Sylvia Odio, Lee Harvey Oswald and Harry Dean

[Glenn Nall]

22 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Chris,

Name one other suspect named by Jim Garrison or Joan Mellen who was clearly a CIA Agent.

Not Guy Banister.  Not David Ferrie.  Not Jack S. Martin.  Not Thomas Beckham.  Not Carlos Bringuier.  Not Eladio Del Valle. Not Loran Hall.  Not Larry Howard.  Not Gerry Patrick Hemming.  Not Johnny Martino.  Not Jack Ruby.  Not Fred Crisman.  Not Carlos Marcello.

Even Clay Shaw was at best a CIA informant -- which is not the same as a CIA Agent.

The common element of all the suspects named by both Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen in the past 50 years is their participation in plots to assassinate Fidel Castro.

Starting with Jim Garrison (who otherwise made great contributions) a common error thread runs throughout 50 years of the JFK CT literature -- namely -- that virtually everybody involved in Fidel Castro assassination plots at 544 Camp Street, was also involved in the JFK assassination plot.

The only honest way to link the CIA with the JFK assassination is to blur the line of distinction between the two plots -- then the case can be made.  But once we distinguish between Fidel plotters and JFK plotters -- then the CIA-did-it CT breaks down.  

Also, once we distinguish between CIA Agents and CIA mercenaries, the CIA-did-it CT breaks down to nothing; we are left with only CIA rogues (Morales and Hunt).   Period.

Garrison and Mellen are authorities on New Orleans and 544 Camp Street.  It stops there.  They knew next to NOTHING about the Dallas plot, IMHO

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul.

There IS NO "the CIA did it" conspiracy theory.

no one in their right mind proposes that McCone "did it."

you're skewering windmills, dude.

 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Glenn:

He is full of it anyway.  The cover story about Shaw was first, he never worked for the CIA.  This is the BS he spewed to willing harlots in the media like James Phelan and they printed it.

The second stage of the cover up was the "oh well, he was simply a business class informant".  And that was what other CIA flunkies like Blakey used for the HSCA.

Well, due the decalcification process, two documents came out which smashed the cover  up.  First, it was revealed that Shaw was issued  a covert security clearance. Second, through the CIA historical review program, the Agency let slip many years later that Shaw was a highly paid, valuable contract agent for them for a number of years.

Now, after the CIA let that slip, the Agency then shut down that program!  That is how touchy they are about the subject of their cover up of who Clay Shaw really was.

And BTW, I have it from a source who was close to Dulles, that the CIA started this cover up about Clay Shaw very early after the JFK assassination.  It was done through a guy named Howard Osborne.  

But people like Trejo are willing dupes for this disinformation, and they never get upset at being lied to.

Edited December 10, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Glenn Nall]

26 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Glenn:

He is full of it anyway.  The cover story about Shaw was first, he never worked for the CIA.  This is the BS he spewed to willing harlots in the media like James Phelan and they printed it.

The second stage of the cover up was the "oh well, he was simply a business class informant".  And that was what other CIA flunkies like Blakey used for the HSCA.

Well, due the decalcification process, two documents came out which smashed the cover  up.  First, it was revealed that Shaw a covert security clearance. Second, through the CIA historical review program, the Agency let slip many years later that Shaw was a highly paid, valuable contract agent for them for a number of years.

Now, after the CIA let that slip, the Agency then shut down that program!  That is how touchy they are about the subject of their cover up of who Clay Shaw really was.

And BTW, I have it from a source who was close to Dulles, that the CIA started this cover up about Clay Shaw very early after the JFK assassination.  It was done through a guy named Howard Osborne.  

But people like Trejo are willing dupes for this disinformation, and they never get upset at being lied to.

in some ways they rely on being lied to.

i've made legitimate and answerable charges to which he's responded none whatsoever. 'nuff said.

right?

just don't we effin' dare call Frank Sturgis an agent. 

egads. blows the whole "CIA did it" CT.

i knew a "CIA did it" CTer once. He read a lot of L Ron Hubbard and James Patterson. and worked at KFC.

[James DiEugenio]

I went back and looked.

Phillips was a CIA agent?

LOL ROTF

[Paul Trejo]

On 12/8/2016 at 11:10 PM, Larry Hancock said:

Glen, absolutely Hunt was trusted with a lot of money and with some key political action jobs. He was old cadre with the agency and was internally valued for his spy novels which some of the senior guys felt were good PR for the Agency (you even find that mentioned in documents).  Not trying to underplay his position at all, just to define it. Hunt had actually run the Mexico City station early in its history but he did have a habit of annoying people he didn't like and that didn't last long.  If  you liked his politics and he liked yours it was all good but he was opinionated enough to actually take himself out of his job on the Cuba project just before the BOP and Phillips had to pick up his duties for him.  Definitely a man with strong opinions and a good opinion of himself as well - probably better than his actual job performance justified but he seems to have been sincere and quite convincing.

Larry,

The key to CIA agent E. Howard Hunt today is that Hunt left his son (and now the public) his tape recorded confession of his role in the JFK assassination.   It is one of the most important documents in US History.

There is no more need to belabor the point -- contrary to Vincent Bugliosi and his cause -- we have absolute confirmation of a JFK conspiracy, and a guarantee of one of the accomplices in the JFK conspiracy, namely, E. Howard Hunt. 

To Hunt's name we can add his close associate and mercenary, Frank Sturgis, who not only publicly confessed to a role in the JFK assassination, but openly boasted about it.

Others who confessed in some form or other include several other mercenaries: Johnny Marinto, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Tommy Beckham, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Roscoe White, and others.  They were all related to Lee Harvey Oswald at 544 Camp Street in New Orleans.

The context of their original meeting there (and we can include Hunt, Sturgis, and even David Morales in this) was the assassination of Fidel Castro.  That context gradually morphed for these individuals (and not necessarily for all denizens of 544 Camp Street) into a JFK plot.  The people named here actually did confess (to Garrison, to Mellen, to Weberman, or to a family member) of some role in the JFK assassination. 

Thanks to E. Howard Hunt, it is no longer a quesion of whether there was a JFK assassination conspiracy -- but only about Ground Crew and the details.  Like LHO said, "I'm just a Patsy."

This is the greatest murder mystery in America, IMHO, and E. Howard Hunt provided the decisive clue.

Loran Hall is the man in the list above who links Howard Hunt to this thread, because Loran Hall confessed to the FBI that he was the man at Sylvia Odio's doorstep during the final week of September 1963, with "Leon Oswald" at his side.  Harry Dean in California watched as Loran Hall received his orders to deliver Lee Harvey Oswald to Mexico City, and even helped Loran Hall fill his trailer with paramilitary supplies.  So, two eye-witnesses to this drama are still with us today.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 10, 2016 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, as I said earlier - much earlier - in previous threads, I have spoken to and heard the lengthy stories of the two men who worked with Hunt trying to get his story (with a very real offer of a million dollars) for two years before his son even became involved.  Their efforts were fruitless and the only thing he ever actually produced after much pressure and when it became clear that they were not going to back a book from him was a simple flow chart which he later relayed to his son during the taped conversation. I'm not going to belabor it further, anyone interested in more detail can contact me privately.  

We have been over all this ground over and over before and I have no interest in trying to sway you from your beliefs.  I'm constantly surprised that others try to engage you on it since this same dialog has been going on for years now.  If you are happy with your story that's fine with me, evangelize at will.  

Personally I wish you a Happy Holidays but I won't be posting to this thread any further and actually I was only responding to Glen in the first place.

 

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

Paul, as I said earlier - much earlier - in previous threads, I have spoken to and heard the lengthy stories of the two men who worked with Hunt trying to get his story (with a very real offer of a million dollars) for two years before his son even became involved.  Their efforts were fruitless and the only thing he ever actually produced after much pressure and when it became clear that they were not going to back a book from him was a simple flow chart which he later relayed to his son during the taped conversation. I'm not going to belabor it further, anyone interested in more detail can contact me privately.  

We have been over all this ground over and over before and I have no interest in trying to sway you from your beliefs.  I'm constantly surprised that others try to engage you on it since this same dialog has been going on for years now.  If you are happy with your story that's fine with me, evangelize at will.  

Personally I wish you a Happy Holidays but I won't be posting to this thread any further and actually I was only responding to Glen in the first place.

Larry,

That's all fine.  Yes, you were only responding to Glen, but you responded publicly, so that opened it.

As for E. Howard Hunt, his confession to his role in the JFK assassination is US History -- it is profoundly public.

As for his account, there are many problems with it, and we should not accept it at face value.  Hunt's famous flowchart, for example, places LBJ at the top of the chart, and so suggests to many readers that LBJ must have been the source of the JFK murder plot.

But that is not what E. Howard Hunt said -- he only placed LBJ at the top of his flowchart.  Period.  My interpretation is this: a CIA agent cannot exist without a President, and here was a CIA agent involved in a plot to assassinate the President -- an obvious act of Treason.

Yet how can a person confess to Treason -- to his own son?  So, IMHO, Howard Hunt forged in his own mind the fantasy that LBJ was his real President, and that he, Hunt, was acting in a manner loyal to the US President.

It was a fantasy -- not a reality -- and it was a fantasy based on the profound shame of being a traitor to the USA, which he had sworn to protect and defend.  It was a confession of shame, ultimately, with an effort to make a scapegoat of LBJ.   That's my reading of it.

Howard Hunt was not the only CIA agent to confess to the JFK assassination plot.  We must also add the confession of CIA agent David Morales to his friend, Ruben Carbajal.

However, after those two CIA agents, after a half-century, we draw a blank.  We have many other confessors, but they were all mercenaries and not CIA agents.

One of those mercenaries was Loran Hall.  Loran Hall links the Howard Hunt saga back to the theme of this thread: Sylvia Odio and Harry Dean.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS,
--Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

44 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Larry,

That's all fine.  Yes, you were only responding to Glen, but you responded publicly, so that opened it.

As for E. Howard Hunt, his confession to his role in the JFK assassination is US History -- it is profoundly public.

As for his account, there are many problems with it, and we should not accept it at face value.  Hunt's famous flowchart, for example, places LBJ at the top of the chart, and so suggests to many readers that LBJ must have been the source of the JFK murder plot.

But that is not what E. Howard Hunt said -- he only placed LBJ at the top of his flowchart.  Period.  My interpretation is this: a CIA agent cannot exist without a President, and here was a CIA agent involved in a plot to assassinate the President -- an obvious act of Treason.

Yet how can a person confess to Treason -- to his own son?  So, IMHO, Howard Hunt forged in his own mind the fantasy that LBJ was his real President, and that he, Hunt, was acting in a manner loyal to the US President.

It was a fantasy -- not a reality -- and it was a fantasy based on the profound shame of being a traitor to the USA, which he had sworn to protect and defend.  It was a confession of shame, ultimately, with an effort to make a scapegoat of LBJ.   That's my reading of it.

Howard Hunt was not the only CIA agent to confess to the JFK assassination plot.  We must also add the confession of CIA agent David Morales to his friend, Ruben Carbajal.

However, after those two CIA agents, after a half-century, we draw a blank.  We have many other confessors, but they were all mercenaries and not CIA agents.

One of those mercenaries was Loran Hall.  Loran Hall links the Howard Hunt saga back to the theme of this thread: Sylvia Odio and Harry Dean.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS,
--Paul Trejo

that's your interpretation, huh.

mmm...

 

doesn't it suck when inconveniences get in the way of perfectly enjoyable theories...?

[Paul Trejo]

On 12/8/2016 at 10:17 PM, Chris Newton said:

First off, Lee Harvey Oswald did not confess.

Secondly, you are playing fast and loose with the terminology. There are assets, agents, contract agents, staff agents, staff employees and officers. Several of the people you mention above can be placed in several categories depending on the era in question. None of the people you mention are CIA Officers but there were a few who confessed to having a role in JFK's assassination, and one who was very public about it.

And here, once again you want to have your cake and eat it too. In your opinion, Phillips was confessing to a role in a conspiracy, whether you want to call it a conspiracy or not, doesn't matter, that's what it was. I think it's a classless move and he should have been called out for it.

...You bring up Larry and Dick, last time I checked they weren't on the same bandwagon as you.

Chris,

By the numbers:

(1) It is well known that LHO shouted out to the world press, "I'm just a Patsy!"    That is a confession, in my book.  Nobody can be a Patsy without a Group of Conspirators to make that person a Patsy.  LHO knew his accomplices.  Gerry Patrick Hemming told AJ Weberman that he coaxed LHO to bring his rifle to the TSBD on Friday 11/22/1963, and hand it over to someone.  LHO refused to cooperate with the DPD while in custody, and kept playing the Red card, asking for John Abt to be his lawyer.  To the bitter end, LHO chose to cooperate with his Accomplices, hoping against hope. 

(2) I'm not playing fast and loose with the terminology, but others here are.  They want to say that a CIA Agent is anybody they want -- including mercenaries.  It's not right.

(3) David Atlee Phillips did indeed confess to a role in a conspiracy -- the conspiracy to assassinate Fidel Castro.  I take that as a historical fact.  Nobody denies that the CIA was involved in international conspiracies and intrigue up to their necks.  That's not the issue. The only issue is the JFK assassination and the actual evidence in hand.

(3.1) We have only two CIA Agents who confessed to a role in the JFK assassination:  Hunt and Morales.  Everything else is just guesswork on the part of the CIA-did-it cottage industry.  Bill Simpich dashes that guesswork to pieces.

(4) I realize that Larry Hancock and Dick Russell do not subscribe to my Walker-did-it CT.  I never said they did.  I do cite them, however, because they sometimes come up with great research that can be used to support a Walker-did-it CT.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 10, 2016 by Paul Trejo
emphasis.

[James DiEugenio]

I don't even think Trejo knows what Larry is talking about.  But that is OK with him isn't it? Even if it goes to the heart of what the whole Hunt imbroglio is all about, and it undermines its authenticity.

But for the record, I also understand thoroughly what Larry is talking about since I heard it from a primary source.  And it does not reflect well on the ultimate published result.  In fact, it makes it kind of worthless.

Phillips did confess to being in Dallas on the day of the assassination. (Destiny Betrayed, p. 364, Second Edition)  Maybe Paul thinks he was there for a Cowboys game, except the Cowboys were out of town that weekend.

And anyone who can call Phillips a CIA agent is most definitely playing fast and loose with terminology.

Trejo can be so irrational, so perverse in his logic, that he simply drives people off a thread.  Why he has been allowed to do this kind of thing for so long and still be here, that escapes me.

 

[Paul Trejo]

14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I don't even think Trejo knows what Larry is talking about.  But that is OK with him isn't it? Even if it goes to the heart of what the whole Hunt imbroglio is all about, and it undermines its authenticity.

But for the record, I also understand thoroughly what Larry is talking about since I heard it from a primary source.  And it does not reflect well on the ultimate published result.  In fact, it makes it kind of worthless.

Phillips did confess to being in Dallas on the day of the assassination. (Destiny Betrayed, p. 364, Second Edition)  Maybe Paul thinks he was there for a Cowboys game, except the Cowboys were out of town that weekend.

And anyone who can call Phillips a CIA agent is most definitely playing fast and loose with terminology.

Trejo can be so irrational, so perverse in his logic, that he simply drives people off a thread.  Why he has been allowed to do this kind of thing for so long and still be here, that escapes me.

James,

Your sarcastic style can play against your case, actually.   Larry Hancock and I had an extended thread about his book, "Someone Would Have Talked" (2007) on this FORUM years ago in which I showed that I did grasp his points, detail by detail, and I also learned a lot about Larry Hancock's nuanced opinions about which CIA Agents really were, and really were not involved in the JFK assassination.   

I have learned from Larry Hancock.   For example, I used to believe (like Oliver Stone) that General Edward Lansdale was part of the JFK plot, largely because Colonel Fletcher Prouty suspects him, and insists that it was Lansdale walking with the Three Tramps in Dealey Plaza.  That's strong evidence in my opinion.   Lansdale was there.

But Larry Hancock refuted that opinion.  Larry argued, on the contrary, the likelihood that Lansdale was in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963 in order to investigate rumors that a JFK assassination plot was in play.there.

That was quite an eye-opener for me.  Yet Larry's logic, and Larry's historical background in the personality of General Lansdale, were scholarly and impressive.  I changed my thinking on that score.  I no longer accuse General Lansdale of participation in the JFK murder -- just because he was involved with the CIA and present at Dealey Plaza.  It's jumping to conclusions -- which is what the CIA-did-it paradigm has been built upon.for 50 years.

In exactly the same way -- within your book, 'Destiny Betrayed (2nd edition)" I have found so many flaws in its logic (re: Ruth Paine), that I automatically doubt its validity.  On page 364 of your book, James, you cite the rumor that the last call between David Atlee Phillips and his brother consisted of his brother asking whether DAP was in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963, and DAP admitted that he was there, along with the rumor that "he wept," for that melodramatic touch.

Yet the same logic applies from Larry Hancock -- just the fact that a high-ranking CIA operative was in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963 cannot be used to jump to a conclusion that he was there to murder JFK.   It's wrong in the case of General Lansdale -- it's wrong in the case of David Atlee Phillips.

The CIA-did-it CT continues to jump to conclusions, and has failed to prove its case after fifty long years of trying.   Game Over.

By the way -- the reason that Larry Hancock and I disagree sharply on the JFK assassination, is that while we both say that the JFK conspirators had to have a strong representative in Dallas to coordinate the local conspirators, I say General Walker is the best candidate for that, while Larry said that Jack Ruby was the best candidate.

As Larry put it, General Walker was a 'crazy old man' and Jack Ruby was at least capable of delivering messages.   

My argument is that General Walker was beloved and honored by the Radical Right in 1963, was the leader of his own Minuteman cadre, his own John Birch Society Chapter, an active speaker in the White Citizens Council organizations throughout the South, and was regularly making speeches at rallies all across Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. By contrast, I argue, Jack Ruby was a pimp, immersed in the underworld, and was desperate to keep on the good side of the Dallas police.  Jack Ruby was unreliable as a political organizer.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 11, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

Paul:

This points to your obtuseness.  Which,  as with Tom Scully, I am beginning to think is deliberate.

I was not talking about Larry's book.  He was talking about the whole original version of the so called Howard Hunt confession.  The dead giveaway for anyone but  you is this:

Even if it goes to the heart of what the whole Hunt imbroglio is all about, and it undermines its authenticity.

Larry had access to a primary source.  I had even more personal access to this source.  What Larry is saying is that the original form did not resemble the final version. And I can back that up through my contacts with this source.  Larry is correct and you do not know of what you speak.

UNDERSTAND PAULIE!  Or as they say in Italy, CAPISCE?

And Walker was not even in Dallas on the 22nd Paulie.

As per Paulie's taste in books, just read my review of the Caufield travesty.  Its probably the worst book on the JFK case since Ultimate Sacrifice. 

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/caufield-jeffrey-h-m-d-general-walker-and-the-murder-of-president-kennedy

And Paulie was quoting whole chapters of it on this site at length like it was the gospel truth!!

 LOL  ROTF

So your powers of  critical analysis leave much to be desired.

 

 

[Glenn Nall]

57 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

This points to your obtuseness.  Which,  as with Tom Scully, I am beginning to think is deliberate.

I was not talking about Larry's book.  He was talking about the whole original version of the so called Howard Hunt confession.  The dead giveaway for anyone but  you is this:

Even if it goes to the heart of what the whole Hunt imbroglio is all about, and it undermines its authenticity.

Larry had access to a primary source.  I had even more personal access to this source.  What Larry is saying is that the original form did not resemble the final version. And I can back that up through my contacts with this source.  Larry is correct and you do not know of what you speak.

UNDERSTAND PAULIE!  Or as they say in Italy, CAPISCE?

And Walker was not even in Dallas on the 22nd Paulie.

As per Paulie's taste in books, just read my review of the Caufield travesty.  Its probably the worst book on the JFK case since Ultimate Sacrifice. 

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/caufield-jeffrey-h-m-d-general-walker-and-the-murder-of-president-kennedy

And Paulie was quoting whole chapters of it on this site at length like it was the gospel truth!!

 LOL  ROTF

So your powers of  critical analysis leave much to be desired.

 

 

Strictly in the interests of objectivity, James - with NO malice intended - in support of your own claims you cite your own review of Caufield's "travesty" as the standard against which Paul's references to it leave "much to be desired?"

so one is to glean from your argument that that your review of this book is inarguable? 

[Paul Trejo]

James,

Your insulting manner does not help your case, but actually weakens it.  If you had strong arguments you'd use those.

You claim that Larry Hancock doubts the authenticity of the Howard Hunt confession.  Yet anybody can see it on YouTube today, and it's 100% obvious to the casual observer that Howard Hunt is confessing to a "sidelines role" in the JFK murder.

You claim  that Larry and you have other "sources" -- but that doesn't matter. The most primary source is Howard Hunt himself, and his video of himself, confessing his role in the JFK assasination is undeniable, historical fact.

Now, that doesn't mean that every word he said about OTHERS is true -- but it is undeniable that Howard Hunt confessed that HE HIMSELF was a party to it.   That's history.

Now, you claim to have a "secret source" and you claim that Larry Hanock has a "secret source" and I say that is nothing but CT mysticism.   As if only the secret mystics can know the mystical truth.   Balderdash.  Let me hear Larry himself say he has a secret source that cancels the authenticity of Howard Hunt's personal confession in the JFK assassination.

You are speaking for Larry Hancock here, and I really doubt that you have the altitude for that. 

As for Walker, he was not in Dallas on 11/22/1963, but Walker wasn't in Dallas on 10/24/1963, either, when Adlai Stevenson was humiliated, yet Walker admitted that he was the leader of the Adlai plot (Cravens, 1992).  Walker was a US General, for heaven's sake, and he could lay plans with the best of them, and let his men follow his orders.  Capisce?

Finally, James, your weak review of Dr. Jeff Caufield's brilliant book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy (2015) gets no support from any scholar.  You're only defending your own failed CIA-did-it CT.

As for Caufield, I believe he is 90% correct -- and his CT is better than any CIA-did-it, Mafia-did-it or LBJ-did-it CT that ever appeared in the past 50 years.   It's only 10% of Caufield (the "false flag" part) that I doubt.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 11, 2016 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Paul Trejo]

44 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

DUPLICATE

 

Edited December 11, 2016 by Paul Trejo