Proof of Motorcade Stopping?

[Thomas Graves]

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.

Excellent posts, guys, and very well-written, too, so a joy to read on two counts.

It is interesting isn't it that he refuses to respond to my recent post on the "Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent?" thread in which I point out just two of the more glaring errors of fact he has made on this Forum:

1 ) that since Oswald was a "dialectical materialist" Marxist, he must have been "materialistic" in his personal life and therefore overly susceptible to the offering of cash and "big buck" career advancement opportunities supposedly made by Guy Banister. He's really showing his ignorance and willingness to "BS" here.

2 ) that Leopoldo and Angel's asking Silvia Odio to write a fund-raising letter for them was tantamount to their asking her directly for money. Here, of course, he's just showing his laziness and unwillingness to fact check before he posts.

I think it's important to diplomatically correct errors of fact by any so-called "researcher," but in Word Twister Trejo's case I must say that it's a particularly enjoyable thing to do.

--Tommy

Edited February 18, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

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.

Well, Don, I admit that my theory is very different from most of the theories promoted in the past fifty years (which have so far failed to solve the JFK murder).

All the so-called "knowledgable" JFK Researchers seem to me to be like Keystone Kops, contradicting each other and bumping into each other at every turn.

So, really, it makes little sense to appeal to AUTHORITY in the case of the JFK murder. Y'all have not solved one single solitary thing -- so one should continue to be open to an exploration of the facts.

You're mistaken about Ruth Paine's role in the WALKER saga, however, Don. The Warren Report (and the Walker papers, and the DPD file) are the only known sources of the WALKER saga, and Ruth Paine insisted she knew NOTHING about it.

The story (according to the Warren Report and FBI) first comes from Marina Oswald herself, on 3 December 1963, in response to FBI inquiries about the Backyard Photographs, as well as photographs of WALKER's home in Dallas, among the possessions of OSWALD found in Ruth Paine's garage.

Marina's story was then confirmed by George De Mohrenschildt and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, who also produced their own, signed copy of one of the Backyard Photographs.

The fact that we have three different poses of OSWALD in these Backyard Photographs, when Marina insisted that she clicked the camera button only ONCE, harmonizes with the fact that all of the Backyard Photographs show signs of elaborate re-touching in a sophisticated photographic studio.

Yet we know that OSWALD was working at such a studio when these photographs were taken (Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall), so we have a reasonable explanation for the FAKERY used in the Photographs. OSWALD also made his FAKE ID for Alek Hidell at Jaggars-Chiles-Stoval -- and possibly more. (OSWALD may have been fired after only 16 weeks because of his personal use of company equipment.)

OSWALD's Marine buddy, Roscoe White, was the body double in the FAKE photographs (according to Jack White; no relation).

What is surprising to me, Don, is that some JFK researchers think that this is a closed issue -- based on their very flimsy research. It is in no way a closed issue.

If the only arguments that my detractors can muster is insult and an appeal to AUTHORITY in JFK Research, then all I can do is laugh.

(BTW, all this is still relevant to the main thread of the JFK motorcade stopping (or slowing) in front of the Grassy Knoll, because of my theory that Edwin WALKER and the DPD conspired to kill JFK from that Dallas County Deputy parking lot behind the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll.)

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 18, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Robert Mady]

I personally do not believe MARINA'S testimony, she was sequestered or held captive by the authorities until she was willing to recite a fictional story that would fulfill the governments intentions of framing OSWALD. Also of note, MARINA'S testimony was not recorded, the testimony of her interpreters was recorded.

All the time we spend on OSWALD keeps us from solving the murder, OSWALD was and still is nothing but a distraction. IMO

[Paul Trejo]

I personally do not believe MARINA'S testimony, she was sequestered or held captive by the authorities until she was willing to recite a fictional story that would fulfill the governments intentions of framing OSWALD. Also of note, MARINA'S testimony was not recorded, the testimony of her interpreters was recorded.

All the time we spend on OSWALD keeps us from solving the murder, OSWALD was and still is nothing but a distraction. IMO

Robert, some JFK Researchers reject Marina Oswald's testimony, and some accept it. There is no appeal to AUTHORITY on this topic. Your opinion of Marina is only your hunch -- you have no proof.

Further, you can't make sense of your "fictional story" theory in which the enemies of Edwin WALKER somehow vouch for him -- but that is just what some JFK researchers claim.

I agree with you that OSWALD was not the killer of JFK. However, OSWALD was the *Patsy* used by the JFK Killers, and therefore I agree with Jim Garrison's approach -- find out OSWALD's behavior in 1963, and his associates -- because the key clues to the JFK murder are there.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 18, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

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.

Excellent posts, guys, and very well-written, too, so a joy to read on two counts.

Regarding the Walker Incident, Word Twister Trejo reminds me of someone who was trained as a lawyer. "Tell the truth and nothing but the truth (sometimes), but for cryin' out loud don't tell the whole truth."

It is interesting isn't it that he refuses to respond to my recent post on the "Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent?" thread in which I point out just two of the more glaring errors of fact he has made on this Forum:

1 ) that since Oswald was a "dialectical materialist" Marxist, he must have been "materialistic" in his personal life and therefore overly susceptible to the offering of cash and "big buck" career advancement opportunities supposedly made by Guy Banister. He's really showing his ignorance and willingness to "BS" here.

2 ) that Leopoldo and Angel's asking Silvia Odio to write a fund-raising letter for them was tantamount to their asking her directly for money. Here, of course, he's just showing his laziness and unwillingness to fact check before he posts.

I think it's important to diplomatically correct errors of fact by any so-called "researcher," but in Word Twister Trejo's case I must say that it's a particularly enjoyable thing to do.

--Tommy

[Thomas Graves]

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.

Greg and Paul B.,

Regarding his preaching on the Walker Incident, and the propounding of his so-called "grand unification theory" in general, Trejo reminds me of a very well trained lawyer. "Tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but for crying out loud don't tell the whole truth!"

Compounding that shortcoming is the fact that oftentimes he can't even relay the facts correctly.

As regards his alleged lack of intellectual honesty, it is interesting isn't it that Trejo refuses to respond to my recent post on another thread in which I point out just two of the more glaring factual errors he has made on this Forum:

1 ) Since Oswald was a "dialectical materialist" Marxist, he was, by definition, "materialistic" in his personal life and therefore overly susceptible to Guy Banister's offerings of cash and / or "big buck" career advancement opportunities. (He's really showing his intellectual ignorance here and his willingness to spread the old barnyard "organic fertilizer.")

2 ) Leopoldo and Angel's visited Silvia Odio in Dallas and asked her for money. (Here, of course, Trejo'ss just showing his laziness and unwillingness to fact check before he posts.)

I think it's important to diplomatically correct errors of fact by any so-called "researcher," but in Word Twister Trejo's case I must say that it's a particularly enjoyable thing to do, and frankly folks, I do it as diplomatically as I can. LOL.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21547&page=22#entry296497

--Tommy

"I know Paul Trejo, and he's as honest as me.

Yeah! And I'm as honest as a Denver man can be."

With apologies to the Grateful Dead

edited of course, and bumped

Note to Trejo: "1 member and 7 guests" reading this now.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Mady]

Paul T.: I prefaced my post by saying I do not believe, I don't expect anyone to accept my opinions, as far as appealing to an arbiter of truth, I need none, I don't look to a pundit to bless my thoughts to transmute them into something of value.

As far as conspiracy, I know the state murdered our President, everything I examine is with the judgment; is it truth or is it disinformation and the simple rule I use is if it supports the governments fiction the evidence most likely needs to be rejected.

WALKER like OSWALD is a distraction.

[Thomas Graves]

Paul T.: I prefaced my post by saying I do not believe, I don't expect anyone to accept my opinions, as far as appealing to an arbiter of truth, I need none, I don't look to a pundit to bless my thoughts to transmute them into something of value.

As far as conspiracy, I know the state murdered our President, everything I examine is with the judgment; is it truth or is it disinformation and the simple rule I use is if it supports the governments fiction the evidence most likely needs to be rejected.

WALKER like OSWALD is a distraction.

Looks like you've got a corner on The Truth here, Bobby.

It's too bad that so few people see everything your way.

Must be cognitive dissonance, huh?

LOL

--Tommy

Edited February 19, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Mady]

Thomas, LOL

I was lucky enough to put a few pieces together which allowed realization outside the box.

We were all programed by the disinformation proclaimed truth by news media and guard dog control from pundits like LANE and GRODEN, we could not escape the conditioning. Cognitive dissonance, no question about it.

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas, LOL

I was lucky enough to put a few pieces together which allowed realization outside the box.

We were all programed by the disinformation proclaimed truth by news media and guard dog control from pundits like LANE and GRODEN, we could not escape the conditioning. Cognitive dissonance, no question about it.

Yes, it's so much better to believe that all of the photographs and films were altered or faked, and so darn quickly, too!

Especially the purported film clips shot from almost exactly the same spot by two photographers, Jack Martin and Robert Hughes, showing an actor who looks just like Billy Lovelady, wearing Lovelady's red (and black and white and grey) "plaid" shirt just with a sliver of white t-shirt visible for a split second in the Martin clip, smoking a cigarette in front of the TSBD with all of those other actors, two of whom look just like Lovelady's co-workers Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce, just a few minutes after the assassination. What a lot of work that must have been to fake that afternoon or the next day, huh? And done with two photographers and a bunch of fake policemen pretending to check people as they enter the building (just to make it look more "realistic" by pretending that something really important might have happened in there a few minutes earlier, and, you know, just pretending that an assassin might still be in the building or something) and in the open like that but in such secrecy! I mean, the CIA and the FBI and the DPD must have cordoned off several blocks around the TSBD and killed anyone and everyone who might have witnessed the faking of it all! So many "mysterious deaths" and "missing people!" It just PROVES how all-powerful and omnipresent the bad guys really are, dosen't it? Or, hey, maybe they filmed it at a hush-hush location inside AREA 54!!!

What a joke.

Cognitive dissonance my (deleted).

--Tommy

Edited February 19, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Paul T.: I prefaced my post by saying I do not believe, I don't expect anyone to accept my opinions, as far as appealing to an arbiter of truth, I need none, I don't look to a pundit to bless my thoughts to transmute them into something of value.

As far as conspiracy, I know the state murdered our President, everything I examine is with the judgment; is it truth or is it disinformation and the simple rule I use is if it supports the governments fiction the evidence most likely needs to be rejected.

WALKER like OSWALD is a distraction.

Well, Bob, we must agree to disagree. We are here to share opinions and evidence -- and proof if we have it.

But just to take a side -- anybody can do that. Nor do I want you to quote this or that Pundit. I'd like to see your REASONING.

You say, Bob, that you "know" that the State murdered JFK -- but you don't provide proofs or even your REASONING.

You offer a "simple rule", that if the data supports the "Government" then it must be wrong.

But that's one-sided, either-or thinking -- and not really engaging in REASONING. There are no nuances there.

That is simply bias.

Show your case, please. People challenge me to show my case continually -- and I make an effort. (Usually the same people will not dare even to propose a theory -- because then they would have to defend it -- and they know they can't do it. So, they just sit back and yell "No!' whenever I propose a theory.

I do propose a theory -- the US Government did not kill JFK. I've read over 250 books on the JFK conspiracy in the past 23 years, including all of the Warren Report and all of the HSCA Report, the Lopez Report and countless FBI documents.

The US Government didn't kill JFK. The right-wing in Dallas, supported by the right-wing in New Orleans, and supported by two Rogue CIA guys and a host of Cuban Exile fanatics -- they killed JFK.

What the US Government did was prevent a Civil War in the USA by blaming the whole thing on Lee Harvey OSWALD as a "Lone Nut" -- when the JFK Killers were trying to get people to believe that OSWALD was a Communist.

That's what happened according to my theory -- and I have been showing my REASONING on this Forum for years now.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas, LOL

I was lucky enough to put a few pieces together which allowed realization outside the box.

We were all programed by the disinformation proclaimed truth by news media and guard dog control from pundits like LANE and GRODEN, we could not escape the conditioning. Cognitive dissonance, no question about it.

Yes, it's so much better to believe that all of the photographs and films were altered or faked, and so darn quickly, too!

Especially the "purported" film clip's shot from almost the exact same place by two different guys, Jack Martin and Robert Hughes, which show an actor who looks just like Billy Lovelady, wearing Lovelady's red (and black and white and grey) "plaid" shirt just with a sliver of white t-shirt visible for a split second in the Martin clip, smoking a cigarette in front of the TSBD with all of those other actors, a couple of whom look just like Lovelady's co-workers Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce (before they were hauled off in a police car with Bill Shelley) just a few minutes after the assassination. What a lot of work that must have been to fake that afternoon or the next day, huh? Amazing. Absolutely Amazing. Mind Boggling, Actually. And done with two photographers (probably just to make the fake scene more "realistic" although neither of them are in the other's film) and can you imagine! -- all in the open like that but done with such secrecy! I mean, the CIA and the FBI and the DPD must have cordoned off several blocks around the TSBD and killed anyone and everyone who might have witnessed the faking of it all! So many "mysterious deaths" and "missing people!" It just PROVES how all-powerful and omnipresent the bad guys really are, dosen't it?

Or, hey, maybe they didn't have to kill anyone because they probably just filmed the clips the next day at a super hush-hush location inside AREA 51!!! But we know that they DID kill a bunch of people because they couldn't just let all those actors live, so they killed 'em all and buried them there in a mass grave after they'd finished makin' the two fake film clips!

And the Z-film? Oh my God! Don't even get me started! Suffice it to say that I've proven to myself that the limo stopped for a good half minute and it was all altered! Altered I tell you! And anyone who doesn't agree with me is OBVIOUSLY either a CIA disinformation agent or is suffering from COGNITIVE DISSONANCE BECAUSE THEY SIMPLY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

What a joke.

Cognitive dissonance my <deleted> .

--Tommy

Edited of course, and bumped

Edited February 19, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

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

Well, Paul B., although you have a cheering squad of two on this thread, I still think you're getting close to the edge of the Policy of this Forum -- against calling another member a xxxx.

You didn't actually use the word, 'xxxx,' but the challenge to "intellectual honesty" really boils down to challenging somebody's "honesty," and it's in the same ballpark as 'xxxx'.

So, I'd like to get a Moderator's opinion on this, please.

Thanks,

--Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

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

Well, Paul B., although you have a cheering squad of two on this thread, I still think you're getting close to the edge of the Policy of this Forum -- against calling another member a xxxx.

You didn't actually use the word, 'xxxx,' but the challenge to "intellectual honesty" really boils down to challenging somebody's "honesty," and it's in the same ballpark as 'xxxx'.

So, I'd like to get a Moderator's opinion on this, please.

Thanks,

--Paul Trejo

Trejo,

Is it true that you never mention the fact that Walker didn't verifiably claim until after the assassination that right after someone had taken a shot at him, he somehow knew that it was Oswald?

--Tommy

Edited February 19, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Greg Burnham]

I'll say it straight out.

I do not know if Paul Trejo is a xxxx or not.

I do know that--absent reasons due to cognitive impairment--he displays characteristics consistent with intellectual dishonesty as defined in the dictionary:

1. Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion.

​That is different than calling someone a xxxx.