Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

[Ernie Lazar]

10 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Paul,

I appreciate the kind words but I really don't want any recognition or praise.  I want the truth and I want those with new ideas to support what they think with evidence.  That's all.  Ernie Lazar and DiEugenio and Garrison and several others have contributed to our knowledge and deserve recognition; I disagree with all of them to some extent, but I appreciate their work.  I have zero appreciation nor tolerance for their ego and unquenchable desire for admiration - these days they prefer adoring respect and public worship more than they prefer the truth.  Their first purpose is to defend themselves, their ego, and fragile identity as an "expert," even if it means sacrificing the evidence and obscuring the true identity of Kennedy's killers.

 

Jason

Apparently, according to YOUR criteria (which is shared by Paul Trejo), your first sentence declaring that you don't want any recognition or praise is violated and disproven by your earlier introduction of yourself as follows:

"I do work for the Mary Ferrell Foundation and I'm in the history department of a major university."

THEN -- to make it absolutely clear how grandiosely you view yourself, you wrote:

"By the end of this day, after I've eaten dinner and put my kids to bed, I will show you what a researcher is versus what you are: an opinion peddler.  I am the only one in this thread who ever posts any primary sources whatsoever and you are soon to be revealed as almost entirely free of knowledge on Hoover's surveillance of Walker."

So -- how do we recognize a real expert -- who is deserving of our respect and careful consideration of what he (or she) has to say?   

Fortunately, Jason has clearly answered that question for us:

"No one who is an expert has to insult others for fear of us proving you are in fact an expert at nothing."

And then Jason carefully illustrates what prudent, sober, and "expert" commentary looks like -- as follows:

"This is a retarded joke. Where are the documents or primary sources to support your laughable opinions?"

"As far as I can see, you are an expert at nothing except peddling opinion."   

"As usual, the laziness of someone who has zero interest nor apparent ability to do basic research is appalling."

"There will, as usual, be no evidence provided here by this yet another fact-free creative fiction enthusiast, proud and belligerent FBI "expert" Ernie Lazar."

 

Edited October 23, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

48 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

(1)  In what specific ways do you maintain that the FBI "monitored" Walker?  Please be specific.  

(2)  How do you distinguish between passive acceptance of incoming information about Walker (from whatever source it originated) versus taking active measures?   Why would a case agent recommend that a file be closed on somebody if (as you claim) the FBI was "monitoring" Walker?  And what, exactly, was the "monitoring" (i.e. keeping someone under systematic review) designed to accomplish with respect to Walker?

Ernie,

You aren't paying attention -- Jason says that his research methods have uncovered THOUSANDS of FBI records on Ex-General Edwin Walker.

The next step -- in my humble opinion -- is to cull these records to obtain those which FBI agent James Hosty claims that he made in 1963 when monitoring "General Walker and his Dallas Minutemen" (Hosty, Assigment Oswald, 1996, p. 4).

Then every word he said about you will be proven to be true, and all your nonsense can finally be laid to rest.

If only he had more help -- instead of all these nay-sayers in the bleachers.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited October 23, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Ernie Lazar]

44 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

You aren't paying attention -- Jason says that his research methods have uncovered THOUSANDS of FBI files on General Walker.

The next step -- in my humble opinion -- is to cull these records to locate those which FBI agent James Hosty claims that he made in 1963 when monitoring "General Walker and his Dallas Minutemen" (Hosty, Assigment Oswald, 1996, p. 4).

Then every word he said about you will be proven to be true, and all your nonsense can finally be laid to rest.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

1.  As usual Paul - you can't even use correct terminology.   There are not "THOUSANDS of FBI files" pertaining to Walker.  What you probably meant to write, is that there are "thousands of serials" pertaining to Walker -- but even that is NOT entirely accurate.

2.  HQ main files re: Walker -- there are four

HQ 9-41583; HQ 9-41686, HQ 116-165494; and HQ 163-11998

The files whose prefix is "9" refer to files created to investigate threats against someone including extortion, kidnapping or any threat of injuring someone.

The 116-prefix file was originally opened (in 1950) as an "Atomic Energy Act Applicant file" -- but it was subsequently used to capture all other information pertaining to Walker - especially during and after the 1962 incident at Univ. of Mississippi

The 163-prefix file refers to a classification which deals with "Foreign Police Cooperation" -- i.e. some matter which originates with a request from a foreign government such as a police or intelligence agency

3.  DALLAS main file re: Walker

There was one Dallas main file re: Walker - namely Dallas 157-718. 

The 157-prefix files refer to the FBI classification for Domestic Security cases.  Originally, this classification was called "Racial Matters/Bombing Matters" and it focused upon the Klan.  During the early 1960's this file classification changed to incorporate threats against racial, religious or educational institutions and attacks upon civil rights workers -- as well as cases involving right-wing extremists (such as American Nazi Party or other hate groups).  Later, this file also included cases on the Black Panthers or similar radical groups.  [Usually, the 157-series files contain the most interesting (and potentially actionable) information regarding some person or organization.]

4.  CROSS REFERENCES RE: WALKER

THEN there are hundreds of "cross-references" pertaining to Walker.  A "cross reference" is a mention of a subject matter or of a personal name in a file on another individual, organization, event, activity, etc.   Examples:  a file on the Minutemen might include a reference to Walker or a file on some Klan or White Citizens Council unit could include one or more references to Walker speaking at such events .   [Note: a cross-reference can be nothing more than a mention of some person in a single sentence of what is a lengthy memo or report.  That is exactly what happened with several cross-references in Harry Dean's files.  And, in Harry's case, many of those cross-references were not even about our Harry Dean -- but about some other person with the same name!]

You may see all cross-references regarding Walker through May 1967 in the following 47-page Correlation Summary on him:

https://archive.org/details/foia_Walker_Edwin_A.-HQ_Correlation_Summaries

5.  EXTREME CAUTION

Keep in mind that a reference in an FBI file often refers to unverified raw information received. 

Raw information can be true, false, rumor, hearsay, speculation, half-truth or exaggerated.   Consequently, anything which Hosty might report in his book is not necessarily accurate and truthful or factual.  All FBI Agents sign non-disclosure agreements which means they cannot legally disclose information from FBI investigations or files.  In many cases, former FBI Agents have lied about what they claim to know from their employment -- because they wanted to inflate their own credentials OR they wanted to divert attention from, or minimize, their own failures and mistakes.    And, of course, some Agents (and senior officials) lied to protect the reputation of the Bureau.

One of YOUR problems -- as I have pointed out several times -- is that you accept EVERYTHING you see on a printed page -- as long as it conforms to what you already want to believe.  You don't have the remotest clue if anything which Hosty reports is true or not.  You use him (and Swearingen and Adams) only because you think they can support something you already believe.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

53 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

You aren't paying attention -- Jason says that his research methods have uncovered THOUSANDS of FBI files on General Walker.

The next step -- in my humble opinion -- is to cull these records to locate those which FBI agent James Hosty claims that he made in 1963 when monitoring "General Walker and his Dallas Minutemen" (Hosty, Assigment Oswald, 1996, p. 4).

Then every word he said about you will be proven to be true, and all your nonsense can finally be laid to rest.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

I still repeat my challenge to you.   Please be specific about what ways you think the FBI "monitored" Walker and, more importantly, what (exactly) did the FBI want to achieve by their "monitoring" or "tracking" or "watching" him?

One last question for you:   Did the FBI ever arrest Edwin Walker OR even think about/consider arresting him?   If not -- then what was the purpose of their monitoring?

[Ernie Lazar]

On 10/20/2017 at 6:51 PM, Jason Ward said:

I wanted to comment separately about this excerpt from one of Jason's messages.

One of the problems we all confront when dealing with historical matters is that we must first agree upon how commonly used words in the English language are defined and applied.

Surely -- nobody here disagrees with me about that -- do you?  Not even Jason!

Would ANYBODY on this website accept the John Birch Society's use of the English language when THEY describe certain specific individuals and organizations as "subversive"?

"Subversion" has an informal or colloquial meaning BUT when a law enforcement entity uses that word, it is supposed to be exceptionally careful and prudent so that innocent people are not falsely accused of a very serious crime.  The legal definition of subversion is:  "a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working from within; the crime of committing acts in furtherance of such an attempt."

Fortunately, within our society, we do not rely upon inflammatory blow-torch rhetoric by political extremists to determine what is genuinely "subversive".  Instead, we have had several specific processes through which official determinations were made.  There was one process which our military used and another process used by our civilian intelligence agencies and both were subject to judicial review and standard rules of evidence and due process.

Among the entities used to determine whether or not some person or organization was engaged in "subversive" behavior were:  the Loyalty Review Board, the Subversive Activities Control Board, the Federal Employee Loyalty Program, -- and the U.S. Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations and Publications (which ended in 1974).

The comment by Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry was entirely malicious and totally irresponsible because the "Edwin A. Walker Group" was never listed as subversive (nor even investigated for making such a determination) nor was the John Birch Society ever listed (or even suspected) of being a "subversive" organization.  Nor was the Indignant White Citizens Council.

 

 

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Ernie Lazar said:

I still repeat my challenge to you.   Please be specific about what ways you think the FBI "monitored" Walker and, more importantly, what (exactly) did the FBI want to achieve by their "monitoring" or "tracking" or "watching" him?

One last question for you:   Did the FBI ever arrest Edwin Walker OR even think about/consider arresting him?   If not -- then what was the purpose of their monitoring?

Ernie,

The following is my opinion.

I take FBI agent James Hosty at his word when he says (Assignment Oswald, 1996) that he monitored Ex-General Walker in Dallas in 1963.   He also says at the same time that he monitored "General Walker's Dallas Minutemen" (or words to that effect).

Therefore, I will repeat my longtime thesis on this Forum -- General Walker along with the Radical Right in Dallas were watched by the FBI because of their ties to groups suspected of insurrection goals, insurrection plans and insurrection crimes.

The FBI was seeking cause to arrest General Walker -- but they never obtained that cause.  

My thinking is that Dallas FBI agent James Hosty was secretly supporting General Walker in Dallas through Walker's business manager, Robert Alan Surrey.  (Penn Jones Jr. reported that for many years James Hosty was the bridge partner of Robert Alan Surrey).

Robert Alan Surrey is the only WC witness to plead the 5th amendment.  He did so  about 2 dozen times, always in response to the same topic, the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbill, that appeared throughout Dallas -- not only on 11/22/1963, but also on 10/24/1963 -- the date in which UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson was humiliated in Dallas.

Before going to Dallas, the Secret Service PRS asked the Dallas FBI who had published the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbill.  James Hosty's answer: "We don't know."  The PRS repeated the question (IIRC), and James Hosty replied that he tried to find out, but nobody was talking.

THIS is why the FBI never got the goods on General Walker -- FBI agent James Hosty (in my humble opinion) was HIDING evidence from the FBI.

Nevertheless, James Hosty (IMHO) had to be filing SOMETHING about "General Walker and his Dallas Minutemen," because he alleges that this was his PRINCIPAL duty in the Dallas FBI.  So, we need to finally look at James Hosty's FBI records on General Walker -- at highest priority.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited October 23, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

2 hours ago, Ernie Lazar said:

One of YOUR problems -- as I have pointed out several times -- is that you accept EVERYTHING you see on a printed page -- as long as it conforms to what you already want to believe.  You don't have the remotest clue if anything which Hosty reports is true or not.  You use him (and Swearingen and Adams) only because you think they can support something you already believe.

Precisely.  And what he cannot find to buttress his arguments, he invents.  I repost the following from six weeks ago because Trejo lacked the nerve to respond.  Thus, escaping the ramifications of a message that soon wafted into the ether:

Here is the Trejo methodological fraud in high contrast:

QUOTE:

Paul Trejo is congenitally incapable of putting forth an honest argument; he merely invents things that are pleasing to him, then hopes he doesn’t get called out for his inventions.

This all started because Paul said Oswald’s fellow tenants called police to complain Oswald beat his wife.  It was a Trejo invention.  No such instance occurred, nor could Trejo provide proof that it had.  But then proof and truth are unnecessary in his protocols.

Then the accuser switched gears.  In the absence of tenants who called police, there were witnesses to Oswald beating his wife who DIDN’T call the police.

Per Trejo's fevered imagination, there were seven eye-witnesses to Oswald beating Marina, then it was 12 and then it ballooned to 19.  It was like witnessing a modern-day Joe McCarthy swelling the numbers of imaginary Communists in the state department; the number being fluid, so long as it kept heading upward.

19?

Surely, so many people must provide definitive proof that Oswald beat his wife.

Except that Trejo now wishes to rescind the bulk of the 19 as though he didn’t name them to begin with.  This, from last Wednesday in this thread:

“2.  The seven people I QUOTED were Eye-Witnesses ONLY.  That's why I neglected all the others.   (RC Dunne named 12 non-eye-witnesses, wasting our time, plus he omitted Marguerite).

Tidy.  Except it wasn’t me who omitted Oswald’s mother.  Paul Trejo neglected to include her on HIS list of 19 witnesses.

It is also a blatant falsehood that I invented a dozen unimportant witnesses to “waste our time.”   As even the least literate among us could perceive had they only done what Trejo didn’t: remember to read the very intro to my original takedown of his so called “witnesses.”  It can be found on the first page of this thread:

“Just to bring this thread back to the topic on which it started, Paul Trejo has now had some days to provide what he claims to have in abundance, the witness testimony that Lee Oswald beat his wife.  With nineteen people cited, he should have had little difficulty in doing so, yet his streak of failing to provide compelling evidence for his contentions continues unblemished.  In fact, he now seems to deny that the onus of providing proof for his contentions resides with him.  It is now our job to do his homework for him.

Instead, Paul has given us a list of people who presumably testified to that effect, and the Commission volume in which it could be located, but not the testimony itself.  This is akin to a lawyer standing up in court, naming the nineteen witnesses who have critical information, listing their addresses, yet then failing to call any one of them to the stand.”

It is because Trejo named 19 witnesses, without troubling himself to recount what they had testified to, that I took the testimony of each and rubbed Trejo’s face in the testimony they did NOT provide.

Now he’d like to deny having proffered those witnesses, for reasons even the slowest Forum member could discern..

The man is as dishonest as he is ill-equipped to debate with others here.

That such undiluted idiocy still appears here only diminishes the stature of the Forum.

Edited September 12 by Robert Charles-Dunne

END QUOTE

Why do people waste their time daily in debating a bag of hot air who has contributed zero toward our common goals?

 

 

Edited October 23, 2017 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Ernie Lazar]

44 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Therefore, I will repeat my longtime thesis on this Forum -- General Walker along with the Radical Right in Dallas were watched by the FBI because of their ties to groups suspected of insurrection goals, insurrection plans and insurrection crimes

The problem with your "thesis" is that after the 1962 incident, the FBI never found evidence that Walker was working with persons and groups who were planning or facilitating "insurrection goals, insurrection plans and insurrection crimes".   If the FBI had ever found such evidence, then Walker would have been arrested (probably under applicable federal sedition statutes).

[Ernie Lazar]

47 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

My thinking is that Dallas FBI agent James Hosty was secretly supporting General Walker in Dallas through Walker's business manager, Robert Alan Surrey.  (Penn Jones Jr. reported that for many years James Hosty was the bridge partner of Robert Alan Surrey).

Hosty was a fan of JFK.  So why would he "secretly support General Walker" or be supportive of Robert Alan Surrey (a neo-nazi)?

[Ernie Lazar]

I posted the following comment in another thread because it relates to Paul Trejo's reliance upon Jim Hosty as some kind of "expert witness".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One more comment about Hosty:   

In chapter one of his book, in the section captioned "Friday, November 22, 1963; Time: 7:30am" -- Hosty discusses the number of FBI agents nationwide versus the smaller number of Secret Service agents.  According to Hosty,  "Even though the Secret Service had roughly 300 agents nationwide, compared to the FBI's over 7000, it wanted no assistance in protecting the President..."

In reality, the correct number of FBI agents in 1963 was NOT "over 7000".   The correct total number was 6045.  [The FBI did not reach "over 7000" agents until 1969.

This is a typical problem in memoirs written by people whose writings contain no footnotes or other documentation.  And this is EXACTLY the type of "proof" which people like Paul Trejo rely upon!

In the "Postscript" section of his book, Hosty writes:

"In this book, I think I have made it abundantly clear that I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy.  I am convinced that Oswald acted alone.  I arrive at my conclusions based solely upon the readily available evidence."

Of course, Paul Trejo does not accept this contention by his "expert witness" but I cite this as yet another example of how Paul artfully selects and quotes ONLY whatever data he already believes and then Paul demands that we accept his "evidence" as indisputably factual while, simultaneously, Paul totally ignores or dismisses or de-values everything which his "experts" say or write that contradicts and falsifies what Paul believes.

In the Trejo School of Analytical Processes, ALL historical evidence is like looking at 6-page menu in a restaurant which has two columns per page (total 12 columns of options). 

Paul selects one item from column 1, then one from column 3, then one from column 8 -- and then he proposes that everybody else must accept his personal culinary choices as indisputably the best (and only reasonable) choices we should make.

[Ernie Lazar]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

THIS is why the FBI never got the goods on General Walker -- FBI agent James Hosty (in my humble opinion) was HIDING evidence from the FBI.

The problem with your "opinion" on this matter is that you apparently think that James Hosty (and ONLY James Hosty) was assigned to work on cases in the Dallas field office that pertained to Walker, or to the Minutemen, or to the Birch Society, or to Robert Alan Surrey, or to the White Citizens Councils (including Indignant White Citizens Council), or to the Klan, or to any of the other extreme right individuals or groups which had files opened on them by the FBI-Dallas field office.

In other words, Hosty was able to single-handedly, keep ALL such subjects hermetically sealed and assigned exclusively to himself so that he could suppress adverse information which was "hidden" from the FBI.

In addition, apparently you also think that no other law enforcement or military intelligence agencies ever bothered to open their own investigations into Walker or Walker-related subjects -- AND -- they never shared their information with other agencies.

VERY BRIEFLY:   

Here are just some of the FBI, Secret Service, and other law enforcement officials who worked on Walker or Walker-related subjects.  I include all of the following as "related" subjects: 

Robert Alan Surrey, the "Wanted for Treason" handbill, Minutemen, John Birch Society, and Klan/White Citizens Councils groups in Dallas area -- but this does NOT include the April shooting of Walker's residence.

Sometimes, I cannot give you specific names because all that appears on certain memos is the initials of the person writing a summary report or memo. 

I won't even go into all the Police Chiefs and Police Dept Intelligence Units, Warren Commission attorneys, military intelligence investigators, or other officials who investigated and/or had exposure to Walker-related subjects.

1.  Dallas FBI Special Agents who worked on Walker case (SA = Special Agent)

SA Robert P. Gemberling

SA James E. Wallace

SA W. Harlan Brown

SA Edwin D. Kuyendall

SA Carl E. Underhill

SA Thomas J. Carson

SA Unum Brady

SA Paul L. Scott

SA William R. Jenkins

SA Richard L. Wiehl

SAC J. Gordon Shanklin

2.  Secret Service Dallas field office employees who worked on Walker or Walker-related subjects

See:  Secret Service file numbers:  CO-2-34030 and CO-2-54650

SAC Forest V. Sorrels

SA William Patterson

SA Roger Warner

SA Gene F. Wofford

SA John J. Howlett

3.  MISCELLANEOUS OTHERS

U.S. Attorney Barefoot Sanders

Warren Commission attorneys:  Leon D. Hubert Jr. and Burt W. Griffin

Dallas Sheriff Bill Decker

Dallas PD Intelligence Unit Corporal Robert Westfall  (See Dallas PD file #2953)

Dallas PD Intelligence Unit investigator Robert Brumley

Dallas PD Lt. Jack Revill (Criminal Intelligence Section)

 

[Michael Clark]

Lol! Thanks Ernie!

Indeed, Paul Trejo had me wondering if Hosty was the only FBI agent in all of Texas. Of course that seemed absurd, like nearly all if Trejo's blather, but I never bothered to look into it.

Thanks again...

[Michael Clark]

6 hours ago, Ernie Lazar said:

Apparently, according to YOUR criteria (which is shared by Paul Trejo), your first sentence declaring that you don't want any recognition or praise is violated and disproven by your earlier introduction of yourself as follows:

"I do work for the Mary Ferrell Foundation and I'm in the history department of a major university."

THEN -- to make it absolutely clear how grandiosely you view yourself, you wrote:

"By the end of this day, after I've eaten dinner and put my kids to bed, I will show you what a researcher is versus what you are: an opinion peddler.  I am the only one in this thread who ever posts any primary sources whatsoever and you are soon to be revealed as almost entirely free of knowledge on Hoover's surveillance of Walker."

So -- how do we recognize a real expert -- who is deserving of our respect and careful consideration of what he (or she) has to say?   

Fortunately, Jason has clearly answered that question for us:

"No one who is an expert has to insult others for fear of us proving you are in fact an expert at nothing."

And then Jason carefully illustrates what prudent, sober, and "expert" commentary looks like -- as follows:

"This is a retarded joke. Where are the documents or primary sources to support your laughable opinions?"

"As far as I can see, you are an expert at nothing except peddling opinion."   

"As usual, the laziness of someone who has zero interest nor apparent ability to do basic research is appalling."

"There will, as usual, be no evidence provided here by this yet another fact-free creative fiction enthusiast, proud and belligerent FBI "expert" Ernie Lazar."

 

I have to admit, I was taken aback when I saw that post from Jason Ward. I've had my moments. This issue is frustrating and the stakes involved do not get any higher. 

[Jason Ward]

8 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Precisely.  And what he cannot find to buttress his arguments, he invents.  I repost the following from six weeks ago because Trejo lacked the nerve to respond.  Thus, escaping the ramifications of a message that soon wafted into the ether:

Here is the Trejo methodological fraud in high contrast:

QUOTE:

Paul Trejo is congenitally incapable of putting forth an honest argument; he merely invents things that are pleasing to him, then hopes he doesn’t get called out for his inventions.

This all started because Paul said Oswald’s fellow tenants called police to complain Oswald beat his wife.  It was a Trejo invention.  No such instance occurred, nor could Trejo provide proof that it had.  But then proof and truth are unnecessary in his protocols.

Then the accuser switched gears.  In the absence of tenants who called police, there were witnesses to Oswald beating his wife who DIDN’T call the police.

Per Trejo's fevered imagination, there were seven eye-witnesses to Oswald beating Marina, then it was 12 and then it ballooned to 19.  It was like witnessing a modern-day Joe McCarthy swelling the numbers of imaginary Communists in the state department; the number being fluid, so long as it kept heading upward.

19?

Surely, so many people must provide definitive proof that Oswald beat his wife.

Except that Trejo now wishes to rescind the bulk of the 19 as though he didn’t name them to begin with.  This, from last Wednesday in this thread:

“2.  The seven people I QUOTED were Eye-Witnesses ONLY.  That's why I neglected all the others.   (RC Dunne named 12 non-eye-witnesses, wasting our time, plus he omitted Marguerite).

Tidy.  Except it wasn’t me who omitted Oswald’s mother.  Paul Trejo neglected to include her on HIS list of 19 witnesses.

It is also a blatant falsehood that I invented a dozen unimportant witnesses to “waste our time.”   As even the least literate among us could perceive had they only done what Trejo didn’t: remember to read the very intro to my original takedown of his so called “witnesses.”  It can be found on the first page of this thread:

“Just to bring this thread back to the topic on which it started, Paul Trejo has now had some days to provide what he claims to have in abundance, the witness testimony that Lee Oswald beat his wife.  With nineteen people cited, he should have had little difficulty in doing so, yet his streak of failing to provide compelling evidence for his contentions continues unblemished.  In fact, he now seems to deny that the onus of providing proof for his contentions resides with him.  It is now our job to do his homework for him.

Instead, Paul has given us a list of people who presumably testified to that effect, and the Commission volume in which it could be located, but not the testimony itself.  This is akin to a lawyer standing up in court, naming the nineteen witnesses who have critical information, listing their addresses, yet then failing to call any one of them to the stand.”

It is because Trejo named 19 witnesses, without troubling himself to recount what they had testified to, that I took the testimony of each and rubbed Trejo’s face in the testimony they did NOT provide.

Now he’d like to deny having proffered those witnesses, for reasons even the slowest Forum member could discern..

The man is as dishonest as he is ill-equipped to debate with others here.

That such undiluted idiocy still appears here only diminishes the stature of the Forum.

Edited September 12 by Robert Charles-Dunne

END QUOTE

Why do people waste their time daily in debating a bag of hot air who has contributed zero toward our common goals?

 

 

Hi Robert,

If we determine once and for all whether Oswald beat his wife, whether neighbors called the police about any beatings, or whether Paul Trejo bas the details right about the beating question; how does this get us closer to solving the assassination?

As I see it Marina is something of a victim but totally removed from the murder.   Beaten or not, police called or not; isn't it irrelevant to the crime?

 

Jason

[Jason Ward]

9 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

The following is my opinion.

I take FBI agent James Hosty at his word when he says (Assignment Oswald, 1996) that he monitored Ex-General Walker in Dallas in 1963.   He also says at the same time that he monitored "General Walker's Dallas Minutemen" (or words to that effect).

Therefore, I will repeat my longtime thesis on this Forum -- General Walker along with the Radical Right in Dallas were watched by the FBI because of their ties to groups suspected of insurrection goals, insurrection plans and insurrection crimes.

The FBI was seeking cause to arrest General Walker -- but they never obtained that cause.  

My thinking is that Dallas FBI agent James Hosty was secretly supporting General Walker in Dallas through Walker's business manager, Robert Alan Surrey.  (Penn Jones Jr. reported that for many years James Hosty was the bridge partner of Robert Alan Surrey).

Robert Alan Surrey is the only WC witness to plead the 5th amendment.  He did so  about 2 dozen times, always in response to the same topic, the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbill, that appeared throughout Dallas -- not only on 11/22/1963, but also on 10/24/1963 -- the date in which UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson was humiliated in Dallas.

Before going to Dallas, the Secret Service PRS asked the Dallas FBI who had published the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbill.  James Hosty's answer: "We don't know."  The PRS repeated the question (IIRC), and James Hosty replied that he tried to find out, but nobody was talking.

THIS is why the FBI never got the goods on General Walker -- FBI agent James Hosty (in my humble opinion) was HIDING evidence from the FBI.

Nevertheless, James Hosty (IMHO) had to be filing SOMETHING about "General Walker and his Dallas Minutemen," because he alleges that this was his PRINCIPAL duty in the Dallas FBI.  So, we need to finally look at James Hosty's FBI records on General Walker -- at highest priority.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, 

In summary the far right had the stated purpose to kill Kennedy.  They had the gun nuts, the money, the Dallas police, and the irrational belief in domestic apocalypse as a definite future under the Progressive agenda.

None of the other usual suspects had all this fear, irrationality, and appetite for risk.

Everyone else was at worst a JFK political enemy.   I wouldn't climb a 6 story building and wait for my boss to drive by in a convertible if I wanted him gone and neither would anyone else close to the president.

 

Jason