Paul Trejo Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 Paul Maybe a deal was struck "you get the film I disappear" What are the odds of filming the 2 events randomly?. This makes him (Martin) part of the plot would you stick your head out For a looksee's?. There must be many for whom the penny has dropped , those facilitators With an ignorant part to play the small details that have leaked that cannot be Proved because the participants part whosever small has become self evident Only those on the outside of the planning would want to be "involved". Ian Ian, I appreciate your interest in this theory -- I think it will finally crack the JFK assassination conspiracy case. I love your question -- what are the odds of filming these two related events randomly? I'd guess more than a million to one. Now -- you may be correct -- that John Martin could be culpable as a part of the plot to kill JFK. I admit that's possible, but it's not guaranteed. For example, if Martin was simply respectul and obedient to his former US Army General, he could have simply been following orders when he flew to Dallas, took film footage of Walker's home bullet holes, and then flew to New Orleans to film Lee Harvey Oswald being arrested. In other words, it is at least possible that John Martin had no idea why he was making this film -- he was just obeying orders. Now -- it is also possible that Walker told John Martin all about it. Harry Dean says that Walker told Congressman John Rousselot, war-hero Guy Gabaldon, and Interpen mercenaries, Loran Hall and Larry Howard all about his Lee Harvey Oswald plot in Harry Dean's presence. So, it is possible, perhaps probable, that Walker would confide in people he believed he could trust. So, if John Martin knew exactly why he was taking the "John Martin Film," then to some degree he was part of the JFK assassination plot. Why would he stick his neck out today? Well, there is at least a ghost of a chance that John Martin was "born again" and completely changed his politics. This chance has some weight because as Gary Schoener told me, John Martin explained to Harold Weisberg that he was handing over this film because he'd experienced a change of heart. He had quit the John Birch Society and the Minutemen. Weisberg and Schoener happened to be in Minnisota giving a lecture about the JFK case, and John Martin was in the audience. He was moved to hand over his film. Schoener said nothing about striking any deal with John Martin. Some years later he wrote to Weisberg, lamenting that they lost track of John Martin. There is indeed a strong motive for people who knew about intrigues of ex-General Edwin Walker during the summer of 1963 to hide in the shadows for the rest of their lives. Nevertheless, Harry Dean came forward, despite a ton of criticism, simply because he is an honest man. So, I think there's at least some small chance that John Martin might one day come forward. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 (edited) Paul, maybe this guy can assist you. He comes across as a contemporary Sherlock Holmes. http://www.marysmosaic.net/bio.htm Seems like the real deal.... Tom, as you know this is a link for the 2012 book, Mary's Mosaic, by Peter Janney. In his fairly thorough book about the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer in October, 1964, Janney offers evidence that Ms. Meyer was murdered by the CIA insofar as she had been: (1) a mistress of JFK; and (2) the former wife of a CIA agent. (E. Howard Hunt also names Cord Meyer as a member of the JFK kill plot.) Janney then attempts to link his ample research on the murder of Ms. Meyer to the well-known research on JFK that tries to show that the CIA, Secret Service and FBI killed JFK in what is widely known as the coup d'etat theory. Such theories are common today. It reminds me of the 1997 book by Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason, which carefully accumulates lots of evidence involving Interpen with the killing of JFK, yet does not think twice about combining the killing of JFK with the cover-up of JFK. The Twyman also falls into a coup d'etat theory. This is the one, major weakness of what could have been our best JFK research book to date. If only Twyman had the insight to separate the JFK assassination plot from the JFK assassination cover-up plot, he would not have wound up with so many doubts. That is, Twyman, seeing so much evidence that Gerry Patrick Hemming was involved in the details of the JFK assassination, could not find enough evidence that Hemming was the "mastermind" of the whole JFK plot -- Hemming did not have the power to cover up the JFK assassination plot. Thus he made no conclusion. I find Peter Janney in the same boat. He does not even look at the possibility that the JFK killing and the JFK plot cover-up were accomplished by two separate groups with completely different goals. Perhaps I'm the first person in JFK research to propose this more likely scenario as well. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited May 5, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Davies Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 Who was the first person to propose the theory that Jackie fired from point blank range due to JFK's infidelity? Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. As an info point, the Warren Commission was not a court. As we lawyers always say in Ontario, "with all due respect", despite our voice level, and body language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 Gary Shoener recently promised me that he would try once again to find his copy of the Jack Martin Film in his garage. Gawd, I hope he finds it. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Has anyone here seen this film? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 (edited) In a post expressing his admiration for Allen Dulles, Paul Trejo wrote: ....In recognition of his service in US Intelligence, Dulles was named the first director of the CIA by Harry Truman in 1947. From that point forward, and until the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the CIA performed many political tasks that Truman and later Eisenhower liked very much. Robert Charles-Dunne corrected this error and offered a link to CIA's website: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=270023 This was Paul's reply: Robert, I'm impressed by your advanced historical perspective. I will revisit my sources. Revisit his sources? Paul could have checked the link provided by Robert, or he could have spent a minute with Google. Instead, he elected to furnish an oblique and meaningless reply. The above exchange serves to illustrate why so many members have taken issue with Paul's posts and declarations. Even in such a clear cut instance Paul Trejo could not bring himself to own his mistake. This has been part of a recurring pattern in his posts. Edited May 14, 2013 by Michael Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 (edited) In a post expressing his admiration for Allen Dulles, Paul Trejo wrote: ....In recognition of his service in US Intelligence, Dulles was named the first director of the CIA by Harry Truman in 1947. From that point forward, and until the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the CIA performed many political tasks that Truman and later Eisenhower liked very much. Robert Charles-Dunne corrected this error and offered a link to CIA's website: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=270023 This was Paul's reply: Robert, I'm impressed by your advanced historical perspective. I will revisit my sources. Revisit his sources? Paul could have checked the link provided by Robert, or he could have spent a minute with Google. Instead, he elected to furnish an oblique and meaningless reply. The above exchange serves to illustrate why so many members have taken issue with Paul's posts and declarations. Even in such a clear cut instance Paul Trejo could not bring himself to own his mistake. This has been part of a recurring pattern in his posts. Honestly, Michael, you nag more than my grandmother. All right, I saw Robert's link and I accept his correction. There -- are you finally happy? I doubt it. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited May 15, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 It is obvious Michael will be happy when a bunch of us will be happy; when your demeanor is no longer grossly misaligned with your depth and you recognize it is better to be silent and thought a ..... than it is to post and remove all doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 (edited) It is obvious Michael will be happy when a bunch of us will be happy; when your demeanor is no longer grossly misaligned with your depth and you recognize it is better to be silent and thought a ..... than it is to post and remove all doubt. Tom, it doesn't matter to me at all if a "bunch" of you gang up on me, insult me and try to shout me down -- it's water off a duck's back. The only thing I care about in the Forum are sound arguments. The Lee Farley Gang has provided lots of negative junk for the past several weeks, but is severely lacking in sound arguments. Michael's post on this thread is a case in point -- it's negative. He's got nothing positive to offer in response. He's playing hall monitor here, and it's absurd. To have a productive, creative Forum, I believe it is proper to stomp on negative and cantankerous talk -- and a duty to do so. My posts (when they aren't defending against negative rock throwers) are positive, creative and constructive of theories that criticize the Warren Commission conclusions. My opponents' theories tend to be one-sided affairs that go too far in the other direction -- for example, proposing an "innocent victim" portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald. Now, it is clear that six or seven people in the past two weeks (including yourself) have tried to disagree with every sentence I write. But there are hundreds of people on this Forum -- surely you don't think you represent them all, do you? Surely you can't believe that all members of this Forum agree that Marina Oswald was a xxxx? I know that's not the case -- I can name several heavy hittlers on this Forum who will go to bat for Marina Oswald. I consider myself free to criticize such unfounded theories as an "innocent victim Oswald," as well as to respond to insults and name-calling as appropriate, within the bounds of decency. Would you, as a moderate on this Forum, agree? I hope so. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited May 15, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Robert Morrow Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 (edited) "Surely you can't believe that all members of this Forum agree that Marina Oswald was a xxxx? I know that's not the case -- I can name several heavy hittlers on this Forum who will go to bat for Marina Oswald." Marina Oswald in the time period of 1963-1964 was an epic xxxx, a scared, terrified and controlled tool of US intelligence who had enveloped her. Marina Oswald in 1963 was age 22, with a baby and a todler, no money and could not speak English well, while at the same time the entire national media and the government was saying that her husband had murdered the president of the United States in one of the biggest crimes of the American century. Marina Oswald in the immediate wake of the JFK assassination was a marionette doll for US intelligence and would say anything they bullied/suggested that she say. She is not reliable. I spoke to Hugh Aynesworth a few years ago and asked "Did you get the story of Oswald wanting to shoot at Nixon from Marina" or had you heard about it from some other source. Aynesworth actually told me that he had gotten that story first from some other source than Marina Oswald. Most likely a black propaganda lie created by US intelligence in the wake of the JFK assassination, just a way of slandering Oswald posthumously. Rachel Rendish is a Dallas area JFK researcher who knows both Marina Oswald and Illya Mamantov, the US intelligence connected interpreter that was assigned to Marina Oswald by Jack Crichton. Marina HATED Mamantov because he would warp Marina's words and always put a bad spin on Oswald. Link on Mamantov: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmamantov.htm Marina Oswald today thinks Oswald was not involved in the JFK assassination, and free from the intimidation of the net of US intelligence she has changed her tune dramatically. (I personally think Oswald was in some way involved in the JFK assassination precisely *because* he was US intelligence.) Marina Oswald's warped and coerced and even forged and twisted statements of the 1963-64 time period simply cannot be trusted, especially those that support the US governments false narrative of a lone nutter killing John Kennedy. Edited May 15, 2013 by Robert Morrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Tom, it doesn't matter to me at all if a "bunch" of you gang up on me, insult me and try to shout me down -- it's water off a duck's back. The only thing I care about in the Forum are sound arguments. The Lee Farley Gang has provided lots of negative junk for the past several weeks, but is severely lacking in sound arguments. Michael's post on this thread is a case in point -- it's negative. He's got nothing positive to offer in response. He's playing hall monitor here, and it's absurd. Here are my posts on this thread that tried to help you with your research on Edwin Walker. How many of them were negative to you? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=248053 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=249314 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=265821 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=265913 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=269137 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=269549 Paul, I've made exactly one post on this thread that criticized you. It was for your failure to acknowledge a gross error of your own making, after it was pointed out to you by Robert Charles-Dunne. If you really cared so much about sound arguments, you would not have responded as you did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Tom, it doesn't matter to me at all if a "bunch" of you gang up on me, insult me and try to shout me down -- it's water off a duck's back. The only thing I care about in the Forum are sound arguments. The Lee Farley Gang has provided lots of negative junk for the past several weeks, but is severely lacking in sound arguments. Michael's post on this thread is a case in point -- it's negative. He's got nothing positive to offer in response. He's playing hall monitor here, and it's absurd. Here are my posts on this thread that tried to help you with your research on Edwin Walker. How many of them were negative to you? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=248053 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=249314 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=265821 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=265913 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=269137 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=269549 Paul, I've made exactly one post on this thread that criticized you. It was for your failure to acknowledge a gross error of your own making, after it was pointed out to you by Robert Charles-Dunne. If you really cared so much about sound arguments, you would not have responded as you did. Michael, it's well known that you've joined the BLOCK TREJO team on the Forum, so why not admit it? As for your past posts -- do us all a favor and summarize them for us, won't you? And nobody believes you've criticized me personally only once. WOULD PEOPLE *PLEASE* GET BACK TO THE THEMES OF THESE THREADS?! Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Michael, it's well known that you've joined the BLOCK TREJO team on the Forum, so why not admit it? As for your past posts -- do us all a favor and summarize them for us, won't you? And nobody believes you've criticized me personally only once. Paul, I haven't joined any team, I'm not the member of any gang, and I'm not anyone's follower. All terms you have used to label me. I was critical of you long before this recent firestorm that you have brought on yourself. It was on the Terry, Mississippi thread, where I discovered that you were not really interested in sound arguments. I never claimed I criticized you only once. Robert Charles-Dunne was right about your reading skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 And nobody believes you've criticized me personally only once. If Mike Hogan had claimed this I wouldn't believe it either. But he hasn't. I guess when you create "TRUTH in YOUR JUDGMENT" it comes in real handy when you continually make stuff up to pass judgment on? WOULD PEOPLE *PLEASE* GET BACK TO THE THEMES OF THESE THREADS?! We are. These threads are now focused firmly on your outright deceit, dishonesty and unbelievable ignorance. Every which way we turn we are presented with more and more of it. Lee Farley, this isn't your thread, this is Jim Root's thread and you're not making any positive contributions to it. Just go away. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Paul, I haven't joined any team, I'm not the member of any gang, and I'm not anyone's follower. All terms you have used to label me. I was critical of you long before this recent firestorm that you have brought on yourself. It was on the Terry, Mississippi thread, where I discovered that you were not really interested in sound arguments. I never claimed I criticized you only once. Robert Charles-Dunne was right about your reading skills. Michael, nobody cares about your personal issues. This is a thread about Edwin Walker. Do you have anything at all to say about the role of Edwin Walker in the assassination of JFK? If so, please make that contribution. Please. Pretty please. Regards, --Paul Trejo 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