Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

As for George DM's letter to the CIA asking for "help," this sounds very much like Harry Dean's letter to JFK in 1961 and his letter to J. Edgar Hoover in 1963, asking for a "pardon." Both Harry Dean and George DM had guilty consciences.

+++

Dean's letter is to someone he dosent know,Hoover.

De Moh's letter is to his old friend, George Herbert Walker Bush.

DE Moh had in his 6 volume phone book the nick name "POPPY" of Bush ,which few knew.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On September 5, 1976, De Mohrenschildt had written a letter to the Director of the

Central Intelligence Agency, George H. W. Bush asking for his assistance.

Letters
YOUR OLD FRIEND de mohrenschildt
  • Paul the letter has to be put into context. DeMoh a notoriously poor money manager had squandered his earlier LHO setup monies given to him by the Bush family.
  • The letter is not a confession but a veiled shakedown for money via college charity appeal.
  • ===============
  • BRUCE ADAMSON
  • Throughout the 1950s, Paley admitted working with the CIA by allowing agents to pose as CBS employees.
  • In the early 1990s, I received a letter from Paley's personal secretary, John S. Minary, (for 40 years) stating that Mr. Paley had hired George de Mohrenschildt in the early 1960s.
  • One of the long-time Directors at CBS was Prescott Bush, whose son, also a CIA agent, George H.W. Bush had known de Mohrenschildt since 1942. In 1993, Bush Sr., wrote to me stating that he did not know of de Mohrenschildt's Intelligence connections. I later found out that de Mohrenschildt's father-in-law, Walter Samuel Washington, was in charge of more than 250 CIA agents between the years of 1950-53, ten years before the JFK Assassination.
  • In May of 1963, prior to the Assassination of President Kennedy, after he left Senate, Prescott Bush's banking firm Brown Brothers & Harriman gave Lee Harvey Oswald's closest friend, George de Mohrenschildt a $300,000 line of credit, when de Mohrenschildt's credit "stunk" to high heaven. (approx 3 million $ dollars in todays monies)
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As for George DM's letter to the CIA asking for "help," this sounds very much like Harry Dean's letter to JFK in 1961 and his letter to J. Edgar Hoover in 1963, asking for a "pardon." Both Harry Dean and George DM had guilty consciences.

+++

Dean's letter is to someone he dosent know,Hoover.

De Moh's letter is to his old friend, George Herbert Walker Bush.

DE Moh had in his 6 volume phone book the nick name "POPPY" of Bush ,which few knew.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On September 5, 1976, De Mohrenschildt had written a letter to the Director of the

Central Intelligence Agency, George H. W. Bush asking for his assistance.

Letters
YOUR OLD FRIEND de mohrenschildt
  • Paul the letter has to be put into context. DeMoh a notoriously poor money manager had squandered his earlier LHO setup monies given to him by the Bush family.
  • The letter is not a confession but a veiled shakedown for money via college charity appeal.
  • ===============
  • BRUCE ADAMSON
  • Throughout the 1950s, Paley admitted working with the CIA by allowing agents to pose as CBS employees.
  • In the early 1990s, I received a letter from Paley's personal secretary, John S. Minary, (for 40 years) stating that Mr. Paley had hired George de Mohrenschildt in the early 1960s.
  • One of the long-time Directors at CBS was Prescott Bush, whose son, also a CIA agent, George H.W. Bush had known de Mohrenschildt since 1942. In 1993, Bush Sr., wrote to me stating that he did not know of de Mohrenschildt's Intelligence connections. I later found out that de Mohrenschildt's father-in-law, Walter Samuel Washington, was in charge of more than 250 CIA agents between the years of 1950-53, ten years before the JFK Assassination.
  • In May of 1963, prior to the Assassination of President Kennedy, after he left Senate, Prescott Bush's banking firm Brown Brothers & Harriman gave Lee Harvey Oswald's closest friend, George de Mohrenschildt a $300,000 line of credit, when de Mohrenschildt's credit "stunk" to high heaven. (approx 3 million $ dollars in todays monies)

Steven,

Has anyone besides Bruce Adamson seen the letter he claimed to have received from John S. Minary?

Also, how does your JFK assassination researcher Bruce Adamson know that "[George H. W.] Bush knew George de Mohrenschildt since 1942"?

(Bush was 18 years old in 1942 and de Mohrenschildt was 31 in 1942 and in that year was turned away by the CIA because he was considered to be a Nazi agent.)

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/deMohrenschildt%20George/Item%2062.pdf

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very confusing.

Who were the "Communists" in Walker's mind against whom Walker would have taken revenge if Oswald hadn't taken a shot at him?

True liberals and staunch integrationists like George de Mohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt, Michael Paine, and and the young "yuppie" oil engineers of Dallas, Texas, who had attended Volkmar Schmidt's party?

Please explain.

--Tommy :sun

The explanation, Tommy, is to be found in the pages of the John Birch Society (JBS) literature, starting with Robert Welch's 1956 book, The Politician and including the periodical, American Opinion which lasted for decades.

Jack Ruby had some JBS literature in his car when he was arrested.

The JBS had largely followed the legacy of Senator Joseph McCarthy, claiming that Washington DC was full of Communists. The Senate chased its tail from 1950-1954, trying to find Communists within its own walls, at the word of Joe McCarthy -- until they got fed up. Yet even though Joe McCarthy was eventually censured by the Senate in December 1954, he was still regarded as a hero by the far right and ultra-right wings in the USA for decades afterward.

The JBS continued McCarthy's legacy. President Eisenhower was "certainly" a Communist, said Robert Welch, founder of the JBS.

Well, if the JBS thought that Republican Ike was a Communist, then just try to imagine what the JBS would say about JFK and RFK, and their entire cabinet!

So, the answer to your question, Tommy, is that Ex-General Edwin Walker, in his paranoia that was fueled by JBS literature, regarded the entire JFK cabinet to be COMMUNISTS. The conviction that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist Agent begins with Edwin Walker's experience on Easter Sunday, 1963, when he learned from some US Government leak that Lee Harvey Oswald had been his shooter on 10 April 1963.

In the opinion of Edwin Walker, as we see in his personal papers, Lee Harvey Oswald was an EMPLOYEE of Robert Kennedy.

In the paranoia of Edwin Walker, RFK and JFK wanted to kill him, and they sent Lee Harvey Oswald to do the job. This is the best explanation for Walker's words in 1968 which I shared above, but which are worth repeating here:

"If authority, in the hands of the Attorney General and the Justice Department, had not seen fit to free Oswald and his associates in the attempted assassination of Edwin A. Walker -- there is no reason to doubt that President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert F. Kennedy would be alive today." (Edwin Walker, newsletter to the "Friends of Walker," speaking of himself in the third person, 6/12/1968)

But really -- if Edwin Walker had never received that allegedly leaked report on Easter Sunday, he still would have believed that his secret assassins MUST HAVE BEEN SENT by RFK and JFK.

Because, after all, the Communists were out to get him. For Edwin Walker, that meant first and foremost, RFK and JFK.

Finally -- in the pages of the Warren Commission volumes, we find Edwin Walker directly naming Michael Paine as a possible accomplice of Lee Harvey Oswald in his April shooting. So, yes, Walker certainly did suspect those few Dallas liberals as accomplices of RFK and JFK.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very confusing.

Who were the "Communists" in Walker's mind against whom Walker would have taken revenge if Oswald hadn't taken a shot at him?

True liberals and staunch integrationists like George de Mohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt, Michael Paine, and and the young "yuppie" oil engineers of Dallas, Texas, who had attended Volkmar Schmidt's party?

Please explain.

--Tommy :sun

[...]

So, the answer to your question, Tommy, is that Edwin Walker, in his paranoia that was fueled by JBS literature, regarded the entire JBS cabinet to be COMMUNISTS.

[...]

[emphasis by T. Graves]

The whole JBS Cabinet, or the whole JFK Cabinet?

Obviously you meant to say JFK Cabinet.

Regardless, you seem to be saying that de Mohrenschildt and friends were very concerned about Walker's possible attacking, at least propaganda-wise, the entire JFK Cabinet for their liberal stances, so they "urged" (to use your word) Oswald to shoot at Walker, knowing that Walker would automatically assume that Oswald (or whomever) had been sent by RFK to "get" him, and that Walker would therefore focus his REVENGE for the attack-against-him only on JFK and RFK, and hopefully not continue to concentrate on all of the "Communists" (in Walker's mind) in the JFK Cabinet for their liberal positions in general.

If this is what you're saying, then it would be logical to conclude that you believe that the great liberals George de Mohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt, and Michael Paine were trying to manipulate Edwin Walker into assassinating JFK and RFK.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

...You seem to be saying that de Mohrenschildt and friends were very concerned about Walker's possible attacking, at least propaganda-wise, of the entire JFK Cabinet for their liberal stances, so they "urged" (to use your word) Oswald to shoot at Walker, knowing that Walker would automatically assume that Oswald (or whomever) had been sent to get him by RFK and that Walker would therefore focus his revenge for the attack against him only on JFK and RFK, and not on all of the "Communists" (in Walker's mind) in the JFK Cabinet for their liberal positions in general.

If this is what you're saying, then it would be logical to conclude that you believe that the great liberals George de Mohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt, and Michael Paine were trying to manipulate Edwin Walker into assassinating JFK and RFK.

--Tommy :sun

Well, Tommy, thanks again for the opportunity to clarify my remarks.

I thought I made it plain that George DM, Volkmar Schmidt and Michael Paine denied any DIRECT involvement in the attempted assassination of Edwin Walker in Dallas.

Also, they were all to some degree SHOCKED that Lee Harvey Oswald would ACT on the beliefs that they tried to force on him, i.e. that Edwin Walker could become as bad as Adolf Hitler.

The main concern of this small band of Liberals in Dallas was that Edwin Walker was capable of violence in his opposition to the Civil Rights movement. The racial riots at Ole Miss were proof positive that their worries were rational. Edwin Walker had been the leader of those riots.

Walker had already attacked the JFK administration at Ole Miss in a material way -- it went far beyond mere propaganda.

Then, in late January 1963, Edwin Walker was acquitted by a Mississippi Grand Jury. He was set free. End of episode. This added to the worries of Liberals around the USA. If he made violence at Ole Miss in September 1962, and he was now free again because of a crafty legal team -- then there is every chance that Edwin Walker could again make violence against the Civil Rights movement in 1963.

But I didn't say that they urged Oswald to SHOOT at Edwin Walker -- instead I said that they urged Oswald to HATE Edwin Walker.

That was a big difference in their minds, since they were intelligent men. But it wasn't much difference in Lee Harvey Oswald's mind, since he was impatient with mere talk, and was itching for ACTION.

Michael Paine quickly distanced himself from the Edwin Walker shooting -- several times -- in the Warren Commission volumes. So did George DM. So did Volkmar Schmidt in his audio and video interviews.

They all admitted that they HATED the politics of Edwin Walker -- but they also expressed SHOCK that Lee Harvey Oswald would go the extra mile and actually try to KILL Edwin Walker.

They all seem to suggest -- their main task was to stop Oswald from complaining about the Bay of Pigs!

Insofar as Oswald missed that head shot against Edwin Walker, that was just as unforeseen as the attack itself. They were unanimous -- the actual SHOOTING attack on Edwin Walker was ENTIRELY LEE OSWALD'S IDEA and nobody else's. (Yet I maintain that the biggest guilt that all three carried with them for the rest of their lives was that they were PARTLY responsible for pushing Oswald over the edge.)

All they really wanted was for Lee Harvey Oswald to AGREE with them that JFK was all right, and that Edwin Walker was all wrong. (When George DM figured out the next Saturday night that Lee Oswald had been Walker's shooter, he and Jeanne DM never spoke to Lee Harvey Oswald again for the rest of their lives. That's significant.)

As for the warped opinion of Edwin Walker and the JBS, the assassination of JFK would have been the biggest possible blow against Global Communism possible, simply because JFK was the most powerful Communist in the World -- in their opinion.

So, no, these Dallas Liberals weren't trying to manipulate Walker into killing JFK -- but they realized after the fact that they did share INDIRECT blame for igniting the foolishness of Lee Harvey Oswald, and starting the dominoes falling.

Instead, it was the paranoia of JBS member Edwin Walker which proposed that these three Dallas Liberals were ultimately responsible for the murder of JFK. This is clear from these words by Edwin Walker that I've already posted twice on this page -- but once again for emphasis:

"If authority, in the hands of the Attorney General and the Justice Department, had not seen fit to free Oswald and his associates in the attempted assassination of Edwin A. Walker -- there is no reason to doubt that President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert F. Kennedy would be alive today." (Edwin Walker, newsletter to the "Friends of Walker," speaking of himself in the third person, 6/12/1968)

That's very close to a confession in the JFK murder, in my humble opinion.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

George de Mohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt and Michael Paine [...] were annoyed by Oswald's typical US Marine rhetoric about how JFK really messed up the Bay of Pigs.

(By the way, this report that Lee Oswald nagged everybody about the Bay of Pigs, was also confirmed by Silvia Odio in her report of Leopoldo's phone call. "Leopoldo" phoned her and told her that "Leon" Oswald said that the Cubans didn't have any guts because JFK should have been assassinated after the Bay of Pigs.)

[...]

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

But according to what Volkmar Schmidt said in 1993, Oswald wasn't angry at JFK for "messing up" the Bay of Pigs Invasion, but for authorizing the Bay of Pigs Invasion in the first place!

VOLKMAR SCHMIDT: Lee Harvey Oswald brought up in the conversation with me the fact that he really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion. It turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald really idealized socialism of Cuba, while he was critical of the socialism in the Soviet Union. And he was just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/transcripts/1205.html

So, unfortunately for your theory, Volkmar Schmidt's Oswald and Silvia Odio's "Oswald" were angry at Kennedy and the BOP Invasion for completely different reasons.

--Tommy :sun

PS Dick Russell also writes on Oswald's view of the Bay of Pigs Invasion.

http://books.google.com/books?id=XJQX-4khd2QC&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=%22bay+of+pigs+as+a+symbol+of+american+imperialism%22&source=bl&ots=qp-EMJME_A&sig=uq7Q4vr48QtWvp0KumrLqwxEHbo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xiNgVKWXKbD2iQKW7oGIBQ&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22bay%20of%20pigs%20as%20a%20symbol%20of%20american%20imperialism%22&f=false

As does that great Dallas liberal, George de Mohrenschildt, himself.

http://22november1963.org.uk/george-de-mohrenschildt-i-am-a-patsy-chapter27

In addition to saying (in so many words) that Oswald thought the BOP Invasion was an American imperialist intervention, it's interesting to note that, contrary to what you've written, de Mohrenschildt claimed that Oswald was not vehement or violent in his views on the subject.

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas Graves

Steven,

Has anyone besides Bruce Adamson seen the letter he claimed to have received from John S. Minary?

Also, how does your JFK assassination researcher Bruce Adamson know that "[George H. W.] Bush knew George de Mohrenschildt since 1942"?

(Bush was 18 years old in 1942 and de Mohrenschildt was 31 in 1942 and in that year was turned away by the CIA because he was considered to be a Nazi agent.)

http://jfk.hood.edu/...rge/Item 62.pdf

###########################################

Linda Minor
Linda Minor

Advanced Member

av-6236.jpg?_r=1216095079

Posted 16 January 2009 - 04:55 PM

John Simkin, on Jan 15 2009, 06:20 PM, said:

There is some good information on George de Mohrenschildt in Russ Baker's book, Family Secrets. He points out that on 11th May, 1978, Jeanne de Mohrenschildt gave an interview to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, where she said that she did not accept that her husband had committed suicide. She also said that she believed Lee Harvey Oswald was an agent of the United States, possibly of the CIA, and that she was convinced he did not kill John F. Kennedy. She then went onto say: "They may get me too, but I'm not afraid... It's about time somebody looked into this thing."


In response to this thread:
  • First, Adamson is a great researcher, but not a great writer. He has numerous volumes of self-published manuscripts for sale, which I purchased 8 or 9 years ago, that are loaded with information--much of it overlapping and poorly edited. But it was thorough, boldly acquired by him from interviews, requests for documents and all sorts of research that necessitated travel and other expenses most of us don't have the time or inclination to pursue. The caveat is: Don't expect flowing prose from Adamson; just the facts, ma'am. It was ground-breaking work that many have relied upon, whether they give him credit or not. (It's sort of like the LaRouche research in that sense.)
  • Second, Russ Baker brings out many, many details about George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt too numerous to go into here.

1. One is the fact that George DeM.'s brother Dimitry was married to the mother of George Bush's roommate, Edward Hooker--who became George DeM's partner in oil business in Colorado (Adamson originally dug up this information in his research).

2. Edward Hooker introduced George DeM to his wife, Lynn Sharples, who was very connected to Philadelphia social set and to the Sharples oil family.

3. Edward Hooker died young after financing George DeM in Colorado oil ventures; years later when his daughter married, Hooker's widow got George H.W. Bush to give their daughter away at the wedding to Ames Braga, son of one of the wealthiest sugar families living in New York--Rionda Braga company based in Cuba.


pdf.gif George_HW_gives_away_Hooker__s_daughter.pdf 149.49KB 8 downloads

##################

GAAL

NOT CIA but OSS. BTW he was roommates with two Navy officers in 1942 (somewere on this forum this was discussed) ((pure speculation on my part ,maybe he was turned from NAZI to ONI. The DEMoh naval base sketches and the lady he was with all smell of ONI to me. Dont recall her name but she dated brother of Mexican President. Said brother was a ladies man and he died two weeks before he was going to announce his canadency for the Mexican Presidency))

==

DeMoh visted Hooker in Collage and met GHWB.As to Paley secretary letter I dont think that was published in the Adamson volumnes but Bruce told me that (before mentioning said letter in his volumnes) that he had talked to the secretary on the phone about it (RE DEMoh hired by CBS Paley). Bruce did publish a Dulles -Paley letter in said volumes and its obvious they were very very close friends.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to post
Share on other sites

But according to what Volkmar Schmidt said in 1993, Oswald wasn't angry at JFK for "messing up" the Bay of Pigs Invasion, but for authorizing the Bay of Pigs Invasion in the first place!

VOLKMAR SCHMIDT: Lee Harvey Oswald brought up in the conversation with me the fact that he really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion. It turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald really idealized socialism of Cuba, while he was critical of the socialism in the Soviet Union. And he was just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/transcripts/1205.html

So, unfortunately for your theory, Volkmar's Schmidt's anti-Kennedy Oswald doesn't jibe with Silvia Odio's anti-Kennedy "Oswald".

--Tommy :sun

PS Dick Russel also writes on Oswald's view of the Bay of Pigs Invasion.

http://books.google.com/books?id=XJQX-4khd2QC&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=%22bay+of+pigs+as+a+symbol+of+american+imperialism%22&source=bl&ots=qp-EMJME_A&sig=uq7Q4vr48QtWvp0KumrLqwxEHbo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xiNgVKWXKbD2iQKW7oGIBQ&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22bay%20of%20pigs%20as%20a%20symbol%20of%20american%20imperialism%22&f=false

As did that great Dallas liberal, George de Mohrenschildt, himself.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22lee+thought+that+president+kennedy%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=np&source=hp#rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=np&q=%22lee+thought+president+kennedy+should+not+[have]+allowed+any+invasion+of+cuba%22

But note that, contrary to what you've written, de Mohrenschildt says that Oswald was not vehement or violent in his views on the BOP Invasion.

Well, Tommy, again I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my views on this arcane topic.

I would first point out that we are now at the level of fine-tuning the finer points of my theory, and that is in-itself some progress.

I would secondly point out that I respect your perspective, because you're the one who last year asked a key question in JFK research, namely, if Lee Harvey Oswald was truly a full-fledged member of the US Intelligence Community, then how could he have been made into the Patsy for the JFK murder?

That was, IMHO, one of the most astute questions about the JFK murder in the past fifty years. So, despite our frequent disagreements, I genuinely respect your sincerity, your scholarship and your insight.

OK, that said, let's look at your latest objections to my theory that Edwin Walker was the central plotter of the JFK murder:

(1) In our generic context so far, it's a minor point to distinguish between "messing up" the Bay of Pigs and "authorizing" the Bay of Pigs. One can argue that JFK "messed up" by "authorizing" the Bay of Pigs. Stated in that way, there is no contradiction. It's minor.

However -- we rightly ask what Lee Harvey Oswald actually said, remembering that Volkmar Schmidt was not above putting his own spin on events, especially if he could absolve himself a little more.

Let's take Volkmar's words sentence by sentence: "Lee Harvey Oswald...really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion."

Now, you might argue that such "support" means strictly that JFK "authorized" the Bay of Pigs invasion in the first place -- but actually there are different ways to interpret the word, "support."

Right-wing (and US Marines) would use that word "support" in the context of "air support", and it was often said that JFK "failed to provide air support" for the Bay of Pigs invaders. So, that word "support" is ambiguous.

Next, Volkmar Schmidt said: "It turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald really idealized socialism of Cuba, while he was critical of the socialism in the Soviet Union."

Note that if Oswald idealized Cuban socialism while being critical of USSR socialism, that Oswald was really an individualist, because even Fidel Castro himself supported USSR socialism!

So, regarding Cuba, Lee Harvey Oswald was an individualist, just like Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Frank Sturgis -- because all of these men fought next to Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra in Cuba -- hoping to make the Cuban revolution VERY DIFFERENT from the Russian revolution. After they failed miserably, they quickly switched sides to try to kill Fidel Castro.

So, Volkmar Schmidt is arguably just projecting his own political opinions onto Oswald. What Oswald truly believed about Cuba can be best seen in his behavior in New Orleans -- faking membership in a Fake FPCC run by Guy Banister. Volkmar Schmidt evidently had no clue that Oswald was capable of this degree of deception.

What is unambiguous, however, is Volkmar's final sentence, that Lee Harvey Oswald was "just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy."

Surely that must remind every reader of what Sylvia Odio heard from "Leopoldo," namely, that "Leon Oswald says you Cubans don't have any guts because President Kennedy should have been assassinated after the Bay of Pigs."

Compare that with Volkmar's words: Lee Harvey Oswald was "just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy." That statement TOTALLY jibes with Silvia Odio's anti-Kennedy "Oswald".

(2) Dick Russell says this about Oswald's view of the Bay of Pigs Invasion: "Oswald claimed to see the Bay of Pigs as a symbol of American imperialism." However, in that same paragraph, Dick Russell also speaks at length about Larrie Schmidt, while Larrie Schmidt told me personally that Dick Russell's writings about CUSA and about himself specifically was "totally backassward." So, just because Dick Russell expressed an opinion, that can hardly be taken as accepted History.

(3) George de Mohrenschildt (DM) wrote: "Lee thought President Kennedy should not have allowed any invasion of Cuba, but he was not vehement or violent in his views on this subject, himself."

Yet we must take this with a large grain of salt. First, notice that he contradicts his friend, Volkmar, who said that Oswald was "just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy."

Secondly, George DM felt guilty his whole life long because of how he arguably pushed Lee Harvey Oswald over the edge with regard to Edwin Walker.

In his book, "I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!" which is the source of that passage, George DM tried to reverse all of his insulting remarks about Lee Harvey Oswald that we find so often in the pages of his Warren Commission testimony. It was an apologetic work. George DM was back-pedaling as fast as he could.

Furthermore, we should remember that both in his Warren Commission testimony AS WELL AS in his "Patsy" book, George DM insisted that Lee Harvey Oswald was FRAMED and that Oswald would NEVER have shot at JFK.

On this point George DM never wavered. He was sincere on this point, and I find him believable here.

George DM truly believed -- and he told the Warren Commission this -- that the right-wing in Dallas killed JFK and FRAMED Lee Harvey Oswald.

Notice, too, that George DM also fully accepted that Lee Harvey Oswald tried to assassinate Ex-General Edwin Walker.

In his "Patsy" book, George DM made a partial confession about the Dallas engineer community pushing Oswald to the brink regarding Edwin Walker. George DM then wrote the final falsehood of his life, when he wrote that he couldn't remember the name of the man who tried to "manipulate" Oswald -- and that he was probably "Jewish".

George DM knew good and well that his very good friend, Volkmar Schmidt, was that man, and that he was clearly "German."

What George DM didn't know was that Volkmar Schmidt was never so ashamed of his role to hide it for the rest of his life. Volkmar Schmidt admitted the truth several times, in audio as well as video interviews (e.g. Frontline: Who Was LHO, available on Youtube).

So, again, we must take George DM's word about the Bay of Pigs with a grain of salt.

What we can say for sure is that George DM also acknowledged, along with Volkmar Schmidt, that Lee Harvey Oswald complained bitterly about JFK's role in the Bay of Pigs.

This COMPLETELY agrees with what "Leopoldo" told Silvia Odio.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

But according to what Volkmar Schmidt said in 1993, Oswald wasn't angry at JFK for "messing up" the Bay of Pigs Invasion, but for authorizing the Bay of Pigs Invasion in the first place!

VOLKMAR SCHMIDT: Lee Harvey Oswald brought up in the conversation with me the fact that he really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion. It turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald really idealized socialism of Cuba, while he was critical of the socialism in the Soviet Union. And he was just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/transcripts/1205.html

So, unfortunately for your theory, Volkmar's Schmidt's anti-Kennedy Oswald doesn't jibe with Silvia Odio's anti-Kennedy "Oswald".

--Tommy :sun

PS Dick Russel also writes on Oswald's view of the Bay of Pigs Invasion.

http://books.google.com/books?id=XJQX-4khd2QC&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=%22bay+of+pigs+as+a+symbol+of+american+imperialism%22&source=bl&ots=qp-EMJME_A&sig=uq7Q4vr48QtWvp0KumrLqwxEHbo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xiNgVKWXKbD2iQKW7oGIBQ&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22bay%20of%20pigs%20as%20a%20symbol%20of%20american%20imperialism%22&f=false

As did that great Dallas liberal, George de Mohrenschildt, himself.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22lee+thought+that+president+kennedy%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=np&source=hp#rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=np&q=%22lee+thought+president+kennedy+should+not+[have]+allowed+any+invasion+of+cuba%22

But note that, contrary to what you've written, de Mohrenschildt says that Oswald was not vehement or violent in his views on the BOP Invasion.

[...]

Let's take Volkmar's words sentence by sentence: "Lee Harvey Oswald...really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion."

Now, you might argue that such "support" means strictly that JFK "authorized" the Bay of Pigs invasion in the first place -- but actually there are different ways to interpret the word, "support."

Right-wing (and US Marines) would use that word "support" in the context of "air support", and it was often said that JFK "failed to provide air support" for the Bay of Pigs invaders. So, that word "support" is ambiguous.

[...]

Nice try!

But one does not use words ambiguously in a PBS Frontline Special, one tries to avoid ambiguity.

Volkmar Schmidt's use of the word "support" is not ambiguous except in the highly nuanced context you are trying to create to support your theory.

Since Volkmar Schmidt was not a U.S. Marine, I very seriously doubt that he meant "air support".

Regardless, it would have been misleading and presumptuous of him to assume that we would automatically infer that Oswald meant "air support" just because Oswald was a Marine.

And even if Volkmar Schmidt had been a U.S. Marine and meant "air support", in that case he would have said that Oswald felt very angry about the "lack of support" which the Kennedy Administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion.

You know, to avoid ambiguity on that PBS Frontline Special.

--Tommy :sun

PS You do agree, don't you, that there's a huge difference between saying that Oswald was angry at JFK for authorizing the BOP Invasion, and saying that Oswald was angry at JFK for the lack of air support he'd given the BOP Invasion?

Well, Paul,... Volkmar Schmidt witnessed to the former, and Sylvia Odio effectively witnessed, with the help of "Leopoldo", the latter.

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

But according to what Volkmar Schmidt said in 1993, Oswald wasn't angry at JFK for "messing up" the Bay of Pigs Invasion, but for authorizing the Bay of Pigs Invasion in the first place!

VOLKMAR SCHMIDT: Lee Harvey Oswald brought up in the conversation with me the fact that he really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion. It turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald really idealized socialism of Cuba, while he was critical of the socialism in the Soviet Union. And he was just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/transcripts/1205.html

So, unfortunately for your theory, Volkmar's Schmidt's anti-Kennedy Oswald doesn't jibe with Silvia Odio's anti-Kennedy "Oswald".

--Tommy :sun

PS Dick Russel also writes on Oswald's view of the Bay of Pigs Invasion.

http://books.google.com/books?id=XJQX-4khd2QC&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=%22bay+of+pigs+as+a+symbol+of+american+imperialism%22&source=bl&ots=qp-EMJME_A&sig=uq7Q4vr48QtWvp0KumrLqwxEHbo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xiNgVKWXKbD2iQKW7oGIBQ&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22bay%20of%20pigs%20as%20a%20symbol%20of%20american%20imperialism%22&f=false

As did that great Dallas liberal, George de Mohrenschildt, himself.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22lee+thought+that+president+kennedy%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=np&source=hp#rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=np&q=%22lee+thought+president+kennedy+should+not+[have]+allowed+any+invasion+of+cuba%22

But note that, contrary to what you've written, de Mohrenschildt says that Oswald was not vehement or violent in his views on the BOP Invasion.

[...]

Let's take Volkmar's words sentence by sentence: "Lee Harvey Oswald...really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion."

Now, you might argue that such "support" means strictly that JFK "authorized" the Bay of Pigs invasion in the first place -- but actually there are different ways to interpret the word, "support."

Right-wing (and US Marines) would use that word "support" in the context of "air support", and it was often said that JFK "failed to provide air support" for the Bay of Pigs invaders. So, that word "support" is ambiguous.

[...]

Nice try!

But one does not use words ambiguously in a PBS Frontline Special, one tries to avoid ambiguity.

Volkmar Schmidt's use of the word "support" is not ambiguous except in the highly nuanced context you are trying to create to support your theory.

Since Volkmar Schmidt was not a U.S. Marine, I very seriously doubt that he meant "air support".

Regardless, it would have been misleading and presumptuous of him to assume that we would automatically infer that Oswald meant "air support" just because Oswald was a Marine.

And even if Volkmar Schmidt had been a U.S. Marine and meant "air support", in that case he would have said that Oswald felt very angry about the "lack of support" which the Kennedy Administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion.

You know, to avoid ambiguity on that PBS Frontline Special.

--Tommy :sun

PS You do agree, don't you, that there's a huge difference between saying that Oswald was angry at JFK for authorizing the BOP Invasion, and saying that Oswald was angry at JFK for the lack of air support he'd given the BOP Invasion?

Well, Paul,... Volkmar Schmidt witnessed to the former, and Sylvia Odio effectively witnessed, with the help of "Leopoldo", the latter.

PPS I think the reason "Leopoldo" told Odio all about Oswald over the phone instead of in front of Oswald and "Angelo" wasn't to prevent "Angelo" from hearing it, but to prevent Oswald from hearing it. This fits in with the idea that Oswald was a US intelligence agent who was monitoring "Leopoldo" and "Angelo" and / or Odio, and "Leopoldo" knew it.

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

...You do agree, don't you, that there's a huge difference between saying that Oswald was angry at JFK for authorizing the BOP Invasion, and saying that Oswald was angry at JFK for the lack of air support he'd given the BOP Invasion?

Well, Paul,... Volkmar Schmidt witnessed to the former, and Sylvia Odio effectively witnessed, with the help of "Leopoldo", the latter.

--Tommy :sun

PPS I think the reason "Leopoldo" told Odio all about Oswald over the phone instead of in front of Oswald and "Angelo" wasn't to prevent "Angelo" from hearing it, but to prevent Oswald from hearing it. This fits in with the idea that Oswald was a US intelligence agent who was monitoring "Leopoldo" and "Angelo" and / or Odio, and "Leopoldo" knew it.

Sure, Tommy, there's a difference, but its size depends on the context. Volkmar Schmidt's memory of his conversation with Lee Harvey Oswald is obviously conditioned by some level of guilt that he had in pushing Lee Harvey Oswald to the brink, trying to get him to transfer his "obsessive anger" with JFK over the BOP, away from JFK and towards Ex-General Edwin Walker and the race riots at Ole Miss in 1962, where hundreds were wounded and two were killed.

Volkmar's guilt must add a grain of salt to the actual words that he used to describe Oswald's position. It cannot be taken as a direct quote from Lee Harvey Oswald.

To grasp the actual state of mind of Lee Harvey Oswald himself (and not the liberal spin that Volkmar Schmidt wished us to see) we must refer to the work done by Jim Garrison in New Orleans, where he uncovered Lee Harvey Oswald faking an official post in a Fake FPCC chapter in New Orleans, which was conducted from within the offices of the radical right-wing comrade of Ex-General Edwin Walker -- none other than Guy Banister.

All of the evidence must be taken into account -- we can't just stop with a few biased words by Volkmar Schmidt.

Volkmar Schmidt and George DM both tell us that Lee Harvey Oswald tried to kill Edwin Walker. That's the main point we should take away from this literature that you're quoting, Tommy.

Oswald's motives for shooting at Walker are just as open to debate as his motives for participating -- even as a Patsy -- in the murder of JFK.

FINALLY, as to your PPS, you are just wildly guessing about Leopoldo's use of the telephone to call Sylvia Odio the next day after their visit to her house along with Lee (Leon) Oswald. You don't know what he was thinking. The best likelihood comes from Silvia's own guess -- that "Leopoldo" was being "fresh" with her, and was trying to fish for a date. He was trying to impress her, get a rise from her, get her talking. He wasn't aware that he was really turning her off.

Also, if "Leopoldo" knew that Oswald was playing at being a double-agent, that still didn't stop him from driving Oswald to Mexico City (as Gaeton Fonzi accepted). Loran Hall and Larry Howard took the job to drive Oswald to Mexico City where Oswald made a fool of himself trying to get an Instant Visa into Cuba. In this stupidity Lee Oswald was following the orders of Guy Banister -- that's the best explanation.

This behavior best shows who Lee Oswald was truly working for -- Guy Banister, Clay Shaw and David Ferrie. Jim Garrison did so much of our work for us that we can never thank him enough.

Finally, Loran Hall pitied Lee Harvey Oswald -- he didn't fear Oswald in the slightest.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

...You do agree, don't you, that there's a huge difference between saying that Oswald was angry at JFK for authorizing the BOP Invasion, and saying that Oswald was angry at JFK for the lack of air support he'd given the BOP Invasion?

Well, Paul,... Volkmar Schmidt witnessed to the former, and Sylvia Odio effectively witnessed, with the help of "Leopoldo", the latter.

--Tommy :sun

Sure, Tommy, there's a difference, but its size depends on the context. Volkmar Schmidt's memory of his conversation with Lee Harvey Oswald is obviously conditioned by some level of guilt that he had in pushing Lee Harvey Oswald to the brink, trying to get him to transfer his "obsessive anger" with JFK over the BOP, away from JFK and towards Ex-General Edwin Walker and the race riots at Ole Miss in 1962, where hundreds were wounded and two were killed.

Volkmar's guilt must add a grain of salt to the actual words that he used to describe Oswald's position. It cannot be taken as a direct quote from Lee Harvey Oswald.

To grasp the actual state of mind of Lee Harvey Oswald himself (and not the liberal spin that Volkmar Schmidt wished us to see) we must refer to the work done by Jim Garrison in New Orleans, where he uncovered Lee Harvey Oswald faking an official post in a Fake FPCC chapter in New Orleans, run out of the offices of the radical right-wing friend of Ex-General Edwin Walker -- none other than Guy Banister.

All of the evidence must be taken into account -- we can't just stop with a few biased words by Volkmar Schmidt.

Volkmar Schmidt and George DM both tell us that Lee Harvey Oswald tried to kill Edwin Walker. That's the main point we should take away from this literature that you're quoting, Tommy.

Oswald's motives for shooting at Walker are just as prone to debate as his motives for participating -- even as a Patsy -- in the murder of JFK.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

What about the other 2/3 of my post? I'm cutting and pasting it here for your convenience:

[Paul Trejo wrote:]

[...]

Let's take Volkmar's words sentence by sentence: "Lee Harvey Oswald...really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion."

Now, you might argue that such "support" means strictly that JFK "authorized" the Bay of Pigs invasion in the first place -- but actually there are different ways to interpret the word, "support."

Right-wing (and US Marines) would use that word "support" in the context of "air support", and it was often said that JFK "failed to provide air support" for the Bay of Pigs invaders. So, that word "support" is ambiguous.

[...]

__________________________________________________________________________________

Nice try!

But one does not use words ambiguously in a PBS Frontline Special, one tries to avoid ambiguity.

Volkmar Schmidt's use of the word "support" is not ambiguous except in the highly nuanced context you are trying to create to support your theory.

Since Volkmar Schmidt was not a U.S. Marine, I very seriously doubt that he meant "air support".

Regardless, it would have been misleading and presumptuous of him to assume that we would automatically infer that Oswald meant "air support" just because Oswald was a Marine.

And even if Volkmar Schmidt had been a U.S. Marine and meant "air support", in that case he would have said that Oswald felt very angry about the "lack of support" which the Kennedy Administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion.

You know, to avoid ambiguity on that PBS Frontline Special.

--Tommy :sun

PS [...]

PPS Since you brought up Sylvia Odio on this thread, let me say that I think the reason "Leopoldo" told Odio all about "violently anti-Kennedy because-of-the-JFK-lack-of-air-support-BOP-disaster" Oswald over the phone instead of in front of Oswald and "Angelo" wasn't to prevent "Angelo" from hearing it, but to prevent Oswald from hearing it. This fits in with the idea that Oswald was a US or Cuban intelligence agent (or at least thought he was) who was monitoring "Leopoldo" and "Angelo" and / or Odio, and "Leopoldo" knew it.

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy, you're just guessing about what Volkmar Schmidt "would have said" and what he was thinking. The fact remains that he did not claim to QUOTE Lee Harvey Oswald verbatim.

You're also just guessing about what "Leopoldo" was thinking when he told Silvia Odio that "Leon Oswald said Kennedy should have been killed after the Bay of Pigs." The fact remains that these were the reported words.

You're also reaching when you guess that Oswald was some sort of Intelligence Asset spying on "Leopoldo" himself. In fact, you're contradicting your own question of 2013 -- how could Oswald be an Intelligence Agent and then be tricked into being the Patsy of the JFK murder?

Besides, you're just extending objections indefinitely now. We have established, IMHO, that George DM and Volkmar Schmidt admitted to have pushed Lee Harvey Oswald over the brink on the topic of Edwin Walker.

That was my key point -- and I think it's now clear, because you yourself are now quoting from Volkmar Schmidt and George DM.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy, you're just guessing about what Volkmar Schmidt "would have said" and what he was thinking. The fact remains that he did not claim to QUOTE Lee Harvey Oswald verbatim.

You're also just guessing about what "Leopoldo" was thinking when he told Silvia Odio that "Leon Oswald said Kennedy should have been killed after the Bay of Pigs." The fact remains that these were the reported words.

You're also reaching when you guess that Oswald was some sort of Intelligence Asset spying on "Leopoldo" himself. In fact, you're contradicting your own question of 2013 -- how could Oswald be an Intelligence Agent and then be tricked into being the Patsy of the JFK murder?

Besides, you're just extending objections indefinitely now. We have established, IMHO, that George DM and Volkmar Schmidt admitted to have pushed Lee Harvey Oswald over the brink on the topic of Edwin Walker.

That was my key point -- and I think it's now clear, because you yourself are now quoting from Volkmar Schmidt and George DM.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I'm quoting from George de Mohrenschildt and the unambiguous Volkmar Schmidt to show the other members of this forum the fallacy of one of your "nuances". I'm trying to show them that Oswald was angry about JFK's giving support to the Bay of Pigs operation in the first place, not about his not giving enough air support to the operation while it was taking place.

And why was Oswald angry at JFK for supporting / authorizing the Bay of Pigs operation in the first place? Because Oswald thought that the Bay of Pigs Invasion (and the Cuban Missile Crisis) was an example of American Imperialism in action.

This "far-left" or "left" or "liberal" stance by Oswald, by the way, totally contradicted the far-right, violently anti-Kennedy picture of Oswald that "Leopoldo" tried to paint over the phone for Sylvia Odio, a picture that falsely characterized Oswald as being angry at JFK for not providing enough air support for the BOP operation.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quoting from George de Mohrenschildt and the unambiguous Volkmar Schmidt to show the other members of this forum the fallacy of one of your "nuances". I'm trying to show them that Oswald was angry about JFK's giving support to the Bay of Pigs operation in the first place, not about his not giving enough air support to the operation while it was taking place.

And why was Oswald angry at JFK for supporting / authorizing the Bay of Pigs operation in the first place? Because Oswald thought that the Bay of Pigs Invasion (and the Cuban Missile Crisis) was an example of American Imperialism in action.

This "far-left" or "left" or "liberal" stance by Oswald, by the way, totally contradicted the far-right, violently anti-Kennedy picture of Oswald that "Leopoldo" tried to paint over the phone for Sylvia Odio, a picture that falsely characterized Oswald as being angry at JFK for not providing enough air support for the BOP operation.

--Tommy :sun

Well, Tommy, you're trying your best, but you're only guessing. You have no firm idea why Oswald was "just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy." based on the little bit of data that you've found.
As for Dick Russell's opinion about "American Imperialism", it is still ambiguous because Oswald was clearly pretending to be a double-agent -- smart-alek that he was. People close to him, like Loran Hall would say, "you never know how to take him."
So, your attempt to fix Oswald's meaning about "American Imperialism" falls flat, because you might be falling for Lee Harvey Oswald's FAKE persona of a FAKE officer of a FAKE branch of the FPCC in New Orleans.
Don't feel bad about it -- perhaps most accounts of Lee Harvey Oswald continue to show that film of Oswald passing out FPCC leaflets in New Orleans as "proof" that he was a Castro-loving Communist.
The bald truth is that since Oswald was working for Guy Banister in that context (as Guy Banister's address was stamped on some of those FPCC leaflets) that Oswald was FOOLING everybody about his pro-Communist attitudes.
This has NOTHING to do with Oswald's position on Civil Rights, by the way. It was entirely plausible to work for the assassination of Fidel Castro on the one hand, and yet still demand equal rights for Black Americans. Many Liberal Americans held that position -- JFK himself is only one example among many.
You should try to remember -- as Jim Garrison remembered -- that Oswald was a former US Marine who was working for Guy Banister in the context of his FAKE chapter of the FPCC. Guy Banister was one of the most extreme right-wingers in America. You seem to be neglecting that fact.
Regards,
--Paul Trejo
Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...