. I pretended to be a writer the whole time I was there. And now I'm a writer, of course. Well, kindda. Probably should have an Intelligence Agent... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 This diary asks whether Oswald was an intelligence agent. Intelligence agents become agents by being recruited by an intelligence service. They are recruited because they are able and willing to provide certain information. Question: What valuable information did Oswald possess that some intelligence service wanted? An "agent" in which sense of the word Jon. we both know that working on someone's behalf can be considered "agency"... If he was recruited to help ID Castro sympathizers in New Orleans while working at a CIA/FBI related front by holding meetings and gathering names, that's one form of agency. When he slips and says he's under the protection of the US when in Russia does it matter if it was CIA, ONI, MID, etc.... he did gather intel on Minsk. There was a project in place for fake defectors to do just that... In the late 50's early 60's the intel services especially the FBI were using ordinary citizens to report on the goings on of suspected groups. Their patriotic duty. Clay Shaw may not have been CIA payroll but part of his expectations were to deliver info and convey info. an ASSET rather than an AGENT... i seem to be saying... DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) This diary asks whether Oswald was an intelligence agent. Intelligence agents become agents by being recruited by an intelligence service. They are recruited because they are able and willing to provide certain information. Question: What valuable information did Oswald possess that some intelligence service wanted? An "agent" in which sense of the word Jon. we both know that working on someone's behalf can be considered "agency"... If he was recruited to help ID Castro sympathizers in New Orleans while working at a CIA/FBI related front by holding meetings and gathering names, that's one form of agency. When he slips and says he's under the protection of the US when in Russia does it matter if it was CIA, ONI, MID, etc.... he did gather intel on Minsk. There was a project in place for fake defectors to do just that... In the late 50's early 60's the intel services especially the FBI were using ordinary citizens to report on the goings on of suspected groups. Their patriotic duty. Clay Shaw may not have been CIA payroll but part of his expectations were to deliver info and convey info. an ASSET rather than an AGENT... i seem to be saying... DJ THIS oughtta be good. Josephs and Tidd arguing debating about whether or not Harvey, Lee, or Henry was an "Intelligence Agent." LOL --Tommy I must be szchizo (yeah, I know I got it wrong, but at least I gave it a shot) or something, because I actually agree with Jo Jo on something. (I'm finding that I agree less and less with Mr. Tidd as time goes by.....) Thank God they both believe in the Genetically-Engineered Lee and Harvey and Henry Theory. Edited March 8, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Tommy... There are 1050 pages in the book, A CD full of docs and images and 1100 folders at Baylor which took me 2 years and virtual constant discussion with John to understand the depth and breadth of the information. We did not agree on every detail... but we knew WTF we were talking about and refused to use boiler plate FBI reports as gospel. Making fun of the man and his work is beneath you. If you disagree with something, show your work. btw - We are not arguing. Mr. Tidd is a welcome presence here adding objectivity and common sense with intellect and curiosity. there is respect and discussion finally happening here again.. I think it's great DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now