Proof of Motorcade Stopping?

[Robert Mady]

Paul, you made some good points.

Responding to (14) if you analyze the media coverage of the assassination you may discover virtually everything they reported was disinformation, this means the script had been carefully crafted to produce a desired affect which was to confound and confuse the viewers. This disinformation was uniform between all of the networks. There are those that will claim this was honest confusion on the part of networks and my response is simple....B.S.

The news media was a knowledgeable complicit participant in the conspiracy and played the major roll in the cover-up, as they continue to do to make sure truth is not broadcasted.

The failure to murder OSWALD at the TSBD, then a second time at the TT derailed the original plan, these failures are a simple reason why the conspirators had to adopt the lone nut scenario, I believe the original plan was to frame the dead OSWALD as a cohort of the Cubans and to murder a few Cubans upon attempting to apprehend them and blame Castro for the deed.

Jean Hill claimed the FBI immediately sequestered her and pressured her to lie about what she experienced. I doubt any FBI agents would take this initiative and do this without direct orders from HOOVER, plus the agents wanted her to change her story which means they knew the real story would be a problem. Foreknowledge and cover-up.

I believe RUBY was the mafia point man in Dallas, he most likely would have arranged for BAKER to murder OSWALD at the TSBD, when this failed to occur it was on RUBY to clean up the mess. Was Ruby the liaison to the DPD, more than likely it would not have been a member of the mafia that persuaded the DPD to join the conspiracy.

I don't think we are that far apart and even though we differ on some points, it is a matter of interpreting the weight of some evidence, but I certainly can see your points and know that they are as valid a possibility to reflect the truth as are mine.

I appreciate your posts, they are good food for thought.

[Greg Burnham]

Mr. Trejo, a question:

If Walker was the brains of the assassination, as a RESIGNED general, how did he get the 112th Army Intel unit to give the DPD the physical description of Oswald from their files? At that point, Walker had NO rank. And having resigned, he was no more powerful to an Army unit than any other civilian.

So please explain how he did it.

So -- my guess would be that anybody in the 112th Army Intel who pushed Oswald as a "lead suspect" was a "Friend of Walker". This is empirically verifiable by somebody willing to find the name of the clerk who called the DPD with the data -- and also the name of the clerk's supervisor, and then disclose their political affiliations.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Again you assume facts not yet established upon which you then build your case. But if these "facts" are not true then your "case" falls apart. It is a "guess" by your own admission.

You said: "This is empirically verifiable by somebody willing to find the name of the clerk who called the DPD with the data -- and also the name of the clerk's supervisor, and then disclose their political affiliations."

How would you know if it is "empirically verifiable" or not? Since nobody, including--and especially--YOU, has been willing to do the WORK required to substantiate your assumptions?

For all you know there is no "clerk" who called the DPD. Perhaps this "clerk" is illusive because you haven't even tried to "find" him or her. And, if you did make the attempt, but were

unsuccessful, then maybe you couldn't find him or her because they did not exist and it didn't happen the way you speculate it happened.

Occam's Razor in a nutshell: The simple solution is preferable to the more complex so long as it is adequate to the evidence.

In this case, the "clerk" hasn't been identified because either the "clerk" is just a "guess" on your part and doesn't exist, or you simply have neglected to try to find him.

I suggest that before you build a case based on a "guess" that then becomes a premise for your argument, you first establish the veracity of your "guess" so it has at least a chance of

becoming a viable component in a logically valid argument instead of a foolish fallacy.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, you made some good points.

Responding to (14) if you analyze the media coverage of the assassination you may discover virtually everything they reported was disinformation, this means the script had been carefully crafted to produce a desired affect which was to confound and confuse the viewers. This disinformation was uniform between all of the networks. There are those that will claim this was honest confusion on the part of networks and my response is simple....B.S.

The news media was a knowledgeable complicit participant in the conspiracy and played the major roll in the cover-up, as they continue to do to make sure truth is not broadcasted.

The failure to murder OSWALD at the TSBD, then a second time at the TT derailed the original plan, these failures are a simple reason why the conspirators had to adopt the lone nut scenario, I believe the original plan was to frame the dead OSWALD as a cohort of the Cubans and to murder a few Cubans upon attempting to apprehend them and blame Castro for the deed.

Jean Hill claimed the FBI immediately sequestered her and pressured her to lie about what she experienced. I doubt any FBI agents would take this initiative and do this without direct orders from HOOVER, plus the agents wanted her to change her story which means they knew the real story would be a problem.

Foreknowledge and cover-up.

I believe RUBY was the mafia point man in Dallas, he most likely would have arranged for BAKER to murder OSWALD at the TSBD, when this failed to occur it was on RUBY to clean up the mess. Was Ruby the liaison to the DPD, more than likely it would not have been a member of the mafia that persuaded the DPD to join the conspiracy.

I don't think we are that far apart and even though we differ on some points, it is a matter of interpreting the weight of some evidence, but I certainly can see your points and know that they are as valid a possibility to reflect the truth as are mine.

I appreciate your posts, they are good food for thought.

Bob, thanks for the continuing encouragement.

As for (14) I agree that Media coverage of the JFK murder was disinformation starting about 3PM CST. Before that time, there was random confusion.

After 3PM CST on 11/22/1963, there was a clear direction for all of Washington DC and the Mass Media -- namely, that Lee Harvey Oswald did this thing alone.

Yet we evidently disagree on the notion of a "carefully crafted script." I say there was no script, nor time to craft anything. Actually, the reason that the JFK Cover-up didn't work as well as the JFK Murder is because the Kill Team had months to prepare, but the Cover-up Team had no time to prepare -- none at all.

However, after 3pm CST on Friday 22 November 1963, there was a concerted effort to say, "Lone Gunman!" While the sun was still out that Friday, the FBI was already tampering with ballistics evidence, medical evidence, witnesses (including Jean Hill) and material evidence of every description. Their marching orders from Washington DC were simply this: "Lone Gunman!"

LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover decided this around 3pm CST, and that was that. Washington DC only changed its story in 1979 with the HSCA conclusion that "President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy." Yet before that time, Washington DC had pushed the "Lone Nut" theory so hard, that many authors (e.g. Posner, Bugliosi) continued to push it, and many people still push it today.

The Media has always been set up to broadcast US Government announcements at the drop of a hat. The disinformation was indeed uniform between all of the Networks -- because they all have contracts with the US Government.

I agree with you half-way -- the News Media was a deliberate participant in the Cover-up Conspiracy. But IMHO they were surprised by the JFK Killing. Also, the US News Media is fundamentally conservative -- they will not change a US Government story until they are ordered to do so. Evidently, nobody has updated the Media about the HSCA conclusion, because most journalists still seem ignorant about it.

However -- on 26 October 2017 -- the US Government will officially change its story, and the News Media will report it. As signed by President GHW Bush, the JFK Records Act will take effect, and all Top Secret documents about Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK murder will finally be released by the FBI, CIA and all US Government Agencies. On that date, the News Media will finally broadcast the TRUTH about the JFK murder -- that Lee Harvey Oswald in no case was a "Lone Nut."

We disagree, Bob, on the reason that the "Lone Nut" scenario was invented. I agree with the US Government that NATIONAL SECURITY was the overwhelming concern of the day. Although I agree with you that the DPD tried to kill Oswald several times before he was actually killed in their custody -- that fact was NOT the birth of the "Lone Nut" theory. The pieces don't fit.

We do agree, however, that the JFK Killers had planned to say that Oswald had Communist Cubans as "accomplices who are still at large." But that was already planned way back in the summer of 1963, by Edwin Walker together with Guy Banister & Company in NOLA when they FRAMED Lee Harvey Oswald as a Fake Director of a Fake FPCC branch in NOLA.

But notice, Bob, that the JFK Killer story -- that Oswald was part of a Communist plot -- was the *opposite* story of the JFK Cover-up Team, i.e. that Oswald was a "Lone Nut." These stories are mutually exclusive.

IMHO, Jack Ruby wasn't acting for the Mafia in the Oswald killing, but for the Dallas Police Department. Ruby wanted to be pals with as many Dallas Police as possible. The DPD probably told Ruby that he would quickly get off with a slap on the wrist, but would otherwise be a National Hero. Yes -- Jack Ruby really was that dumb.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 16, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Bob - you and Paul T disagree about Oswald shooting at Walker. Also, be aware that Trejo eliminates the Joint Chiefs, Alan Dulles, LBJ, CIA brass, and Hoover from any possible involvement in the 'kill team', even though this cast of characters I just mentioned would have had far less difficulty organizing local military intelligence units, the DPD, the Secret Service, local FBI, Dallas mayor Cabell, and controlling the motorcade route than Trejo's choices Edwin Walker, Guy Banister, Minutemen, JBS, etc. Note that there are close connections between his group and mine, the primary difference being that his group of right wingers are 'rogues', whereas mine were actually in power officially. His theory in a nutshell is that his group of rightists committed the crime and my group of righties covered up the crime to prevent civil unrest. I have no shame in saying that JFK's murder was itself an act of state, and not just a convenient murder.

Trejo expects that in 2017 his theory to be vindicated by a document release and the end of the coverup. I expect no such thing.

[Robert Mady]

Paul, I appreciate you clarifying positions.

What you said is true; I do not believe OSWALD took a shot at WALKER, this was trumped up in support of the lone nut scenario.

If WALKER was involved it would have been as a liaison from conspirators to DPD or his general support for the removal of JFK, but realistically the links would have consisted of Mayor CABELL and recognizable power brokers to provide necessary clout. I believe WALKER is most likely just a diversion. A General that was reprimanded by an x-general / Chief of Staff and President of the US had to be embarrassing to the entire military, I would think they would not associate with this loose cannon / wing-nut.

The conspiracy was a unanimous decision most likely involving LBJ, HOOVER, Joint Chiefs, the media and CIA / Wall Street and big money...DPD

If WALKER was involved in any manner it would have been at the request of the conspirators.

JFK murder was an act of State : no doubt.

Carefully planned from beginning to end including the cover-up.

[Robert Mady]

Paul, I also agree that the government is not going to release self incrimination evidence, the government can never admit it lied for 50+ years nor can the media turn around and admit their industry could not discern the truth as well as continuing to actively proclaim fiction as gospel. The closest the government will come already occurred when the HSCA admitted it might have been a conspiracy.

I have posted on this confused state of mind that declares; lets wait and see the next release of evidence, maybe then we will know for sure and I say to those that wait, you will never ever know for sure if you are incapable of knowing the truth right now based on evidence available right now.

There is abundant evidence available to know the WC/R is a lie unsupported by valid evidence and that the truth of the assassination can be discerned from the testimony and evidence available since 1963/1964. We may never ever know who pulled the trigger or the strings but we can know beyond any doubt that the state was the culprit and President KENNEDY was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy supported by the state.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Robert Mady

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, I appreciate you clarifying positions.

What you said is true; I do not believe OSWALD took a shot at WALKER, this was trumped up in support of the lone nut scenario.

If WALKER was involved it would have been as a liaison from conspirators to DPD or his general support for the removal of JFK, but realistically the links would have consisted of Mayor CABELL and recognizable power brokers to provide necessary clout. I believe WALKER is most likely just a diversion. A General that was reprimanded by an x-general / Chief of Staff and President of the US had to be embarrassing to the entire military, I would think they would not associate with this loose cannon / wing-nut.

The conspiracy was a unanimous decision most likely involving LBJ, HOOVER, Joint Chiefs, the media and CIA / Wall Street and big money...DPD

If WALKER was involved in any manner it would have been at the request of the conspirators.

JFK murder was an act of State : no doubt.

Carefully planned from beginning to end including the cover-up.

Paul, I also agree that the government is not going to release self incrimination evidence, the government can never admit it lied for 50+ years nor can the media turn around and admit their industry could not discern the truth as well as continuing to actively proclaim fiction as gospel. The closest the government will come already occurred when the HSCA admitted it might have been a conspiracy.

I have posted on this confused state of mind that declares; lets wait and see the next release of evidence, maybe then we will know for sure and I say to those that wait, you will never ever know for sure if you are incapable of knowing the truth right now based on evidence available right now.

There is abundant evidence available to know the WC/R is a lie unsupported by valid evidence and that the truth of the assassination can be discerned from the testimony and evidence available since 1963/1964. We may never ever know who pulled the trigger or the strings but we can know beyond any doubt that the state was the culprit and President KENNEDY was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy supported by the state.

Well, Bob, if you believe that the OSWALD shooting at WALKER was trumped up -- do you believe it was trumped up way back in April 1963?

I ask because there was a full-scale police investigation that occurred back in April 1963. Witnesses were called. Suspects were arrested. Lie Detectors were used. Many DPD police records are available to peruse.

Do you really believe the dozens of people involved in April 1963 to investigate the Walker shooting of 10 April 1963 were all somehow "bribed" or "exploited" for the November 1963 murder of JFK?

It is highly unlikely, IMHO. Now, if there were no DPD police records of an investigation back in April, and somebody in November simply made up the claim that Walker had been shot at by somebody in April -- then I could see your point. But there were interrogations already made, with ballistics tests, and so on, back in April.

Also, do you believe that people who hated Edwin Walker -- like Michael Paine, Volkmar Schmidt and George De Mohrenschildt, were somehow "bribed" or "exploited" to say that Lee Oswald was the shooter -- in support of Edwin Walker? Where's the sense in that?

There really was an attack on Edwin Walker. Furthermore, many people weren't surprised, because in early 1963 Edwin Walker was one of the most outspoken right-wingers in the USA. Rush Limbaugh has nothing on Edwin Walker. Edwin Walker made speaking tours across the Southern United States -- from Florida to California -- spreading hate talk with Billy James Hargis about JFK, the United Nations, and the National Council of Churches.

Their "Midnight Ride" coast-to-coast speaking tour ended only DAYS before the April shooting. As I said, many people were not surprised. Add this to the fact that Edwin Walker, only 6 months before the shooting, had led a race riot at Ole Miss University, trying to keep it all-white in the face of JFK's thousands of Federal Troops sent there to racially integrate it with one Black American -- James Meredith. That was a deadly riot -- hundreds were wounded and two were killed (on 30 September 1962).

Then, in January 1963, Edwin Walker was fully acquitted of any wrong-doing in that riot, by an all-white Grand Jury in Mississippi. Many Liberals around the USA were livid because of that outcome -- including a few young liberal engineers in Dallas, like Michael Paine, Volkmar Schmidt and George De Mohrenschildt -- all of whom had access to Lee Harvey Oswald.

So -- there is far more evidence that OSWALD took a shot at Walker, rather than the notion that this was trumped up to support a "Lone Nut" theory which had only been invented at 3PM CST on 11/22/1963.

Walker was in no way a diversion -- he is still seriously underestimated today. He was a US General, for heaven's sake, highly decorated, and had been trained before World War II in Special Operations. Intellectually he was defined by the low standards of the John Birch Society -- but in professional terms, he was a shrewd and dangerous Military Man.

You continue to believe that the US Military killed JFK -- and so they wouldn't have used Edwin Walker, the quitter. Yet I say that the US Military had *nothing* to do with the murder of JFK -- and that is the best reason to put Edwin Walker on center stage.

The JFK murder was not motivated by Big Money -- it was motivated by Political Power. The JFK Killers wanted to take over the US Government -- first and foremost by invading Cuba. You continue to underestimate the importance of Cuba in 1963, perhaps because Cuba is so unimportant in US affairs today, and was entirely eclipsed by Vietnam during August, 1964.

You named LBJ, FBI, CIA, Military, Media as the JFK Kill Team. I say you're mistaken -- they were the JFK Cover-up Team.

It's finally time, IMHO, for JFK Researchers to see that the JFK Kill Team and the JFK Cover-up Team were HOSTILE to each other.

The JFK murder was an act of a right-wing conspiracy -- I have no doubt of this.

The Cover-up was not planned at the beginning. This should be obvious because the Cover-up (the Lone Nut theory) is the precise OPPOSITE of the JFK Killer theory that Lee Harvey Oswald was working with COMMUNISTS.

I can't guarantee that the US Government will release all the JFK files that were promised by the JFK Records Act signed by President GHW Bush in 1992 -- but I can keep a positive mental attitude about it. I believe we will finally see the TRUTH, after a half-century.

I agree with you, Bob, that the WCR was a lie -- the lie of the "Lone Nut", based on tampered evidence.

The only question then, is whether we believe the US Government when they said they had to conceal the TRUTH for 75 years on grounds of National Security -- but that they would "preserve the records" for Americans to see after that time.

It was a significant political act on the part of President GHW Bush, then, to remove 23 years from Earl Warren's timetable. I'm looking forward to 26 October 2017.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 17, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Robert Mady]

Paul, my answer pertained to OSWALD, that he had not fired a shot at WALKER, KENNEDY, CONNALLY, TAGUE or TIPPIT.

The fact that someone took a shot at WALKER'S house is probably not disputable.

The acts of OSWALD shooting at WALKER then at the President, then TIPPIT does not support being influenced by politics it supports a lone nut that would murder anyone no matter which end of the political spectrum they were on. When this image is compared with the OSWALD we have seen, a man who is willing to be punched in the face without reacting, a man who supposedly has a gun in his pocket yet does not attempt to shoot his way out of the theatre, a man who calmly answered questions, claimed he shot no one and was a patsy, the two images are in conflict, one image is false.

Paine worked for Dornberger x-Nazi

De Mohrenschildt was connected with intelligence and was likely OSWALDS handler - he was arrested spying for the Nazi during WWII.

Ruth Paines sister was in the CIA and Ruth Paine if I recall correctly, there is evidence indicating she was also a CIA asset.

I am sure WALKER had greater enemies than those you listed, besides liberals tend not to murder people until they get total control then they tend toward kulling the herds.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Robert Mady

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, my answer pertained to OSWALD, that he had not fired a shot at WALKER, KENNEDY, CONNALLY, TAGUE or TIPPIT.

The fact that someone took a shot at WALKER'S house is probably not disputable.

The acts of OSWALD shooting at WALKER then at the President, then TIPPIT does not support being influenced by politics it supports a lone nut that would murder anyone no matter which end of the political spectrum they were on. When this image is compared with the OSWALD we have seen, a man who is willing to be punched in the face without reacting, a man who supposedly has a gun in his pocket yet does not attempt to shoot his way out of the theatre, a man who calmly answered questions, claimed he shot no one and was a patsy, the two images are in conflict, one image is false.

Paine worked for Dornberger x-Nazi

De Mohrenschildt was connected with intelligence and was likely OSWALDS handler - he was arrested spying for the Nazi during WWII.

Ruth Paines sister was in the CIA and Ruth Paine if I recall correctly, there is evidence indicating she was also a CIA asset.

I am sure WALKER had greater enemies than those you listed, besides liberals tend not to murder people until they get total control then they tend toward kulling the herds.

Thanks for the discussion, Bob. I'll respond by the numbers:

(1.0) It has been common since Jim Garrison to say that if OSWALD never shot at JFK, then he never shot at anybody in his life. That would also include WALKER, CONNALLY, TAGUE and TIPPIT.

(1.1) That logic, which comes from the Warren Commission -- goes like this -- if OSWALD tried to shoot anybody else, then that is final proof that OSWALD killed JFK. But if OSWALD never shot at anybody in his life, only then could he possibly be innocent of killing JFK.

(1.2) The logic is weak. It doesn't follow. People like it black or white, without any shades of grey. Yet Lee Harvey OSWALD was several shades of grey. To understand OSWALD, we must be able to tolerate nuances.

(1.3) It is possible and even probable, that OSWALD did shoot at WALKER but didn't shoot at JFK.

(2.0) If you agree, Bob, that *someone* shot at WALKER's house, then I'd like to add some facts.

(2.1) Robert Allen Surrey and Julia Knecht -- who worked for WALKER at his home on Turtle Creek -- blamed a bisexual gigolo named William "Scotty" McDuff for the WALKER shooting. He was out of State -- but found to be living with WALKER's attorney, Clyde Watts, in Arizona. The police extradicted him from Arizona, and subjected him to a lie detector test. McDuff passed with flying colors -- it wasn't him.

(2.2) The reason that Surrey and Knecht blamed McDuff was because McDuff had been a live-in gigolo since the past December, and when WALKER went on his coast-to-caost tour with racist Reverend Billy James Hargis, Surrey and Knecht kicked McDuff out of the house. McDuff was angry about that.

(2.3) So, after the 10 April 1963 shooting at WALKER, Surrey and Knecht thought that McDuff was out for revenge. They convinced each other that this was true, and they pressed the Dallas police to extradict him.

(2.4) WALKER himself never believed that McDuff was his shooter. We can see this even in his Warren Commission testimony. In fact, WALKER wanted McDuff to move back in with him -- but McDuff refused.

(2.5) The personal papers of Edwin WALKER contain several articles, public and private, that show WALKER claiming that a few days after the shooting, some high-level official in Dallas told WALKER that Lee Harvey OSWALD (the guy from Russia) had been his shooter -- but they could not prosecute him.

(2.6) WALKER's next door neighbor, a boy, said he saw two men running from the alley to a parking lot behind the alley, and jump in a car and speed away.

(2.7) For the rest of his life, WALKER believed that Lee Harvey OSWALD had one other accomplice in the shooting -- but he had always been certain -- since about Easter Sunday 1963 -- that one of the two shooters had been OSWALD.

(2.8) WALKER denied this before the Warren Commission, but he admitted to many people (including Senator Frank Church) in the years after the JFK murder.

(2.9) The very night of the JFK murder, WALKER made plans for a German newspaper to call him early in the morning (the Deutsche Nationalzeitung) for an interview. In that interview, WALKER told the newspaperman that Lee Harvey Oswald had also been his shooter back in April.

(2.10) The German BND (German FBI) confirmed that the interview occurred, and the topic came up in the Warren Commission testimony -- where WALKER admitted there had been an interview, but denied that the OSWALD story came from WALKER himself.

(3.0) I can agree with you half-way, Bob -- I agree that OSWALD did not kill DPD officer JD TIPPIT.

(3.1) I must sharply disagree, however, that OSWALD's shot at WALKER forces us to a conclusion of a "Lone Nut" shooter. It does not.

(3.2) Again -- just because OSWALD tried to kill WALKER, that cannot be cited as proof that OSWALD shot anybody else.

(3.3) In the WALKER shooting, actually, OSWALD acted with help from Michael PAINE, George DeMOHRENSCHILDT and Volkmar SCHMIDT. We have confessions from the latter two.

(3.4) I repeat -- it is entirely possible for OSWALD to have shot at WALKER, and nobody else in his entire life.

(4.0) OSWALD "calmly" answered the questions the police put to him -- but the police had Oswald's rifle and his Fake ID card. OSWALD had run from his place of employment.

(4.1) OSWALD told the truth when he said, "No sir, I didn't shoot *anybody*," on 11/22/1963.

(4.2) Yet OSWALD didn't tell the WHOLE truth. OSWALD knew who had made him into a Patsy -- so OSWALD really knew who the real JFK Killers were.

(4.3) OSWALD knew he was a Patsy, yet he still refused to give the Conspirators' names to the Press.

(4.4) If OSWALD gave their names to the DPD we will never know, because the DPD didn't take notes (that we know about), and also because, IMHO, specific DPD officers were key culprits in the JFK murder.

(5.0) As for Michael PAINE, I question your sources. Michael PAINE was an oil engineer, liberal Yuppie, All-American.

(5.1) PAINE's father had been a Socialist, so PAINE knew what he was talking about when he spoke with OSWALD about politics; and he knew that OSWALD was a light-weight poser on the topic.

(6.0) As for Ruth PAINE, it makes utterly no difference what her family was or was not. Ruth herself was an educated QUAKER house-wife, who believed in charity.

(6.1) I have read no credible evidence of any kind that Ruth PAINE was a CIA asset; all rumors.

(7.0) The only outspoken enemies of Edwin WALKER in 1963 were the members of the NAACP (who picketed almost all his speeches) and they were sometimes beaten and even killed for their efforts.

(7.1) Finally, Bob, I think you might be mistaken about the political potential of liberal Yuppies.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 18, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Robert Mady]

Paul, there is obviously much I do not know about WALKER.

Thank you for the information.

[Greg Burnham]

Robert,

I encourage you to do your own research. Trusting this "source" is unreliable as has been proved many times over the years on this forum. I don't claim that Paul Trejo is deliberately

misleading anyone. I am stating, however, that much of his analysis is based on hunches that he has not himself verified. Notwithstanding his conciliatory tone, his reportage of so-called

"facts" is often inaccurate.

He states as fact many inaccuracies "by the numbers" in his scenario above. I haven't the time to list each one here, but I do encourage you to verify anything that would tend to cause

you to draw conclusions--or that would cause you to change your mind. This holds true when considering my research, as well. I think it is appropriate for researchers to verify my claims

before buying into them rather than taking my word for it. Although over time an individual's track record can speak for itself, perhaps earning them the benefit of the doubt in some cases,

this is not the case with Paul Trejo, IMO.

Let's take one or two examples of false conclusions he cites as "proof" of Oswald's guilt in the Walker shooting from the above. He concludes that McDuff did not shoot at Walker despite

McDuff's having the motive, means, and opportunity to do so. McDuff had a documented history with Walker and there are eyewitnesses to that relationship gone bad. Oswald had no

relationship with Walker and none has been suggested, except by those who would frame Oswald for the JFK assassination and Paul Trejo. The lengthy scenario that Paul Trejo describes

to explain why Oswald is a more likely candidate for the Walker shooting than is McDuff violates Occam's Razor in its complexity. Just because a person passes a lie detector test does not

mean that they are telling the truth, and, conversely, just because someone fails a lie detector test does not prove that they are lying. Indeed, the results from a lie detector test are generally

inadmissible in a court of law due to their lacking scientific precision. They are used by police departments and District Attorneys because if they show a lie is being told it will often cause a

suspect who is guilty to confess. That confession is how the suspect is convicted--not the result of the test.

The simple solution is: Despite having passed a lie detector test, McDuff fired at Walker. Now, I am not claiming that is what actually happened, but if I am to choose between only these two

suspects, based on the available evidence, McDuff is a more likely candidate than Oswald.

As for Paul's never reading any credible evidence regarding Ruth Paine's relationship to Intelligence Agencies, including the CIA, indicates that Paul may not do enough reading, does not read

relevant sources, or can't tell what is credible and what is not. He fallaciously cites this condition (not reading anything indicating her relationship to CIA) as evidence of absence. But, as we all

know: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So just because he has not found the evidence does not mean it is not there. However, it is fallacious to rely on evidence that one has

not yet found to support a conclusion because that evidence may not exist. And, conversely, it is fallacious to rule out a possible conclusion simply because one has not found the evidence to

support it. In other words, definitive conclusions--positive or negative--must be based on evidence rather than on the absence of evidence.

To support the notion that Ruth Paine and, yes, Michael Paine, both had connections to US Intelligence I encourage you to read A Certain Arrogance by Professor George Michael Evica, whose

extensive research into the CIA's manipulation of various religious organizations, including the Quakers and the Unitarian Church, indicates that the Paine's were being used, wittingly or not, in

a long term intelligence operation involving Lee Harvey Oswald. You will also gain invaluable insight by studying the work of John Armstrong.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Paul Brancato]

Robert, and Greg, and Paul T,

I would like to point out for the umpteenth time that whenever Mr. Trejo claims that Walker knew within days of the attempt on his life that it was LHO who was the shooter, or at least one of the shooters, he neglects to mention that Walker's claim dates from after the JFK assassination. Indeed Walker did claim after the assassination, though not to the WC, but often throughout the remainder of his life, that he knew within days that LHO shot at him, but he never stated that before NOV. 22 1963!

Every single time that Trejo repeats this assertion he gives a false impression, knowingly, and it reflects on his intellectual honesty in my opinion.

[Don Jeffries]

It amazes me that anyone accepts the official story of the Walker shooting. The sole sources for Oswald's involvement were Ruth Paine and his wife Marina, with a dash of DeMohrenschildt. Virtually all of the personal information we have about Oswald that places him in a negative light comes from Ruth Paine, or the perpetually changing testimony of Marina Oswald.

Examine each aspect of this case from the original sources. If you do that, you'll see that the "evidence" for Oswald shooting at Walker consists entirely of dubious claims from Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald. Do you also believe that Marina was able to hold onto the bathroom door, to keep Oswald from shooting at Nixon?

The Walker-Oswald scenario should have been rejected long ago by knowledgeable researchers.

[Greg Burnham]

Robert, and Greg, and Paul T,

I would like to point out for the umpteenth time that whenever Mr. Trejo claims that Walker knew within days of the attempt on his life that it was LHO who was the shooter, or at least one of the shooters, he neglects to mention that Walker's claim dates from after the JFK assassination. Indeed Walker did claim after the assassination, though not to the WC, but often throughout the remainder of his life, that he knew within days that LHO shot at him, but he never stated that before NOV. 22 1963!

Every single time that Trejo repeats this assertion he gives a false impression, knowingly, and it reflects on his intellectual honesty in my opinion.

Thank you for that reminder, Paul (Brancato).

Sometimes it is worth noting, not only the nature and details of inconsistencies that crop up within a researcher's work, but also to notice how that researcher responds to well founded criticism of their methodology.

Of particular concern--because it is so easily demonstrable--is Paul Trejo's response (or lack thereof) to peer review in which he chooses to ignore the significant effect that egregious FACTUAL errors do to his pet

theory. Such monumental errors can only weaken it, at best, and often will weaken it to the point of nullification.

I agree with you, Paul, that when a researcher carries on as if the errors he committed are of no consequence or were not committed--when proof of their commission has been provided--it speaks directly to that

researcher's intellectual honesty.

[Paul Trejo]

Robert, and Greg, and Paul T,

I would like to point out for the umpteenth time that whenever Mr. Trejo claims that Walker knew within days of the attempt on his life that it was LHO who was the shooter, or at least one of the shooters, he neglects to mention that Walker's claim dates from after the JFK assassination. Indeed Walker did claim after the assassination, though not to the WC, but often throughout the remainder of his life, that he knew within days that LHO shot at him, but he never stated that before NOV. 22 1963!

...

Well, Paul B., let me clarify a bit more.

Although I have already admitted that all the documentation that we find in Walker's personal papers about Walker's knowledge of OSWALD before the JFK murder only appears after the JFK murder, this is more complicated than it sounds.

(1) All the many documents we find after the JFK murder say that WALKER knew about OSWALD before the JFK murder.

(2) These documents are by WALKER himself -- they are not mere stories told by others.

(3) WALKER's personal papers were probably censored before they were donated to UT Austin.

(4) It is my personal belief that documents that obviously implicate Walker in the JFK murder were removed from his personal papers before they were donated. Therefore, I believe we are missing key documents from WALKER's personal papers.

(5) This is just another theory of mine, but it matches the evidence we do have, namely, the many documents by WALKER himself written after 11/22/1963 that refer to OSWALD in a context before 11/22/1963.

(6) It is my opinion (and I'm not stating this as a fact, but as a theory) that the JFK Records Act of 1992 will bring to light further information about WALKER as well as personal papers by WALKER written before 11/22/1963 that will prove that WALKER was stalking OSWALD ever since the April shooting.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 19, 2015 by Paul Trejo