Paul Trejo Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: I understand, Mr. Trejo. You’re shocked, SHOCKED that I should ignore all decency by daring to read these HSCA documents from the JFK Collection of the National Archives in College Park, Maryland! Just who do I think I am, eh? The nerve of me! Just because a CIA accountant said the Oswald Project was believed run by the “USSR SR Branch” of the CIA , that CLEARLY means I “still have NOTHING.” So you say.... Why don't you explain to us how impossible it would be for the "SR Branch" of the CIA to run the Oswald Project? I'd love to hear your excuses du jour. Mr. Hargrove, It's not an excuse -- it's just that your reading is BIASED. The text you cite says this SPECIFICALLY: USSR SR Branch -- believed responsible for Oswald Project. Believed? WHO believed this? Clearly, Jim Wilcott believed this, and that was exactly his "testimony." When asked specific details, like the CIA crypto name, he couldn't remember. It's five letters -- and he couldn't remember! This BIASED HSCA memo was produced by the Richard Sprague Team -- dismissed for incompetency by Dr. Richard Blakey. Just read the nonsense on that page! Insert (such verification is needed if competent investigation is performed). Verification is NEEDED. It's there in black and white! IF, IF, IF competent investigation is performed! IF COMPETENT! We are clearly still waiting for the COMPETENT VERIFICATION! Also read: Cryptonym for Oswald Project approx. RX-ZIM. Approximately? How could it be approximately? Again, Jim Wilcott believed this -- he could NOT REMEMBER! It's an Accountant with high clearance from Tokyo Station, who claimed to the HSCA in 1978 that approximately 1958 he dispersed some money to some alleged CIA agent, who told him VERBALLY that the money was for "The Oswald Project." This was probably some CIA agent telling a JOKE to Wilcott, who was dumb enough to believe it. If it was TRUE, then no genuine CIA agent would say that out loud! He was either joking, or not a genuine CIA agent. As for the details, HE "COULD NOT REMEMBER." Wilcott could not even remember the guy's name! At the very BEST, this is just another case of "mistaken identity". At worst, this is some dude who wants to go down in history simply because Lee Harvey Oswald was stationed near Tokyo at the same time that he was stationed near Tokyo. WHAT ELSE HAVE YOU GOT, Jim? This document is REACHING. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 27, 2017 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 7 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said: Clearly, Jim Wilcott believed this, and that was exactly his "testimony." When asked specific details, like the CIA crypto name, he couldn't remember. It's five letters -- and he couldn't remember! He CLEARLY DID remember, Mr. Trejo.! Mr. Wilcott remembered that the CIA cryptonym for the OSWALD PROJECT was RX-ZIM. As you can clearly see, that is FIVE LETTERS, and Mr. Wilcott DID REMEMBER!!! Here's the Oswald Project CIA cryptonym, as released by the HSCA. That's RX-ZIM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: He CLEARLY DID remember, Mr. Trejo.! Mr. Wilcott remembered that the CIA cryptonym for the OSWALD PROJECT was RX-ZIM. As you can clearly see, that is FIVE LETTERS, and Mr. Wilcott DID REMEMBER!!! Here's the Oswald Project CIA cryptonym, as released by the HSCA. That's RX-ZIM! No, Mr. Hargrove, the document says APPROX. RX-ZIM. Read it again! Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 27, 2017 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 12 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: You don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure that out. Look how the statement is typed in the report: “Cryptonym for Oswald Project approx. RX-ZIM.” (The hyphen in RX-ZIM is underlined.) Why is the hyphen underlined? Surely because minor variations of the cryptonym must have existed without the hyphen, as in, for example, RX/ZIM or RXZIM or RX ZIM instead of RX-ZIM. You can see how similar variations occur across the Web in all sorts of acronyms for illegal CIA operations, such as ZR/RIFLE or MK/ULTRA. But, of course, CIA apologists don’t want to understand any of these simple matters. Ever the defense lawyer for the CIA, Mr. Trejo wants us to believe that a 1978 report of statements by a CIA accountant are unreliable because they are dated and contain hearsay evidence. A real lawyer, though, might explain that "statements against interest" often comprise exceptions to the hearsay rule, and that it is not unreasonable for a professional accountant like Mr. Wilcott to remember for some time that he had helped to pay the alleged assassin of President John F. Kennedy. Mr. Trejo also wants us to believe that this was all a big joke around the Tokyo station of the CIA. LOL and all that. "Nuf said! Read this again, Mr. Trejo!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 25 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said: Also read: Cryptonym for Oswald Project approx. RX-ZIM. Approximately? How could it be approximately? Again, Jim Wilcott believed this -- he could NOT REMEMBER! Once more, Mr. Trejo. The RX-ZIM CIA cryptonym is approximate because of the hyphen, which could easily become a "/" or a space, or something else. Do you see how RX-ZIM is underlined under the hyphen in the HSCA document? That's why RX-ZIM is APPROXIMATED in the HSCA doc! Once more again, according to CIA accountant James Wilcott, the Oswald Project was run by the USSR SR Branch of the CIA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 The bottom line for me is that these notes are obviously information obtained from Wilcott by an HSCA staffer. I don't doubt Wilcott believed what he was saying. But he had absolutely no evidence to back it up and would not testify to it under oath. It was simply a belief on his part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 If Mr. Wilcott had disobeyed the CIA's orders and testified about RX-ZIM, he'd have been DEAD THE NEXT DAY! Probably fearing for his life and the life of his family, he obeyed the CIA's rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: If Mr. Wilcott had disobeyed the CIA's orders and testified about RX-ZIM, he'd have been DEAD THE NEXT DAY! Probably fearing for his life and the life of his family, he obeyed the CIA's rules. Mr. Hargrove, You're being over-dramatic -- and making stuff up. If, as you believe, RX-ZIM really was the CIA Cryptonym for the so-called "Oswald Project," then Wilcott already said too much -- according to your melodramatics. Your response that RX-ZIM was "approximately" correct only because of the "hyphen" is mere GUESSWORK on your part. The HSCA report that you supplied said it was APPROXIMATE. It was a 'serving suggestion.' It's not an answer. Also, the HSCA report that you supplied said that Jim Wilcott only BELIEVED the so-called "Oswald Project" was run by the USSR SR Branch of the CIA. Just admit it. It's there in black and white for all to see. That HSCA report is worth next to NOTHING. It's not sworn testimony. It's not even an Affidavit. It's typical Richard Sprague Team GUESSWORK. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 27, 2017 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 26 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said: If Mr. Wilcott had disobeyed the CIA's orders and testified about RX-ZIM, he'd have been DEAD THE NEXT DAY! Probably fearing for his life and the life of his family, he obeyed the CIA's rules. Just sayin'.... 26 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said: Jim, You're being over-dramatic -- and making stuff up. If, as you believe, RX-ZIM really was the CIA Cryptonym for the so-called "Oswald Project," then Wilcott already said too much -- according to your melodramatics. Your response that RX-ZIM was "approximately" correct only because of the "hyphen" is mere GUESSWORK on your part. The HSCA report that you supplied said it was APPROXIMATE. It was a 'serving suggestion.' It's not an answer. Also, the HSCA report that you supplied said that Jim Wilcott only BELIEVED the so-called "Oswald Project" was run by the USSR SR Branch of the CIA. Just admit it. It's there in black and white for all to see. That HSCA report is worth next to NOTHING. It's not sworn testimony. It's not even an Affidavit. It's typical Richard Sprague Team GUESSWORK. Regards, --Paul Trejo This is the Real World, Mr. Trejo.... I am not being "over-dramatic." Nor am I "making stuff up!" This is the world where you make stuff up and where James Wilcott told the truth.! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 (edited) No, Jim, the document says APPROX. RX-ZIM. Read it again! Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 27, 2017 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said: Just sayin'.... This is the Real World, Mr. Trejo.... I am not being "over-dramatic." Nor am I "making stuff up!" This is the world where you make stuff up and where James Wilcott told the truth.! No, Mr. Hargrove, you're merely ignoring HSCA words that don't support the conclusions you've already made -- so, your analysis lacks credibility. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited November 27, 2017 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 On 11/22/2017 at 12:25 AM, Jim Hargrove said: 12. Oswald’s possessions were searched for microdots, because Oswald foolishly used the word, "microdots" in his address book. Ask yourself -- what competent US Agent uses the secret word, "microdots" in his personal address book? Answer: NONE. So, the use of microdots shows that you are NOT a spy? Sheesh. Why were some individual letters cut out of some of Oswald’s so-called writings. To remove microdots, perhaps? Mr. Hargrove, You have no evidence whatsoever that Lee Harvey Oswald ever used microdots. Ever. What you have is the "word" microdots in Oswald’s personal address book. It is a word that just stands on its own there – all alone, as if Oswald heard that word one day (perhaps from Nagell) and he jotted it down as a note to himself to look into it. Just because Oswald used the word, "microdots," as a standalone word in his address book; that does not give you the right to claim that Lee Harvey Oswald ever used microdots. Your logic is faulty. The US Government spent lots of time and money going through all of Oswald's writings again, specifically to search for microdots, and found none. You know that very well. Yet you wish to keep the urban legend going; hoping for a Hollywood deal? Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 5 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said: No, Jim, you're ignoring words that don't support conclusions you've already made -- so, you lack credibility. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Now that's rich! I'd use the kettle/pot metaphor if it weren't for the fact that Paul would be both in this case. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 Jim Hargrove: Probably fearing for his life and the life of his family, he obeyed the CIA's rules. From someone I talked to, that is what happened. This guy interviewed Wilcott many years later. The guy said to me, "They killed his wife." I am not saying its true since I did not investigate it myself. But that is what the guy who interviewed Wilcott told me. I did not know that Bill Schaap was Wilcott's lawyer during the HSCA. Bill was my publisher on my first book. If I had know that he was the man's attorney I would have talked to Wilcott myself. Bill was as credible as they came. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Kelly Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 Paul: I hesitate to engage but struggle not to respond, as I wish to show respect for your views. But how can anyone characterize this as a "silly and unimpressive" document? Why go out of your way to minimize James Wilcott? You libel this as "... a ridiculous report dated 1978 ... fifteen years after the JFK murder ... hearsay about mere hearsay". You summarize all of this as "pure speculation",. and then take a pot shot at Richard Sprague. It strains reasonable ... what's your game? Gene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now