DOES IT MATTER TODAY THAT JFK WAS KILLED?

[Martin Blank]

Paul Trejo,

I believe the plotters anticipated correctly the response of the U.S. Government to [1] JFK's murder, and Oswald's designation as patsy.

Those in positions of power, including RFK, in the U.S. Government had zero interest in a full investigation into JFK's murder. Zero.

The plotters knew this in advance.

There's no need to assume LHO had been recruited as an intelligence agent. He was being observed by U.S. intelligence agencies, no doubt. But so what?

why didn't they just kill him then? why a patsy and all the shenanigans by those cia guys who supposedly had nothing to do with anything

[Martin Blank]

Seems to me we're making this more complicated than it was. Even the public biography of “Lee Harvey Oswald” is clearly that of a low-level intelligence operative, a Marine Corps veteran, U-2 observing Communist who, during the height of the Cold War, freely travels to Russia, tells our ambassador in Moscow he's going to tell the Russians everything he knows, travels back to the USA facing no penalties whatsoever and then, shortly before the assassination, is granted permission again to travel to Communist nations. Who's kidding who here?

Seems equally clear to me that the plotters handed off that low-level and now sheep-dipped intel operative to the cover-up-artists-to-be in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. In other words, the intel people running “the Oswald Project” put our boy in the loving hands of Banister and, therefore, Hoover, cognizant that putting “Lee Harvey Oswald” on the FBI payroll might make Hoover just a wee bit defensive after the assassination of a sitting president. (Gerald Ford did write that “Oswald” went on the FBI payroll in Sept. '62, but I believe that date was deliberately fudged.)

The obvious reason for the hit was to blame it all on Fidel and therefore invade Cuba, but the plotters ran into a real problem when Castro's friend and gun supplier Robert McKeown smelled a rat and refused to sell rifles to “Lee Oswald” for laughably high prices around Labor Day of 1963. The rifle became arguably the weakest point in the otherwise brilliant plot.

There were any number of State Secrets that the Warren Commission had to protect, but the two most important were surely:

1. That the plotters wanted to provoke an invasion of Cuba, and

2. The true biography of “Lee Harvey Oswald.”

The real reason the Kennedy Assassination is so very relevant more than half a century later is that it gives a rare glimpse into just how far our National Security apparatus, and the news media that serves it, will go to preserve State Secrets.

oh it goes well beyond preserving state secrets

[Martin Blank]

LNer: well if it was a conspiracy why was no one ever caught and tried

Intelligent Person: maybe it was a very good conspiracy

Edited February 17, 2016 by Martin Blank

[Paul Brancato]

Yes it was a very good conspiracy. And yes it goes way beyond state secrets. It changed the course of US history. Of course there is no way of knowing how far JFK would have gotten in dismantling the MIC. But I have no doubts personally that he was trying to do just that.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul T.,

You may be correct. In which case I believe the plotters were amateurs who couldn't anticipate the reactions of LBJ. Hoover, McCone.

I don't believe the plotters were amateurs.

Not necessarily, Jon. Insofar as Dr. Caufield is correct and the Radical Right in the USA plotted and executed the murder of JFK, we should examine what that entails.

First and foremost -- POLITICS. It was a matter of political importance that JFK had decided to support MLK in his nationwide Civil Rights movement.

We should recall that Democratic President Woodrow Wilson had supported the KKK and allowed them to march on Washington in full white-hooded uniform. The early movie, The Klansman, was hailed by President Wilson not only as great art, but great and true history. President Wilson was nominated in part because as President of Princeton University, Wilson had successfully kept Black Americans out of it.

This was considered "Conservative" in 1915 by the majority of Americans, and by 1960 it was still considered "Conservative" throughout the South.

Now, the rabble-rouser MLK was stirring up trouble, said the South, and JFK was supporting him, e.g. in his June 11, 1963 speech.

Resigned General Edwin Walker, a hero of WW2 and the Korean War, had resigned in protest of JFK's policies, and was making political strides in the South, running on a Segregation platform 1961-1962. (So was Guy Banister in the same period.)

It all came to a screeching halt on September 30, 1962, when General Walker chose to lead a protest at Ole Miss University to prevent James Meredith from being the first Black American to register for classes at that all-white college. General Walker and his supporters believed they were acting on "Conservative" principles. But the protest became a violent riot I which hundreds were wounded and two were killed. (NARA refuses to release film footage of that riot to this very day.)

Add to this confusion the facts of the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis -- the crucial elements of JFK's term. General Walker and the Radical Right, especially in the South, were deeply disturbed by this violation of the Monroe Doctrine only 90 miles from USA shores.

On the evening of the Ole Miss race riots, General Walker wrote an Open Letter to JFK in which he featured -- not the James Meredith issue -- but the problem of Cuba. Cuba was the key -- invasion of Cuba and the assassination of Fidel Castro was regarded by US "Conservatives" as basic to US survival. They were *certain* that most Americans were with them.

We have strong evidence that LHO was sheep-dipped in New Orleans from April 1963 through September 1963. That's six months. Somebody was deadly serious about ensuring that LHO would retain a solid reputation as a Communist FPCC Secretary (although Jim Garrison proved nicely that LHO was no such thing). The Communists weren't fooled by this pretense (e.g. the Lopez-Hardway Report indicates that the Mexico-City Communists at the Cuban Consulate only laughed at LHO). But perhaps most US journalists were fooled. Some still are.

The sheep-dip of LHO was complete. When JFK was murdered -- orchestrated by a master of military plans, like a US General -- the Patsy was given to the US Government as a "Communist FPCC Secretary."

This was not the work of Amateurs. It was calculated to work like clockwork. In most other times in US History it would have worked like a charm.

J. Edgar Hoover was, nevertheless, too smart for General Walker. Hoover had a very high IQ. General Walker was smart enough to be a US General, yet he also graduated in the BOTTOM 10% of his West Point class. Walker was an expert in military matters -- but he was no intellectual. He read magazines rather than books. Still, he was a US GENERAL.

That's not an amateur, Jon. The people who followed in this plot believed they were following a Great Leader. But the Cold War had made US Government officials wiser than usual. Hoover saw through Walker's plot by 3pm CST on 11/22/1963. FBI reports show that this was the hour Hoover called RFK and told him the *opposite* of the reports coming out of Dallas.

So -- it was a miscalculation -- but there was nothing amateur about it. It was a Radical Right plot -- totally well-meaning, with honor and dignity -- but it was brilliant only for 1913 -- not for 1963. J. Edgar Hoover was that smart. That's all.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Why Mr. Trejo to you have to spell out your theory again?

[Martin Blank]

Why Mr. Trejo to you have to spell out your theory again?

and as usual he vomits it up without any documentation, sources, or citations that would show it to be true facts (that he claims are so important.) I have to give this fairy tale an F

Edited February 18, 2016 by Martin Blank

[Scott Kaiser]

J. Edgar Hoover was that smart. That's all.

J. Edgar Hoover was famous for pissing people off, if that's what makes J. Edgar Hoover smart, I've got to have a rocket scientist brain going on up there.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Trejo,

By "amateur" I mean an individual not having requisite training and experience and competence..

By "professional" I mean an individual having requisite training and experience and competence.

IMO, the JFK kill-team plotters and executioners included professional assassins and professional assassination planners.

Edwin Walker was an amateur when it came to assassinations. So was Guy Bannister. Neither had training or experience in planning and carrying out high-level political assassinations.

You maintain, as have others, that Oswald was "sheep dipped" in New Orleans in the spring and summer of 1963. Is yours a professional or an amateur opinion?

I admit that professionals can and do make mistakes. It happens all the time in my field. That goes to competence, not to training and experience.

I admit that amateurs sometime hit the nail on the head.

If I need a delicate and important operation performed, I'll go with a professional, a professional I deem competent, every time.

Maybe, as you argue, Walker and his buds, amateurs at high-level political assassination, got things just right. That's not a bet I'd place, however; the odds are too poor. Your theory, IMO, flounders on the rocks of probability. I can't say it's wrong; it's just not compelling or even slightly persuasive to the informed audience at Education Forum. But do keep up the struggle.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul Trejo,

By "amateur" I mean an individual not having requisite training and experience and competence..

By "professional" I mean an individual having requisite training and experience and competence.

IMO, the JFK kill-team plotters and executioners included professional assassins and professional assassination planners.

Edwin Walker was an amateur when it came to assassinations. So was Guy Bannister. Neither had training or experience in planning and carrying out high-level political assassinations.

You maintain, as have others, that Oswald was "sheep dipped" in New Orleans in the spring and summer of 1963. Is yours a professional or an amateur opinion?

I admit that professionals can and do make mistakes. It happens all the time in my field. That goes to competence, not to training and experience.

I admit that amateurs sometime hit the nail on the head.

If I need a delicate and important operation performed, I'll go with a professional, a professional I deem competent, every time.

Maybe, as you argue, Walker and his buds, amateurs at high-level political assassination, got things just right. That's not a bet I'd place, however; the odds are too poor. Your theory, IMO, flounders on the rocks of probability. I can't say it's wrong; it's just not compelling or even slightly persuasive to the informed audience at Education Forum. But do keep up the struggle.

Um, Jon, do you actually KNOW the military history of Major General Edwin Walker -- a man who went to military school as a boy, and graduated from West Point in 1931 before entering what would now be called "Special Forces" as a youth?

During WW2 Edwin Walker was in command of a sub-unit of the Canadian-American "First Special Reserve Force" -- the third regiment while in Italy. They started combat in December 1943 and were redeployed to the Anzio beachhead 1944 and joined the fight for Rome in June 1944. Walker's regiment landed on the French Riveria in October 1944 and took out one hell of a German garrison. Walker ended in command of all regiments of the "First Special Reserve Force" up through 1945.

Sorry -- nobody can call this sort of a fighter an amateur in military action or planning. If anything, Edwin Walker was an expert in military-style ambush.

Finally -- although the POLITICS of the JFK assassination were flawed, nobody can say that the Technical Planning and Execution of the ambush were flawed. On the contrary -- they were perfect.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 19, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Martin Blank]

Paul Trejo,

By "amateur" I mean an individual not having requisite training and experience and competence..

By "professional" I mean an individual having requisite training and experience and competence.

IMO, the JFK kill-team plotters and executioners included professional assassins and professional assassination planners.

Edwin Walker was an amateur when it came to assassinations. So was Guy Bannister. Neither had training or experience in planning and carrying out high-level political assassinations.

You maintain, as have others, that Oswald was "sheep dipped" in New Orleans in the spring and summer of 1963. Is yours a professional or an amateur opinion?

I admit that professionals can and do make mistakes. It happens all the time in my field. That goes to competence, not to training and experience.

I admit that amateurs sometime hit the nail on the head.

If I need a delicate and important operation performed, I'll go with a professional, a professional I deem competent, every time.

Maybe, as you argue, Walker and his buds, amateurs at high-level political assassination, got things just right. That's not a bet I'd place, however; the odds are too poor. Your theory, IMO, flounders on the rocks of probability. I can't say it's wrong; it's just not compelling or even slightly persuasive to the informed audience at Education Forum. But do keep up the struggle.

Um, Jon, do you actually KNOW the military history of Major General Edwin Walker -- a man who went to military school as a boy, and graduated from West Point in 1931 before entering what would now be called "Special Forces" as a youth?

During WW2 Edwin Walker was in command of a sub-unit of the Canadian-American "First Special Reserve Force" -- the third regiment while in Italy. They started combat in December 1943 and were redeployed to the Anzio beachhead 1944 and joined the fight for Rome in June 1944. Walker's regiment landed on the French Riveria in October 1944 and took out one hell of a German garrison. Walker ended in command of all regiments of the "First Special Reserve Force" up through 1945.

Sorry -- nobody can call this sort of a fighter an amateur in military action or planning. If anything, Edwin Walker was an expert in military-style ambush.

Finally -- although the POLITICS of the JFK assassination were flawed, nobody can say that the Technical Planning and Execution of the ambush were flawed. On the contrary -- they were perfect.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Do you have any proof that he did planning and logistics who in the army? do you have any proof that he planned ambushes in the military?

you mean these german troops:

Opposing the Allies was the German Army Group G (Heeresgruppe G). Although nominally an army group, Army Group G had at the time of the invasion only one army under its command: the 19th Army, led by Friedrich Wiese. As southern France had never been important to German planning, their forces there had been stripped of nearly all their valuable units and equipment over the course of the war. The remaining 11 divisions were understrength and only one intact panzer division was left, the 11th Panzer Division, which also had lost two of its tank battalions. The troops were positioned thinly along the French coast, with an average of 90 km (56 mi) per division.^[14]:60 Generally the troops of the German divisions were only second and third grade. This meant that over the course of the years, Germans in those divisions were sent away and replaced with wounded old veterans as well as Volksdeutsche from Poland and Czechoslovakia. There were numerous Ostlegionen inserted, as well as several units made up from volunteered Soviet prisoners of war (Ostbataillone). The equipment of those troops was in poor shape, consisting of old weapons from various nations, with French, Polish, Soviet, Italian and Czech guns, artillery and mortars. Four of the German divisions were designated as "static", which meant that they were stripped of all of their mobile capabilities and unable to move from their position. The only potent unit inside Army Group G was the 11th Panzer Division, which was commanded by Wend von Wietersheim.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Martin Blank

[Scott Kaiser]

Paul Trejo,

By "amateur" I mean an individual not having requisite training and experience and competence..

By "professional" I mean an individual having requisite training and experience and competence.

IMO, the JFK kill-team plotters and executioners included professional assassins and professional assassination planners.

Edwin Walker was an amateur when it came to assassinations. So was Guy Bannister. Neither had training or experience in planning and carrying out high-level political assassinations.

You maintain, as have others, that Oswald was "sheep dipped" in New Orleans in the spring and summer of 1963. Is yours a professional or an amateur opinion?

I admit that professionals can and do make mistakes. It happens all the time in my field. That goes to competence, not to training and experience.

I admit that amateurs sometime hit the nail on the head.

If I need a delicate and important operation performed, I'll go with a professional, a professional I deem competent, every time.

Maybe, as you argue, Walker and his buds, amateurs at high-level political assassination, got things just right. That's not a bet I'd place, however; the odds are too poor. Your theory, IMO, flounders on the rocks of probability. I can't say it's wrong; it's just not compelling or even slightly persuasive to the informed audience at Education Forum. But do keep up the struggle.

"Edwin Walker was an amateur when it came to assassinations. So was Guy Bannister. "

Hi Jon,

I thought you might like to know that I have taken the liberty to list every assassin that ever stayed at Nelly's boarding house in Miami, it was a safe house for assassins, it wasn't easy getting a hold of that list, but you will only find it in my updated material. Like so much more information that had never been discovered or exposed before. If you do get the updated version, I do hope you'll enjoy it. I even fully expose Watergate.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Scott Kaiser

[Scott Kaiser]

Paul Trejo,

By "amateur" I mean an individual not having requisite training and experience and competence..

By "professional" I mean an individual having requisite training and experience and competence.

IMO, the JFK kill-team plotters and executioners included professional assassins and professional assassination planners.

Edwin Walker was an amateur when it came to assassinations. So was Guy Bannister. Neither had training or experience in planning and carrying out high-level political assassinations.

You maintain, as have others, that Oswald was "sheep dipped" in New Orleans in the spring and summer of 1963. Is yours a professional or an amateur opinion?

I admit that professionals can and do make mistakes. It happens all the time in my field. That goes to competence, not to training and experience.

I admit that amateurs sometime hit the nail on the head.

If I need a delicate and important operation performed, I'll go with a professional, a professional I deem competent, every time.

Maybe, as you argue, Walker and his buds, amateurs at high-level political assassination, got things just right. That's not a bet I'd place, however; the odds are too poor. Your theory, IMO, flounders on the rocks of probability. I can't say it's wrong; it's just not compelling or even slightly persuasive to the informed audience at Education Forum. But do keep up the struggle.

Um, Jon, do you actually KNOW the military history of Major General Edwin Walker -- a man who went to military school as a boy, and graduated from West Point in 1931 before entering what would now be called "Special Forces" as a youth?

During WW2 Edwin Walker was in command of a sub-unit of the Canadian-American "First Special Reserve Force" -- the third regiment while in Italy. They started combat in December 1943 and were redeployed to the Anzio beachhead 1944 and joined the fight for Rome in June 1944. Walker's regiment landed on the French Riveria in October 1944 and took out one hell of a German garrison. Walker ended in command of all regiments of the "First Special Reserve Force" up through 1945.

Sorry -- nobody can call this sort of a fighter an amateur in military action or planning. If anything, Edwin Walker was an expert in military-style ambush.

Finally -- although the POLITICS of the JFK assassination were flawed, nobody can say that the Technical Planning and Execution of the ambush were flawed. On the contrary -- they were perfect.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

"Um, Jon, do you actually KNOW the military history of Major General Edwin Walker -- a man who went to military school as a boy"

Sounds like someone I know, except he didn't become an Army General. He impersonated military personnel, and became an assassin.

[Jon G. Tidd]

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.

[Paul Trejo]

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

Edited February 19, 2016 by Paul Trejo