Yes, Oswald was an Intelligence agent

[Jim Hargrove]

Mr. Trejo continually points out that the evidence against the CIA for its involvement with both “Lee Harvey Oswald” and the Kennedy assassination is simply not good enough for his standards. But he knows full well that over the years the Agency has done everything in its power to prevent more evidence from seeing the light of day. For example….

Earl Warren reportedly said that “full disclosure was not possible for reasons of national security.” Whatever could the mean? According to Mary Ferrell, “In the aftermath of the JFK assassination, a senior officer named John Whitten was put in charge of collecting investigative data on Oswald and the assassination. Within weeks he was replaced and James Angleton's CounterIntelligence division was put in charge…. With CounterIntelligence officer Ray Rocca as the main contact point, the CIA supplied the Warren Commission with information….”

As the HSCA was getting started, Chief Counsel Richard Sprague declined to sign CIA secrecy oaths and began asking questions such as the following:

Mr. Trafficante, have you at any time been an employee, a contract employee, or

in any manner been in the service of the Central Intelligence Agency, or any other

agency of the Federal Government of the United States.

Mr. Trafficante, have you ever met with representatives of the Central Intelligence

agency to discuss the assassination of various world leaders, including Fidel

Castro.

Sprague and committee chairman Henry Gonzales were quickly forced to resign. Organized crime expert G Robert Blakey became the new chief counsel and diverted attention away from the Agency. Only relatively recently has Blakey realized (or at least admitted) how thoroughly the CIA lied to him. The CIA’s liaison to the HSCA, the man responsible for lying to them, was George Joannides. Long after the HSCA had disbanded, it came to light that Joannides was handing out money to the DRE, some of “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” playpals in 1963.

Similar CIA machinations can be found associated with the Garrison investigation, the Church Committee and extending right through to the time of the ARRB and beyond. Mr. Trejo confidently tells us to wait for next year, when more documents may be released. If they are, you can bet they will have been scrubbed to remove any documentary evidence that “Lee Harvey Oswald” was a CIA agent.

All along, though, its been perfectly obvious, even from the Official Story®, that Oswald was an intelligence agent. He was supposedly released early from the Marine Corps (where he worked in a radar bubble near top-secret U-2s) because his mother had a sore nose. Saving his non-convertible military scrip, he somehow gets the money to travel to Europe and Russia, staying at first class hotels and hiring individual tour guides in Moscow.

He tells the American ambassador in Moscow that he plans to tell the Russians everything he knows and tries to renounce his citizenship but can’t because it is Saturday. In Russia, he marries an Russian-intelligence connected woman, writes an incredibly detailed report about life in Russia, and is eventually loaned the money to return to the U.S., where he faces no charges whatsoever and isn’t even debriefed. A few years later, he is given permission by our government to travel to communist countries again! Then, we’re told, he shoots JFK.

And we’re supposed to believe that this guy was just a CIA wannabe? Can you keep saying that with a straight face?

[Sandy Larsen]

So who dunnit? The finger points to whomever the CIA and U.S. government want to protect.

Could that be the Mafia? No!

Could that be anti-Castro Cubans? No!

Could that be the Far Right? No!

Could that be General Walker? No!

Could that be Castro? Well, not to protect him. But yes, to prevent a war.

Could that be Khrushchev? Not to protect him. But yes, to prevent a war.

Could that be the U.S. Military. Not to protect them, the generals. But yes, to protect America's non-Banana-Republic image.

Could that be the CIA. Yes! The public would demand demolishing the CIA for orchestrating a coup!

Could that be Lyndon Johnson? Yes, to protect America's non-Banana-Republic image.

Am I missing anybody?

So the only possible suspects are Castro, Khrushchev, the U.S. Military, the CIA, and Lyndon Johnson.

However, Castro would have had to been stupid or insane to have assassinated an America's president. Rule him out. Same goes for Khrushchev. Rule him out.

That leaves only the U.S. Military, the CIA, and Lyndon Johnson as reasonable suspects.

Remarks:

The CIA may have wanted to protect the Mafia way back in the 1960s. But not so the U.S. Government. And not the CIA in the decades following the assassination.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Craig Carvalho]

Proof ? Trejo, you have no proof either. If it's your Walker theory you claim facts. If it's a CIA theory you claim no facts to support it. You don't apply the same standards when viewing your own pet theories as you do when critiquing anothers.

The point, Paul B., is that the CIA-did-it CTers have had 50 years to prove their case. Fifty years and literally hundreds of researchers -- if not thousands.

My Walker-did-it CT is relatively new and untested -- with only a tiny handful of people who are interested in it at all. It's going to be a shock to the CT community when the Walker-did-it CT is revealed as the actual solution to the JFK assassination, once the JFK Records Act is fulfilled on Thursday 26 October 2017.

Only one more year.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

If the Far Right and Walker killed Kennedy, then why has the CIA in particular and US Government in general been hiding the facts for more than 50 years? It makes no sense for the government to spend so much effort protecting a dead general. Or a live one for that matter.

Sandy,

While I do not agree entirely with the "Walker-did-it" scenario, I have always felt that the attempt on Walker's life, which has been largely glossed over by the research community, precipitated JFK's assassination. I also believe this is where Ruby's involvement with Oswald may have began.

While the the Kennedy administration had been accused of dragging it's feet on civil rights, it's hand was being forced in dealing with the Walker issue for some time prior to the attempt on the general's life. This issue would be critical to JFK's re-election bid in 1964, and was at least in part his reason for visiting Dallas in November of 1963.

JFK relieved Walker from his command in Germany for his indoctrination of far-right, segregationist propaganda. Following the riots at the University of Mississippi, which Walker had organized and coordinated, Attorney General Robert Kennedy indicted Walker on charges of sedition. This maneuver failed after a grand jury acquitted Walker. RFK then attempted to have Walker committed to a mental facility for a 30-day evaluation which also was rejected by the courts, and terminated after only 5 days.

While Walker's bid for the governorship of Texas was an abysmal failure, Walker did command quite a following. During an appearance before 15,000 people in California there were even rumblings regarding a possible run for the presidency. This may seem far-fetched, but if we look at our present situation, some 50+ years on, I can envision legitimate concern among those who wished to protect our country from the type of civil unrest Walker was capable of inciting/commanding.

We know that following the shake up at the CIA, JFK appointed John McCone as director. McCone, known his superior organizational skills, knew little to nothing about the intelligence community. While McCone was busy analyzing and re-organizing the agency, it was RFK, (second only to the president himself), for all intents and purposes who sat at the helm.

As attempts to neutralize Fidel Castro were intensifying there was, I believe, a divide between the president and his brother regarding the use of organized crime figures to carry out these plans. The AG was furious when he found out that the CIA had enlisted the help of organized crime in this venture. Not surprising when you consider the aggressive stance and bold moves his office had taken against them. However, I believe JFK took a more balanced approach. While the president certainly supported/encouraged the AG's actions, I believe JFK was more of a realist vs. Bobby who often tended to view these issues from a more idealistic POV.

I mention this only for the purpose of introducing organized crime into a string of events which would have allowed them to eradicate their most intense rival, and essentially blackmail the government into total silence during it's investigation of the assassination. Oswald, and Oswald alone, would have to be found responsible. All other evidence would be ignored or debunked.

The question(s) then becomes... how much of a threat could Walker be to national security, or at the least, to the re-election of a sitting president?

And... to what lengths would the Kennedy administration go in using the CIA, and it's cohorts, in order to ensure the "domestic tranquility" of the nation during the upcoming '64' election?

Craig C.

[Sandy Larsen]

Proof ? Trejo, you have no proof either. If it's your Walker theory you claim facts. If it's a CIA theory you claim no facts to support it. You don't apply the same standards when viewing your own pet theories as you do when critiquing anothers.

The point, Paul B., is that the CIA-did-it CTers have had 50 years to prove their case. Fifty years and literally hundreds of researchers -- if not thousands.

My Walker-did-it CT is relatively new and untested -- with only a tiny handful of people who are interested in it at all. It's going to be a shock to the CT community when the Walker-did-it CT is revealed as the actual solution to the JFK assassination, once the JFK Records Act is fulfilled on Thursday 26 October 2017.

Only one more year.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

If the Far Right and Walker killed Kennedy, then why has the CIA in particular and US Government in general been hiding the facts for more than 50 years? It makes no sense for the government to spend so much effort protecting a dead general. Or a live one for that matter.

Sandy,

While I do not agree entirely with the "Walker-did-it" scenario, I have always felt that the attempt on Walker's life, which has been largely glossed over by the research community, precipitated JFK's assassination. I also believe this is where Ruby's involvement with Oswald may have began.

While the the Kennedy administration had been accused of dragging it's feet on civil rights, it's hand was being forced in dealing with the Walker issue for some time prior to the attempt on the general's life. This issue would be critical to JFK's re-election bid in 1964, and was at least in part his reason for visiting Dallas in November of 1963.

JFK relieved Walker from his command in Germany for his indoctrination of far-right, segregationist propaganda. Following the riots at the University of Mississippi, which Walker had organized and coordinated, Attorney General Robert Kennedy indicted Walker on charges of sedition. This maneuver failed after a grand jury acquitted Walker. RFK then attempted to have Walker committed to a mental facility for a 30-day evaluation which also was rejected by the courts, and terminated after only 5 days.

While Walker's bid for the governorship of Texas was an abysmal failure, Walker did command quite a following. During an appearance before 15,000 people in California there were even rumblings regarding a possible run for the presidency. This may seem far-fetched, but if we look at our present situation, some 50+ years on, I can envision legitimate concern among those who wished to protect our country from the type of civil unrest Walker was capable of inciting/commanding.

We know that following the shake up at the CIA, JFK appointed John McCone as director. McCone, known his superior organizational skills, knew little to nothing about the intelligence community. While McCone was busy analyzing and re-organizing the agency, it was RFK, (second only to the president himself), for all intents and purposes who sat at the helm.

As attempts to neutralize Fidel Castro were intensifying there was, I believe, a divide between the president and his brother regarding the use of organized crime figures to carry out these plans. The AG was furious when he found out that the CIA had enlisted the help of organized crime in this venture. Not surprising when you consider the aggressive stance and bold moves his office had taken against them. However, I believe JFK took a more balanced approach. While the president certainly supported/encouraged the AG's actions, I believe JFK was more of a realist vs. Bobby who often tended to view these issues from a more idealistic POV.

I mention this only for the purpose of introducing organized crime into a string of events which would have allowed them to eradicate their most intense rival, and essentially blackmail the government into total silence during it's investigation of the assassination. Oswald, and Oswald alone, would have to be found responsible. All other evidence would be ignored or debunked.

The question(s) then becomes... how much of a threat could Walker be to national security, or at the least, to the re-election of a sitting president?

And... to what lengths would the Kennedy administration go in using the CIA, and it's cohorts, in order to ensure the "domestic tranquility" of the nation during the upcoming '64' election?

Craig C.

Craig,

I read carefully what you wrote and was able to follow it, till the very end. Then I got lost. The precise meaning of your final three paragraphs escapes me. Could you lay out a hypothetical scenario so I can understand what you're thinking?

[Craig Carvalho]

Sure Sandy,

It is difficult at times to relate everything one has in mind. I'll do my best.

Could the Kennedy administration/CIA have put in motion plans to eliminate Edwin Walker?

If so, is it reasonable to assume that organized crime would have been privy to this... perhaps even a part of the plan, (Ruby)?

[Sandy Larsen]

Sure Sandy,

It is difficult at times to relate everything one has in mind. I'll do my best.

Could the Kennedy administration/CIA have put in motion plans to eliminate Edwin Walker?

If so, is it reasonable to assume that organized crime would have been privy to this... perhaps even a part of the plan, (Ruby)?

Thanks Craig, but you left out the most important part.... who plotted to kill Kennedy?

I went back and read the first sentence of your original post, and it sounds like the final part of your scenario is that Walker plans and executes the assassination. Is that what you're thinking? If so, for what reason would Walker do that? Revenge? Because Kennedy was a dangerous President?

[Chris Newton]

IMHO, the extreme right were also "patsies". The cabal responsible picked the city of Dallas for the assassination precisely because of it's extreme right wing views and violent ethos. If there was a coup and a conspiracy then there must have been some pre-operation groundwork. I'd even wager several possible "patsies" were in play.

[Craig Carvalho]

Sandy, I believe organized crime, (specifically Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante), instigated the plot to kill president Kennedy.

IMO, Walker had nothing to do with the assassination.

Oswald had been used by the CIA in the attempt on Walker.

Trafficanti was most likely aware of this through his own direct contact with the CIA, (Castro plots), as well as Johnny Roselli's ties to the CIA.

Oswald was known to Marcello through Oswald's uncle, Charles Dutz Murret.

Oswald's activities in New Orleans were known to both Marcello and the DRE. The DRE also had ties to Marcello and would be a prime source for a second gunman in any such plot.

Ruby had ties to both Trafficante and Marcello. Ruby traveled to Cuba through New Orleans to visit Louis McWillie, a known associate of Marcello, who in turn brought Ruby to see Trafficante while Santos was being held in Cuba.

Ruby was used by his mob contacts via the CIA to supply Oswald with a hiding spot, (Ruby's Vegas Club), for nearly three hours following Oswald's attempt on Walker. This would account for Oswald's unknown whereabouts between the hours of 9 p.m and 12 a.m. on the night of April 10th. This issue was raised by Allen Dulles in a closed hearing of the Warren Commission in regards to Marina Oswald's sworn testimony.

This might also explain Ruby's strange behavior following Oswald's midnight press conference late Friday/early Saturday morning, (also note Ruby's correction of Henry Wade regarding the FPCC).

Standing before Ruby, and the world, was a confessed Marxist, a communist sympathizer, and the accused murderer of a police officer and the president of the United States. But Ruby's actions suggest something quite different. Immediately following the press conference Ruby goes on a lengthy, manic search for evidence of involvement by the far-right, more specifically the John Birch Society. Why?

Why is Ruby on the one hand so quick to help establish Oswald's ties to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, yet at the same time so quick to seemingly dismiss him as the president's lone assassin?

What possible connection could there have been between a man with Oswald's background and the far-right, and what prompted Ruby to make such a connection?

During Ruby's Warren Commission testimony not only did he name the John Birch Society as the source for his reluctance to tell his entire story, he also named Edwin Walker as being at the top of that organization.

What did Ruby know that could have brought violence against him or his family members? And more importantly, what did Oswald know that made it imperative for Ruby to silence him?

Edited October 25, 2016 by Craig Carvalho

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

If the Far Right and Walker killed Kennedy, then why has the CIA in particular and US Government in general been hiding the facts for more than 50 years? It makes no sense for the government to spend so much effort protecting a dead general. Or a live one for that matter.

Sandy,

It's part of the urban legend of the CIA-did-it CT that the CIA has been "hiding the facts for more than 50 years."

In actual fact -- the Entire US Government has been "hiding the facts for more than 50 years."

It's just easier to blame the CIA because the CIA is more openly committed to secrecy, just because the CIA deals with International conflicts -- involving spies who are so often killed, and so on.

That way, the CIA-did-it CTers can claim that their lack of evidence is their strongest evidence.

It's just too pat.

IMHO, we will find on Thursday 26 October 2017 that the CIA high-command was taken by surprise by the JFK assassination. It was only a few rogues inside the CIA that played along with the Civilian plot to murder JFK, which was centered in Dallas, with tentacles in New Orleans and Miami.

But the JFK Cover-up was not conducted by the JFK Kill-Team, anyway. In fact, the JFK Cover-up foiled the JFK Kill-Team.

The origin of the JFK Cover-up begins with J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. They started the Lone Nut urban legend on 11/22/1963. This was in immediate response to the Dallas legend that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist, and that therefore the JFK murder was a Communist plot.

It was always the FBI which has led the JFK Cover-up. Not the CIA. The CIA just stands around with its lips sealed. That's no proof of anything -- but to the CIA-did-it CTers, that's their main proof.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 25, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Jim Hargrove]

It was always the FBI which has led the JFK Cover-up. Not the CIA. The CIA just stands around with its lips sealed. That's no proof of anything -- but to the CIA-did-it CTers, that's their main proof.

The FBI certainly played the pivotal role in the cover-up, but powerful members of the CIA used all the power and privilege of the National Security State to hide the simple facts that by 1963 they were in open rebellion against the Kennedy Administration, had designed and executed the assassination of JFK, had set up their own operative as the fall guy, and eventually lied to, manipulated and misled every subsequent investigation of their crimes.

[Paul Trejo]

The FBI certainly played the pivotal role in the cover-up, but powerful members of the CIA used all the power and privilege of the National Security State to hide the simple facts that by 1963 they were in open rebellion against the Kennedy Administration, had designed and executed the assassination of JFK, had set up their own operative as the fall guy, and eventually lied to, manipulated and misled every subsequent investigation of their crimes.

Jim,

At least we agree that the FBI played the pivotal role in the JFK Cover-up.

Again -- it wasn't just the CIA that used all its power to back the JFK Cover-up started by J. Edgar Hoover -- rather, it was the entire US Government.

Again -- it's too easy to blame the CIA, because the CIA never fights back, because they never say anything, ever.

The FBI is the heart of the JFK Cover-up. This is what led the great Sylvia Meagher to exclaim that the FBI amounted to Accessories After the Fact (1967). It was a brilliant analysis in 1967, but it still fell short.

The temptation to blame Hoover for the JFK Murder (instead of just the JFK Cover-up) is that Hoover knew almost instantly who Lee Harvey Oswald was, and acted before the afternoon was over to pin the entire JFK assassination on Oswald alone.

Yet the ballistics evidence alone would demand, at the very least, that Oswald was never alone (if he fired his rifle at all that day).

So, yes, the FBI framed Lee Harvey Oswald with great prejudice -- but that doesn't mean (as the pundits have said since 1965) that the FBI was helping the JFK Kill Team. On the contrary -- the FBI had foiled the JFK Kill Team by preventing them from attaining their main goal -- which was to blame Fidel Castro and the Communists for the JFK Murder.

The whole point of the "Lone Nut" fiction was to foil the Dallas/Mexico promotion of the "Communist Plot" fiction.

In this fiction, J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI were entirely successful -- and it was, as Hoover and the entire US Government always claimed, a fiction justified by National Security.

The historical dialectic is that Hoover and the FBI were heroes -- even though they promoted the "Lone Nut" fiction.

That's the actual history, IMHO. That's what American historians are going to be writing in 2063.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 26, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Craig - you asked some good questions. What answers would you give? I'm having trouble connecting your opening statement about the Mafia with the questions later in your post.

[Sandy Larsen]

Paul,

If the Far Right and Walker killed Kennedy, then why has the CIA in particular and US Government in general been hiding the facts for more than 50 years? It makes no sense for the government to spend so much effort protecting a dead general. Or a live one for that matter.

Sandy,

It's part of the urban legend of the CIA-did-it CT that the CIA has been "hiding the facts for more than 50 years."

In actual fact -- the Entire US Government has been "hiding the facts for more than 50 years."

....

As I said, the U.S. government wouldn't spend so much time and effort protecting a general.

The perps IMO had to be either the CIA, the Military, or Vice President Johnson (as I pointed out in my earlier post.). If you're right about it not being the CIA, that leaves the Military and V.P. Johnson.

Had General Walker been the perpetrator, we all would have learned about it decades ago. No need to keep that a secret.

[Harry J.Dean]

THE TERRIBLE POWER STRUGGLE

Rumblings 1958

Subversive power activities

Assassination 1963

Subversives seize U.S. power

Frame fall-guy

Protect power activists

Dead few found involved 2017

[Jim Hargrove]

Again -- it's too easy to blame the CIA, because the CIA never fights back, because they never say anything, ever.

CIA people often don’t have to fight back or talk. They have a near endless supply of elite media assets to do their fighting and talking for them.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."

--William Colby, former CIA Director, cited by Dave Mcgowan, Derailing Democracy

"You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month."

--CIA operative, discussing the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. Katherine the Great, by Deborah Davis

"There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level."

--William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein

"The Agency's relationship with [The New York] Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. [it was] general Times policy ... to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible."

--The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein

"Senator William Proxmire has pegged the number of employees of the federal intelligence community at 148,000 ... though Proxmire's number is itself a conservative one. The "intelligence community" is officially defined as including only those organizations that are members of the U.S. Intelligence Board (USIB); a dozen other agencies, charged with both foreign and domestic intelligence chores, are not encompassed by the term.... The number of intelligence workers employed by the federal government is not 148,000, but some undetermined multiple of that number."

--Jim Hougan, Spooks

"For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government.... I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations."

--former President Harry Truman, 22 December 1963, one month to the day after the JFK assassination, op-ed section of the Washington Post, early edition

--Above from mtracy9.tripod.com/cia_instructions.htm

To see the infamous CIA document dated 4/1/1967 about how to counter criticism of the Warren Commission, CLICK HERE.