DOES IT MATTER TODAY THAT JFK WAS KILLED?

[Paul Brancato]

William Harvey is a far more likely suspect than Edwin Walker. Connecting him to Morales is easy isn't it? Instead, Trejo opines that Morales must have supplied Banister with intelligence. Apparently you will engage in any twisting and turning to distance the CIA from the assassination, and when others like myself point this out you lump us together as 'CIA did it' theorists.

Mr. Trejo - you persist in suggesting a relationship between Morales and Banister. You know that there is no evidence to support this. But it would conveniently support your theory, so you repeat it over and over and over and over again as if doing so makes it true. Meanwhile, the real Morales, with his real history as a top CIA operative you put aside, and claim that since he was very likely involved in the assassination it just had to be as a rogue.

For me you lose all credibility when you do this.

[Martin Blank]

William Harvey is a far more likely suspect than Edwin Walker. Connecting him to Morales is easy isn't it? Instead, Trejo opines that Morales must have supplied Banister with intelligence. Apparently you will engage in any twisting and turning to distance the CIA from the assassination, and when others like myself point this out you lump us together as 'CIA did it' theorists.

Mr. Trejo - you persist in suggesting a relationship between Morales and Banister. You know that there is no evidence to support this. But it would conveniently support your theory, so you repeat it over and over and over and over again as if doing so makes it true. Meanwhile, the real Morales, with his real history as a top CIA operative you put aside, and claim that since he was very likely involved in the assassination it just had to be as a rogue.

For me you lose all credibility when you do this.

couldn't morales have been secretly working for the cia when he was involved with walker and got him to do his bidding though the master manipulation and hypnosis tricks he learned from angleton and phillips. in other words walker was a dupe who was used by the cia. outsmarted by his betters. so no matter how you slice it the cia was in charge. walker was a patsy of the cia! yeah that's it the cia did it no matter what. they are not going to work for some pissant little general.

the man's logic is like having a variable constant in math -- what ever works whether it' s true or not.

[Martin Blank]

Paul Trejo,

You're arguing that Walker had training and experience as a warrior.

A warrior has one skill set. A professional assassin or assassination planner has another skill set. The skill sets have little overlap.

The warrior seeks to kill any number of armed opponents and doesn't worry about offending sensibilities, necessarily. The warrior may be skilled at large- or small-scale killing. Curtis LeMay vs. Carlos Hathcock.

The high-level political assassin has one target, who is unarmed. The assassin works in the political arena. The warrior acts in the military arena.

I can go on, but I expect you get the point.

walker's initial field of specialty and training was artillery

[Martin Blank]

Paul Trejo,

You're arguing that Walker had training and experience as a warrior.

A warrior has one skill set. A professional assassin or assassination planner has another skill set. The skill sets have little overlap.

The warrior seeks to kill any number of armed opponents and doesn't worry about offending sensibilities, necessarily. The warrior may be skilled at large- or small-scale killing. Curtis LeMay vs. Carlos Hathcock.

The high-level political assassin has one target, who is unarmed. The assassin works in the political arena. The warrior acts in the military arena.

I can go on, but I expect you get the point.

I get your point, Jon, but I beg to differ. Walker didn't just get Army boot-camp training. Walker was a LIFER.

Walker studied warfare as a CHILD and then he went to COLLEGE to study it further. Then, at about the age of 22, Edwin Walker entered SPECIAL FORCES. I gather that with your military background you know that that can entail.

I reckon that Edwin Walker -- a true patriot until 1961 -- was one of the most dangerous men alive.

By the way, if (and only if) Edwin Walker needed or wanted extra advice on assassination, IMHO he could have obtained this from David Sanchez Morales, a rogue CIA officer who IMHO had joined Guy Banister's "Kill Fidel" operation in 1963 there at 544 Camp Street in New Orleans. Joan Mellon says that SOMEBODY in the CIA around August 1963 gave Guy Banister's team Top Secret CIA information that JFK was seeking outreach to Fidel Castro.

For Guy Banister -- and for Edwin Walker -- as well as for David Morales, this was TREASON and worthy of a firing squad -- not for money, but for the sake of honor and (however misguided) patriotic duty..

The JFK murder wasn't a simple Mafia hit. It was a well-orchestrated military-style ambush. CIA officer William Harvey had already made similar plans for the assassination of Fidel Castro in a motorcade. Odd how an identical plan happened to come to Dallas...

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

yeah william harvey planned both

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Trejo,

When I was in the army, I served under various field-grade Military Intelligence officers, including one who was promoted to Brigadier General. I got to know some of them fairly well as human beings. These were men deeply schooled, deeply experienced, in a broad array of intelligence matters. Several of them were West Point graduates. All were war veterans.

None of these individuals, not one, had any training or experience in carrying out political assassinations. Sure, they were savvy in military history, doctrine, training, weapons, and other topics. But army never taught them how to carry out assassination of an American president or any other kind of political assassination.

If these men knew nothing about high-level political assassination, how would Edwin Walker?

You can convince me I'm wrong about Walker by documenting his training and experience specifically in high-level political assassination. Simply arguing that he was a two-star general who had combat experience signifies nothing; those guys were and are a dime a dozen.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul Trejo,

When I was in the army, I served under various field-grade Military Intelligence officers, including one who was promoted to Brigadier General. I got to know some of them fairly well as human beings. These were men deeply schooled, deeply experienced, in a broad array of intelligence matters. Several of them were West Point graduates. All were war veterans.

None of these individuals, not one, had any training or experience in carrying out political assassinations. Sure, they were savvy in military history, doctrine, training, weapons, and other topics. But army never taught them how to carry out assassination of an American president or any other kind of political assassination.

If these men knew nothing about high-level political assassination, how would Edwin Walker?

You can convince me I'm wrong about Walker by documenting his training and experience specifically in high-level political assassination. Simply arguing that he was a two-star general who had combat experience signifies nothing; those guys were and are a dime a dozen.

Two questions, Jon.

(1) How can you be so certain what these Army officers didn't know?

(2) Were any of these Army officers also raised in Military School as children, and also West Point graduates?

It makes a difference.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Martin Blank]

Paul Trejo,

When I was in the army, I served under various field-grade Military Intelligence officers, including one who was promoted to Brigadier General. I got to know some of them fairly well as human beings. These were men deeply schooled, deeply experienced, in a broad array of intelligence matters. Several of them were West Point graduates. All were war veterans.

None of these individuals, not one, had any training or experience in carrying out political assassinations. Sure, they were savvy in military history, doctrine, training, weapons, and other topics. But army never taught them how to carry out assassination of an American president or any other kind of political assassination.

If these men knew nothing about high-level political assassination, how would Edwin Walker?

You can convince me I'm wrong about Walker by documenting his training and experience specifically in high-level political assassination. Simply arguing that he was a two-star general who had combat experience signifies nothing; those guys were and are a dime a dozen.

Two questions, Jon.

(1) How can you be so certain what these Army officers didn't know?

(2) Were any of these Army officers also raised in Military School as children, and also West Point graduates?

It makes a difference.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

how so? if you make the statement you have to tell us how USMA graduates are all political assassins and those junior and high schoolers are assassins, too. thanks, i know how important the facts are to you.

also i didn't realize that roger staunch an NMMI and Annapolis graduate was a political assassin. i knew that chuck barrios, his of the gong show, claimed to have been a via assassin. wrote a book about it

Edited February 20, 2016 by Martin Blank

[Paul Trejo]

I ask that, Jon, because it makes a difference when a boy is exposed to a given science or art at a very young age. Young children learn faster and deeper than adults. For example, very young children can learn four or five different languages with ease, while adults struggle to learn just one foreign language.

Also, the greatest musicians were always the ones who were exposed to music from very young ages, like Mozart, for example, or whose parents were musicians, like John Lennon or Brian Wilson.

So, the fact that Edwin Walker went to Military School before he went to West Point is likely to have stimulated his imagination and entered his personality, far more so than somebody who studied military science as an adult. I think that stands to reason, with psychological statistics.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 22, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Martin Blank]

I ask that, Jon, because it makes a difference when a boy is exposed to a given science or art at a very young age. Young children learn faster and deeper than adults. For example, very young children can learn four or five different languages with ease, while adults struggle to learn just one foreign language.

Also, the greatest musicians were always the ones who were exposed to music from very young ages, like Mozart, for example, or whose parents were musicians, like John Lennon or Brian Wilson.

So, the fact that Edwin Walker went to Military School before he went to West Point is likely to have stimulated his imagination and entered his personality, far more so than somebody who studied military science as an adult. I think that stands to reason, with psychological statistics.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

statistics please. just because you want (need) something to be true doesn't mean that it's true. also any other refereed articles about the effect of military school on a person's later personality.

[Paul Brancato]

Yes - it's true that musical geniuses for instance get a very early start in most cases, but not true that an early start guarantees success.

[Paul Trejo]

Yes - it's true that musical geniuses for instance get a very early start in most cases, but not true that an early start guarantees success.

Very true, Paul B., because 99% of musicians aren't geniuses. When comparing the geniuses, though, the ones who got the earliest starts tend to be the ones whose work rises to the level of immortality.

But getting back to the point -- when a soldier, or a General of the US Army has been trained from early childhood with a rifle in his hand, and a textbook on war before his eyes, his youthful imagination can roam free on the topic.

Stories of battles, sneak attacks, strategies, assassinations, and all the rest -- including political motivations for these dire actions -- can impress young minds.

When in groups of children studying these matters, although honor is always uppermost in their Teacher's minds -- boys will be boys.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 22, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Martin Blank]

Just an aside question:

What does "99% of most" mean?

what does any of what he says mean?

[Jon G. Tidd]

Let's take "most." Most here (all musicians) means more than half; let's call most 50.1%.

Accordingly, 99% of most = 0.99 x 0.501. Which is .496, or 49.6%.

So, the fact that 99% of most musicians aren't geniuses means, at the very least, 49.6% of all musicians aren't geniuses. Which means, at the very most, 50.4% of all musicians are geniuses.

It's rather profound.

[Jon G. Tidd]

If Paul Trejo is correct that Edwin Walker masterminded JFK's assassination, the assassination today means very little if anything. Who would care today if JFK was taken out at the direction of Edwin Walker?

But the cover-up would matter. In fact, no matter who had JFK killed, his murder all by itself doesn't mean much today, UNLESS some culpable party is still kicking around, which I believe is possible.

Truth is, no one here in the CT camp appears to care much who pulled the triggers. They were the murderers. Their commanders and associates were accomplices -- call them co-conspirators. But all of 'em surely are dead now; well, almost surely.

I find Harry Holmes, an immediate cover-up operator, much more interesting than DAP, JJ Angleton, Richard Helms, LBJ, Carlos Marcello, David Ferrie, Guy Bannister, Edwin Walker, et al. Even LBJ stayed his hand, pretty much, from the cover-up.

I find John Armstrong's recent piece on the Rifle far more interesting than anything pertaining to pre-assassination shenanigans. Armstrong deals with verifiable facts. He injects his opinions but provides a basis for his opinions.

Almost end of incoherent rant. Almost end, because no one here can prove Paul Trejo wrong. But that misses the point. The issue today is not who had JFK killed. The issue today is why was there a cover-up and why does the cover-up continue?

[Paul Trejo]

If Paul Trejo is correct that Edwin Walker masterminded JFK's assassination, the assassination today means very little if anything. Who would care today if JFK was taken out at the direction of Edwin Walker?

But the cover-up would matter. In fact, no matter who had JFK killed, his murder all by itself doesn't mean much today, UNLESS some culpable party is still kicking around, which I believe is possible.

Truth is, no one here in the CT camp appears to care much who pulled the triggers. They were the murderers. Their commanders and associates were accomplices -- call them co-conspirators. But all of 'em surely are dead now; well, almost surely.

I find Harry Holmes, an immediate cover-up operator, much more interesting than DAP, JJ Angleton, Richard Helms, LBJ, Carlos Marcello, David Ferrie, Guy Bannister, Edwin Walker, et al. Even LBJ stayed his hand, pretty much, from the cover-up.

I find John Armstrong's recent piece on the Rifle far more interesting than anything pertaining to pre-assassination shenanigans. Armstrong deals with verifiable facts. He injects his opinions but provides a basis for his opinions.

Almost end of incoherent rant. Almost end, because no one here can prove Paul Trejo wrong. But that misses the point. The issue today is not who had JFK killed. The issue today is why was there a cover-up and why does the cover-up continue?

Excellent point, Jon.

Who cares today if it turns out that the CIA, the FBI, LBJ or the Mafia are actually INNOCENT of the JFK murder?

Is the main reason for the CT community's existence just to blame the Federal Government for everything, and the JFK murder is just one more thing?

IMHO, it matters because it let the Radical Right wing off the hook. Now we have the Tea Party that has decimated the Republican Party. Cause and Effect, IMHO.

Just as you say, Jon; the cover-up would matter IF AND ONLY IF "some culpable party is still kicking around." The benefactors of the John Birch Society are their heirs -- the Tea Party, including their top dogs, the Koch Brothers.

It's too bad that most CTers don't care who the trigger-men were -- because the trigger men are our best way to ID the JFK plotters. Without the trigger-men, then anybody's wild guess CT is as good as anybody else's -- and so we get fiction-writers who say Ruth Paine did it, as well as English Professors who say that "Deep Politics" did it, and so on. If you don't care who the trigger-men were, then ANYBODY could have done it.

That's the only way, really, to hold on to most CT's, which are mostly ridiculous.

There are a few who are eye-witnesses to the General Walker plot who are still alive. Harry Dean is still alive, but he's told all he has to tell, and it was only a sneak peek from Los Angeles, when General Walker named LHO to some JBS fanatics in 9/1963.

Larrie Schmidt and Bernie Weisman are still alive -- but they aren't talking. Yet the fact that they were close to General Walker, and Larrie's brother Robbie lived in Walker's house, where Robert Allen Surrey worked, and Robbie drove around Dallas with a stack of WANTED FOR TREASON:JFK handbills in his back seat -- we do have a few eye-witnesses still alive.

It's pretty clear all the sheep-dippers in New Orleans have died. IMHO, Marina Oswald knows NOTHING about the plot. Ruth and Michael Paine knew NOTHING then, and still today know NOTHING about the plot to kill JFK -- nor anything at all about the Cover-up.

Volkmar Schmidt has passed, and so has George DeMohrenschildt -- and they were close to the General Walker saga, but on the opposite side. They were caught by surprise.

As for Dallas Postmaster Harry Holmes, as you named Jon "an immediate Cover-up operator, much more interesting than DAP, JJ Angleton, Richard Helms, LBJ, Carlos Marcello..." I agree with you 99%

.

But when you name General Walker in the discredited bunch, then we have a disagreement. And our disagreement is sharp -- I say that there were TWO COVER-STORIES for the JFK murder.

.

(1) That LHO was a Communist and FPCC Secretary, so that the JFK murder was a Communist plot, which should have justified an invasion of Cuba.

(2) That LHO was a Lone Nut, certainly not a Communist or a genuine member of the FPCC, so that the JFK murder was just a freak accident by some random psycho-killer.

Both of those stories are untrue -- as 50 years of research has proven. That leaves only one major alternative -- which has only come to light starting in 2015 with Jeff Caufield's new book on General Walker:

(3) That LHO was the Patsy in a Radial Right plot.

If this turns out to be correct, then Postmaster Harry Holmes was possibly part of the Dallas murder, and not just the Coverup.

As for John Armstrong, I find little to nothing interesting in his pulp fiction. IMHO he builds upon Mistaken Identity sightings and gives no limits to his imagination.

I think's its important, Jon, that you admit that the Old Guard here on the FORUM have consistently failed to prove me wrong. (I've been challenging them for months to show just one thing to pin on Ruth Paine, and not one of their foolish charges has stuck.)

I still say that the issue is Who had JFK killed, and Why the US Government acted to Cover-it-up, without being on the side of the JFK Killers. That's the key to solving the murder. Why did Hoover and LBJ cover it up? Because, IMHO, the US Government didn't want the USSR to have a propaganda victory.

And that was only relevant in the case of a Radical Right plot!

That's why, IMHO, after the USSR fell in 1990, President GHW Bush signed the JFK Records Act in 1992.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 23, 2016 by Paul Trejo