Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

The basic scenario is very simple. Oswald agreed to provide the FBI with information on any foreign or suspect contacts that were made with him...he did so in his first FBI interview in Texas following his return. While basically a populist and advocate of socialist causes he was in no way a Communist (as demonstrated by his complete lack of interest in actually participation in Party activities in either the US or more specifically in Russia). Oswald spoke adamantly against Russian Communism in his manuscript and accused it of controlling its parties and groups overseas for its own nationalist agenda. Yet after doing so in his manuscript he began an ongoing series of communications with both the CPUSA and SWP (if that doesn't convince anyone that he had started cooperating with the FBI as some sort of dangle or provocateur then stop reading at this point). His communications became more and more provocative, by later summer he was writing about actually going underground. Yet we know he actively contacted the subversive desk of the FBI in NO and more specifically a subversive desk agent - by name. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to show he was an FBI source, and that a NO field office file on him existed. To be a real informant he would have had to work his way inside a targeted organization - which he never did. But in that respect, both the Cuban exile groups were FBI targets (for weapons violations and engaging in missions against Cuba) and so would have been any Cuban agents, especially double agents - and some of those contacting Oswald in NO had been suspected by both CIA and FBI of being Castro double agents.

As to Bannister, his office had been evaluated by the CIA as a cover back in early 1961, we don't know the official results. We do know that the FBI routinely used former agents PI firms as covers without providing them much information. And we also know both FBI and CIA were engaged in joint anti-FPCC and Cuban penetration efforts beginning in late spring 1963. Bannister's office could have been used as a home base (and mailing address) for a number of Oswald's "dangle" activities towards several potential targets with no more than knowledge on Bannister's part that Oswald was not a "commie" and that his actions were on the side of the good guys. Which is really all he told some of his street guys, simply that Oswald was "one of us". Oswald using Bannister's office and address would have been very basic domestic trade-craft for FBI subversive operations which often used PI's and businesses - much as the CIA did both domestically and overseas.

Dr. Rose in a 3rd Decade article showed that LHO Social Security number was "ODD" / "STRANGE" at the age of fifteen and a half. SAID article ws posted on this forum twice. THANKS SG

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Heck, Mr. Trejo...I'm still waiting for YOU to show evidence. Oh, wait...your theory is just a theory, so you don't need to show ACTUAL evidence. But anyone else's theory REQUIRES evidence.

Sorry...I must've missed that ONE WAY STREET sign...

You missed more than that, Mark. I've shown pages and pages of evidence for my position from the testimony of George DM, Jeanne DM, Marina Oswald, the interviews of Volkmar Schmidt, confessions of Harry Dean and Ron Lewis, the "I'm A Patsy" manuscript of George DM, and Jim Garrison's NOLA findings about Oswald.

I have plenty of evidence. Paul B's notion that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't really working for Guy Banister in that Fake FPCC operation in NOLA totally lacks evidence.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic scenario is very simple...

OK, Larry, let's take this sentence by sentence:

LARRY HANCOCK: Oswald agreed to provide the FBI with information on any foreign or suspect contacts that were made with him...he did so in his first FBI interview in Texas following his return.

AGREED.

LARRY HANCOCK: While basically a populist and advocate of socialist causes he was in no way a Communist (as demonstrated by his complete lack of interest in actually participation in Party activities in either the US or more specifically in Russia).

AGREED.

LARRY HANCOCK: Oswald spoke adamantly against Russian Communism in his manuscript and accused it of controlling its parties and groups overseas for its own nationalist agenda.

AGREED.

LARRY HANCOCK: Yet after doing so in his manuscript he began an ongoing series of communications with both the CPUSA and SWP (if that doesn't convince anyone that he had started cooperating with the FBI as some sort of dangle or provocateur then stop reading at this point).

AGREED.

LARRY HANCOCK: His communications became more and more provocative, by later summer he was writing about actually going underground. Yet we know he actively contacted the subversive desk of the FBI in NOLA and more specifically a subversive desk agent - by name.

AGREED.

LARRY HANCOCK: There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to show he was an FBI source, and that a NOLA field office file on him existed.

AGREED.

LARRY HANCOCK: To be a real informant he would have had to work his way inside a targeted organization - which he never did.

AGREED.

LARRY HANCOCK: But in that respect, both the Cuban exile groups were FBI targets (for weapons violations and engaging in missions against Cuba) and so would have been any Cuban agents, especially double agents - and some of those contacting Oswald in NO had been suspected by both CIA and FBI of being Castro double agents.

DISAGREED. The question about undermining Fidel Castro with raids on Cuba was *controversial* even within the FBI. Guy Banister, a former FBI man, chose to continue with raids on Cuba in cooperation with the DRE, INCA, ALPHA 66 and many other Cuban raid groups. In this context we also find Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman, Thomas E. Beckham, Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, John Martino, Johnny Roselli, Antonio Veciana, E. Howard Hunt, David Atlee Phillips, Dave Morales, Joseph Milteer, Edwin Walker, and several others, SOME OF WHOM HAVE ALREADY CONFESSED TO PARTICIPATION IN THE JFK MURDER. Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't spying on these people -- he was WORKING WITH these people, in their stated objective, Operation Mongoose, which was STILL FUNDED BY THE KENNEDY ADMINISTRATION, and overseen by RFK, with the single objective: to assassinate Fidel Castro.

LARRY HANCOCK: As to Bannister, his office had been evaluated by the CIA as a cover back in early 1961, we don't know the official results.

AGREED.

LARRY HANCOCK: We do know that the FBI routinely used former agents PI firms as covers without providing them much information.

AGREED.

LARRY HANCOCK: And we also know both FBI and CIA were engaged in joint anti-FPCC and Cuban penetration efforts beginning in late spring 1963.

AGREED.

LARRY HANCOCK: Bannister's office could have been used as a home base (and mailing address) for a number of Oswald's "dangle" activities towards several potential targets with no more than knowledge on Bannister's part that Oswald was not a "commie" and that his actions were on the side of the good guys. Which is really all he told some of his street guys, simply that Oswald was "one of us".

DISAGREED. It is reaching -- by no means simple -- to suppose that Lee Harvey Oswald was spying on Guy Banister instead of cooperating with him. Your phrase, "could have been" is reaching. On the contrary, we have material evidence that Oswald cooperated with Guy Banister for MONTHS, along with David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler. To imagine otherwise is to presume that Guy Banister was easily fooled by somebody like Lee Harvey Oswald.

LARRY HANCOCK: Oswald using Bannister's office and address would have been very basic domestic trade-craft for FBI subversive operations which often used PI's and businesses - much as the CIA did both domestically and overseas.

PARTIALLY AGREED. The statement in itself is correct, but not within the context of the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald was fooling Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, David Atlee Phillips, Antonio Veciana, and all the rest -- FOR MONTHS. It's reaching, and it requires hard evidence.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, you seem to be smearing events across a number of years, including things that happened in New Orleans well before Oswald arrived in the spring of 1963 For example, list one anti-Castro military operation that Bannister, Ferrie or Shaw were involved with in 1963 - with any exile group. You also need to show evidence of Oswald "cooperating with Guy Banister for MONTHS, along with David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler". Exactly what activities did he cooperate on then with, if you make claims like that you really need to fill in some details. Associating with them or even being known by them is far from conducting "operations" with them.

You asked for a scenario in which Oswald could have been associated with Bannister without Bannister personally directing his actions and I gave you one. In response you simply throw out batches of names, of greatly different degrees of reliability, as if they were evidence to your objection. Also, at no point did I say Oswald was spying on Bannister, I said it would be common practice for Bannister's PI business to be used as a domestic cover for Oswald's activities. That practice is no stretch, it was a well documented FBI practice; indeed when the FBI began to work with Shaw's legal defense they following the same practice of channeling contacts through former agent PI groups.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, you seem to be smearing events across a number of years, including things that happened in New Orleans well before Oswald arrived in the spring of 1963 For example, list one anti-Castro military operation that Bannister, Ferrie or Shaw were involved with in 1963 - with any exile group. You also need to show evidence of Oswald "cooperating with Guy Banister for MONTHS, along with David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler". Exactly what activities did he cooperate on then with, if you make claims like that you really need to fill in some details. Associating with them or even being known by them is far from conducting "operations" with them.

You asked for a scenario in which Oswald could have been associated with Bannister without Bannister personally directing his actions and I gave you one. In response you simply throw out batches of names, of greatly different degrees of reliability, as if they were evidence to your objection. Also, at no point did I say Oswald was spying on Bannister, I said it would be common practice for Bannister's PI business to be used as a domestic cover for Oswald's activities. That practice is no stretch, it was a well documented FBI practice; indeed when the FBI began to work with Shaw's legal defense they following the same practice of channeling contacts through former agent PI groups.

Okay, Larry, let's focus on one scenario -- and let me be specific about the activities that Oswald cooperated with -- with some details. Let's begin with the scenario we find in the pages of NOLA District Attorney Jim Garrison's book, On the Trail of the Assassins (1988).

According to Jim Garrison's book, he found that Lee Harvey Oswald worked in cooperation with Guy Banister very shortly after he arrived in New Orleans in late April 1963, to establish a Fake branch of the FPCC. In that operation, Banister worked closely with Clay Shaw and David Ferrie.

This activity continued through May, June and July 1963, and culminated in August with a flurry of Media events, including police reports, newspaper articles, radio spots and even a TV spot, always linking Oswald with this Fake FPCC in connection with DRE leader Carlos Bringuier and INCA leader Ed Butler.

Film from that same period shows Cuban Exile leaders and personnel from many different groups congregating around the offices of Guy Banister in NOLA.

Jim Garrison also found that during the summer of 1963, Operation Mongoose was still operating with its bases in NOLA, and included the offices of Guy Banister in NOLA, again involving the same personnel.

During that entire period -- which is MONTHS -- Lee Harvey Oswald, through the cooperation of Banister, Ferrie, Shaw, Bringuier, Butler and their associates created a persona for himself as an Officer of a Fake FPCC in NOLA.

Then, in September 1963, according to Marina Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald took newspaper clippings of all these Media events with him to Mexico. Then, according to the Edwin Lopez Report, Lee Oswald placed these Fake FPCC clippings on the desk of the Cuban consulate and demanded an instant Visa to Cuba, as foolish as that sounds.

In other words, Lee Harvey Oswald worked ALL SUMMER to obtain those Fake FPCC credentials, and he gathered them all up in a pile and took them directly to Mexico City, foolishly expecting that the Cuban consulate there would just hand him an "instant" Visa to Cuba -- as if THAT WAS THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF FORGING THOSE FAKE CREDENTIALS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

So, Larry, are you disputing the findings of Jim Garrison and Edwin Lopez? If not, how else do you explain the massive effort made in New Orleans during the summer MONTHS of 1963 to portray Lee Harvey Oswald as a Fake Officer of a Fake FPCC with Guy Banister's office address stamped right on the FPCC fliers, and with CIA funds used (as Garrison found) to pay for those Fake FPCC fliers?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, citing Jim Garrison is not sufficient, you need to cite primary evidence....so please provide the primary evidence for your points.

According to Jim Garrison's book, he found that Lee Harvey Oswald worked in cooperation with Guy Banister very shortly after he arrived in New Orleans in late April 1963, to establish a Fake branch of the FPCC. In that operation, Banister worked closely with Clay Shaw and David Ferrie.

....Garrison and other found Oswald had actively worked to establish a fake branch, through letters, leafleting, and flyers. The only direct association with Bannister was the address of his building as contact address on a few of the flyers and anecdotal information that Bannister was aware that Oswald was not a commie and that Oswald might have infrequently used a spare room in the building. Nothing in that tied Oswald to taking direction from Bannister nor working in the effort with Shaw or Ferrie. Other reports indicated that he might well have known Ferrie or Shaw but nothing connected them to his FPCC effort.

This activity continued through May, June and July 1963, and culminated in a flurry of Media events, including police reports, newspaper articles, radio spots and even a TV spot, always in connection with DRE leader Carlos Bringuier and INCA leader Ed Butler.

....the leafleting incident certainly involved Bringuier, both he and Butler and INCA used it for propaganda purposes. Please cite evidence that either man was working with Oswald on the FPCC project you referred to above. We can both speculate what was going on with Oswald in his FPCC efforts but its just speculation, from either you or me.

Film of that same period shows Cuban Exile leaders and personnel from many different groups congregating around the offices of Guy Banister in NOLA.

....Bannister and Ferrie had been involved with exiles earlier, circa 60 /61please cite the date of the film and who was in it. During much of the summer of 1963 Ferrie was working on the Marcello case but not for Bannister...what is your documentation for Bannister exile operations in the summer of 63....

Jim Garrison also found that during the summer of 1963, Operation Mongoose was still operating with its bases in NOLA, and included the offices of Guy Banister in NOLA, again involving the same personnel.

.....please provide citation - and note that Mongoose had been disbanded by December 1963, Harvey reassigned and that the CIA was conducting no operations out of NOLA in 63 although certainly some folks involved in the pre-BOP 60/61 activities still lived there.

During that entire period -- which is MONTHS -- Lee Harvey Oswald, through the cooperation of Banister, Ferrie, Shaw, Bringuier, Butler and their associates created a persona for himself as an Officer of a Fake FPCC in NOLA.

....repetition of point above, Oswald wrote letters, passed out leaflets, hired temporary employees to help pass out leaflets - other than the Bringuier encounter cite the involvement of those you named in Oswald actual FPCC effort

Then, in September 1963, according to Marina Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald took newspaper clippings of all these Media events with him to Mexico. Then, according to the Edwin Lopez Report, Lee Oswald placed these Fake FPCC clippings on the desk of the Cuban consulate and demanded an instant Visa to Cuba, as foolish as that sounds.

.....it is documented that Oswald produced certain FPCC papers but he had other materials as well, actually more significant materials. Please detail how Marina could have known what Oswald took to Mexico or to the consulate. And actually his visit may not have been at all foolish, especially if he was working any of a variety of other CIA or joint CIA/FBI efforts targeting travel to Cuba....or propaganda efforts against the FPCC....some of which are actually documented.

In other words, Lee Harvey Oswald worked ALL SUMMER to obtain those Fake FPCC credentials, and he gathered them all up in a pile and took them directly to Mexico City, foolishly expecting that the Cuban consulate there would just hand him an "instant" Visa to Cuba -- as if THAT WAS THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF FORGING THOSE FAKE CREDENTIALS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

....pure speculation on your point....he did use some of the FPCC material but also had prepared other bogus ID material on his own......

So, Larry, are you disputing the findings of Jim Garrison and Edwin Lopez? If not, how else do you explain the massive effort made in New Orleans during the summer MONTHS of 1963 to portray Lee Harvey Oswald as a Fake Officer of a Fake FPCC with Guy Banister's office address stamped right on the FPCC fliers, and with CIA funds used (as Garrison found) to pay for those Fake FPCC fliers?

....Citing Garrison as a general source is not relevant, you have to cite specific evidence he produced. You also need to explain all the other evidence you are leaving out which points to Oswald's ongoing contacts with the FBI subversive desk in NO including the games that were played to keep certain agents from offering testimony on that.

Paul, you just need to go ahead and write a book and put your whole theory in print and get it out there rather than just expressing it here - don't hold back, just go to it and let it stand on its own merits with readers and reviewers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

....Citing Garrison as a general source is not relevant, you have to cite specific evidence he produced. You also need to explain all the other evidence you are leaving out which points to Oswald's ongoing contacts with the FBI subversive desk in NO including the games that were played to keep certain agents from offering testimony on that.

Larry, my citation of Jim Garrison is perfectly relevant. Everybody on this Forum knows the story and the context as well, from Oliver Stone's 1991 movie, JFK, which was basically the film version of Jim Garrison's 1988 book.

The Fake FPCC scenario is a very specific scenario. You're evading the challenge -- Jim Garrison found Lee Harvey Oswald and Guy Banister, David Ferrie and Clay Shaw working TOGETHER in the summer of 1963 to create a Fake FPCC.

That in itself is very specific. Of course, you're free to dispute Jim Garrison if you want, Larry.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul:

Larry has been around a long time, done a huge amount of primary source document research, written several books, helped organize conferences and presented at them himself. With all due respect to your powers of theorization, this is not a case of two people with equivalent gravitas who just disagree. Larry has the chops. You need to listen more.

He's right about Garrison's book: Garrison conceded writing it largely from memory, it contains provable mistakes, and a book written two decades later is not evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul:

You are, without any shadow of a doubt, one of the most evidentiary ignorant individuals I have ever come across in my years of interest in the events of November 22, 1963. For you to accuse Larry Hancock of evasiveness is asinine, at best, but, hey, you may just know what you are talking about - after all, you are the master of evasiveness. Why do you not have the intestinal fortitude to even attempt to answer even one of the challenges presented to you by Larry in his post # 599? Is it because you cannot provide any specific evidence to buttress your sycophantic ramblings concerning the events your speculation riddled mind continues to foist off onto the members of this forum? I fail to see where in his immediate response to your meandering mess that Larry specifically disputed any of Jim Garrison's so-called "findings." He did, however politely ask you to "cite specific evidence" that Garrison may have produced. Indeed, Larry asked you no fewer than eight times to either cite or produce documented evidence in support of your/Garrison claims. Did you answer any of these requests? Don't bother answering me, for I know you cannot. Trust me, one of the last individuals you want to cite as "relevant," without specific citations of evidence or documentation to back up your grotesquely illiterate claims, is Jim Garrison. And don't even attempt to admonish me regarding any crap about knowledge I may or may not possess about Jim Garrison; I met the man and spent several hours with him in 1967, indeed had dinner with him? Did you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul:

Larry has been around a long time, done a huge amount of primary source document research, written several books, helped organize conferences and presented at them himself. With all due respect to your powers of theorization, this is not a case of two people with equivalent gravitas who just disagree. Larry has the chops. You need to listen more.

He's right about Garrison's book: Garrison conceded writing it largely from memory, it contains provable mistakes, and a book written two decades later is not evidence.

Duly noted, Stephen. Thanks for the courteous and scholarly reply.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul:

You are, without any shadow of a doubt, one of the most evidentiary ignorant individuals I have ever come across in my years of interest in the events of November 22, 1963. For you to accuse Larry Hancock of evasiveness is asinine, at best, but, hey, you may just know what you are talking about - after all, you are the master of evasiveness. Why do you not have the intestinal fortitude to even attempt to answer even one of the challenges presented to you by Larry in his post # 599? Is it because you cannot provide any specific evidence to buttress your sycophantic ramblings concerning the events your speculation riddled mind continues to foist off onto the members of this forum? I fail to see where in his immediate response to your meandering mess that Larry specifically disputed any of Jim Garrison's so-called "findings." He did, however politely ask you to "cite specific evidence" that Garrison may have produced. Indeed, Larry asked you no fewer than eight times to either cite or produce documented evidence in support of your/Garrison claims. Did you answer any of these requests? Don't bother answering me, for I know you cannot. Trust me, one of the last individuals you want to cite as "relevant," without specific citations of evidence or documentation to back up your grotesquely illiterate claims, is Jim Garrison. And don't even attempt to admonish me regarding any crap about knowledge I may or may not possess about Jim Garrison; I met the man and spent several hours with him in 1967, indeed had dinner with him? Did you?

Gary, Gary, what can I say about your insulting attitude?

All I did was insist to Larry Hancock that the Jim Garrison findings, as plainly portrayed in Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, deserve recognition as SPECIFIC details of my position.

And then you go off all hostile.

In fact, I don't think Larry Hancock, an able scholar, needs your bullying behavior to stick up for him. So what if he's a genius with a great background -- this is a specific point, and I'm not out of line in insisting upon it.

As for my own answering Larry Hancock's challenges to me -- the truth is it would take an enormous amount of time to review each separate point from the Jim Garrison memoirs, and formulate a cogent, scholarly argument for this point or the other. I think Larry knows that, too.

IN FACT, IT HAS NEVER BEEN THE PURPOSE OF THIS FORUM TO DIRECT NEW RESEARCH. Larry Hancock himself can simply refer to his many, published books. He has sometimes been kind enough to cite chapter and page for me here, and I thank him for that -- and I also do my own due diligence and read that chapter very thoroughly -- and then share the results with the Forum.

But in this case, Larry is simply sending me off to "write my own book." That's not an answer, and every fair person here knows it. Anybody who demands proof from someone, but then backs off from producing proof of their own position, is fair game, are they not?

It's noteworthy that Larry Hancock is quickly defended by his admirers here. I'm also an admirer of Larry Hancock. Yet I was having a direct conversation with him here -- and suddenly I'm commanded to treat him like a sacred cow here, or risk the bully bull?

As for actually meeting Jim Garrison personally, Gary, that's nice for you. Did you receive a special revelation from that meeting? Do you now know more about Jim Garrison's work than the average reader? If so, then please share that with the Forum readers. If not, then, I'm sure it was a nice dinner.

In any case -- this is a thread on Edwin Walker, and it sure has gone astray.

The fact is -- and Larry Hancock is well aware of it -- Jim Garrison avoided the thread that leads to Ex-General Edwin Walker, and he stayed away from Dallas, generally -- otherwise things would have gone worse for him. For example, Garrison avoided Jack Ruby, rotting away in his Dallas cell. Why? Most likely because he knew that the DPD and the Dallas DA could make life miserable for him. So, Jim Garrison also avoided that darling of Dallas, Ex-General Edwin Walker.

The value of the Jim Garrison findings for the theory of Lee Harvey Oswald, however, is the solid linkage of Oswald with Guy Banister, David Ferrie and Clay Shaw in the summer of 1963. That in itself is a SPECIFIC example of the activities of Guy Banister in 1963 -- which was Larry Hancock's original question.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, just to round off my comments, the reason that I suggested you write a book is that if you truly want folks to take your theory seriously you need to do the sort of detailed presentation a book requires, including end-noting and citation of primary sources. And in that regard you really can't use citations such as "findings as portrayed in a movie"....or at least you should not.

This begin with you asking for a scenario which would address Paul's point on how Oswald could be associated with Bannister but not under his control and I gave you one based on known FBI practices....I made no attempt to prove it although I do offer evidence of that nature in SWHT. A forum is a poor place for the sort of obnoxious detail that readers should demand in such efforts. You maintained that I had not proved my scenario - which was true - and offered a variety of points to prove yours vs the one I offered. My response was that if they were to be proofs you needed more details and much more solid citation. At that point you back to a generic citation of the Garrison investigation as seen in the movie (great movie, but still only a movie).

All of which leads me back to the suggestion that you do produce a solid book on your overall theory and then offer it to readers and reviewers. That's the best way to really test it. Continuing these sorts of extended threads takes you only so far and without something new I would think most people have gotten your general message at this point. It was an honest suggestion, Larry

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, just to round off my comments, the reason that I suggested you write a book is that if you truly want folks to take your theory seriously you need to do the sort of detailed presentation a book requires, including end-noting and citation of primary sources. And in that regard you really can't use citations such as "findings as portrayed in a movie"....or at least you should not.

This begin with you asking for a scenario which would address Paul's point on how Oswald could be associated with Bannister but not under his control and I gave you one based on known FBI practices....I made no attempt to prove it although I do offer evidence of that nature in SWHT. A forum is a poor place for the sort of obnoxious detail that readers should demand in such efforts. You maintained that I had not proved my scenario - which was true - and offered a variety of points to prove yours vs the one I offered. My response was that if they were to be proofs you needed more details and much more solid citation. At that point you back to a generic citation of the Garrison investigation as seen in the movie (great movie, but still only a movie).

All of which leads me back to the suggestion that you do produce a solid book on your overall theory and then offer it to readers and reviewers. That's the best way to really test it. Continuing these sorts of extended threads takes you only so far and without something new I would think most people have gotten your general message at this point. It was an honest suggestion, Larry

Thanks, Larry, for the vote of confidence in my prospects of writing a book about Edwin Walker and the murder of JFK.

To write such a book would take years for a professional, of course, and since I'm a working-man with a family, well, we can pretty much add more years to that.

In short, in the short term, it's not going to happen.

Nor do I think that I should pursue the Edwin Walker angle alone. (I was hoping that Harry Dean would be of help, but he reverted to his Mormon conspiracy theory, so that was that.) Ron Lewis is not a member of this Forum, and from what I gather, his book, FLASHBACK, has no supporters at all on this Forum.

I've always had one interest since I joined this JFK Forum in 2011, namely, the Edwin Walker angle, which largely died away after the Warren Report. Nobody has picked it up -- not even Jim Garrison. Jerry Rose's few tidbits here and there are just barely worth mentioning.

Paradoxically, the works of Jim Garrison and his protoge, Joan Mellen, have uncovered key suspects and even three who actually confessed to dealing with Guy Banister and Lee Harvey Oswald in NOLA (Jack S. Martin, David Ferrie, Thomas E. Beckham), with links to others who nearly-confessed, e.g. Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and Joseph Milteer. Without trying, they uncovered many people with whom Edwin Walker had interactions in 1963.

So, at least I know I'm not all alone here -- and I believe that a coming revival of the 1963-1964 research into General Walker will prove more fruitful than today's JFK researchers so far foresee.

All I have is the Forum, today -- aside from the kind words by Doug Campbell's Podcast on Black Ops Radio, namely, The Dallas Action. Because of Doug, I'm no longer entirely alone in my intense suspicion of Edwin Walker in the JFK murder -- but it's still fairly lonely out here.

Soon -- however -- a major groundswell will appear, and witnesses will begin to come out of the woodwork. Once the old eye-wtinesses come forward, the dam will burst open.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, just to round off my comments, the reason that I suggested you write a book is that if you truly want folks to take your theory seriously you need to do the sort of detailed presentation a book requires, including end-noting and citation of primary sources. And in that regard you really can't use citations such as "findings as portrayed in a movie"....or at least you should not.

This begin with you asking for a scenario which would address Paul's point on how Oswald could be associated with Bannister but not under his control and I gave you one based on known FBI practices....I made no attempt to prove it although I do offer evidence of that nature in SWHT. A forum is a poor place for the sort of obnoxious detail that readers should demand in such efforts. You maintained that I had not proved my scenario - which was true - and offered a variety of points to prove yours vs the one I offered. My response was that if they were to be proofs you needed more details and much more solid citation. At that point you back to a generic citation of the Garrison investigation as seen in the movie (great movie, but still only a movie).

All of which leads me back to the suggestion that you do produce a solid book on your overall theory and then offer it to readers and reviewers. That's the best way to really test it. Continuing these sorts of extended threads takes you only so far and without something new I would think most people have gotten your general message at this point. It was an honest suggestion, Larry

Thanks, Larry, for the vote of confidence in my prospects of writing a book about Edwin Walker and the murder of JFK.

To write such a book would take years for a professional, of course, and since I'm a working-man with a family, well, we can pretty much add more years to that.

In short, in the short term, it's not going to happen.

Nor do I think that I should pursue the Edwin Walker angle alone. (I was hoping that Harry Dean would be of help, but he reverted to his Mormon conspiracy theory, so that was that.) Ron Lewis is not a member of this Forum, and from what I gather, his book, FLASHBACK, has no supporters at all on this Forum.

I've always had one interest since I joined this JFK Forum in 2011, namely, the Edwin Walker angle, which largely died away after the Warren Report. Nobody has picked it up -- not even Jim Garrison. Jerry Rose's few tidbits here and there are just barely worth mentioning.

Paradoxically, the work of Jim Garrison and his protoge, Joan Mellen, have uncovered key suspects and even three who actually confessed to dealing with Guy Banister and Lee Harvey Oswald in NOLA (Jack S. Martin, David Ferrie, Thomas E. Beckham), with links to others who near-confessed," e.g. Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and Joseph Milteer. Without trying, they uncovered many people with whom Edwin Walker had interactions in 1963.

So, at least I know I'm not all alone here -- and I believe that a coming revival of the 1963-1964 research into General Walker will prove more fruitful than today's JFK researchers so far foresee.

All I have is the Forum, today -- aside from the kind words by Doug Campbell's Podcast on Black Ops Radio, namely, The Dallas Action. Because of Doug, I'm no longer entirely alone in my intense suspicion of Edwin Walker in the JFK murder -- but it's still fairly lonely out here.

Soon -- however -- a major groundswell will appear, and witnesses will begin to come out of the woodwork. Once the old eye-wtinesses come forward, the dam will burst open.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Dear Paul,

If you'd spent as much time writing your manuscript as you have on your JFK Assassination Debate posts, I venture to say that you'd be halfway finished by now!

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, just to round off my comments, the reason that I suggested you write a book is that if you truly want folks to take your theory seriously you need to do the sort of detailed presentation a book requires, including end-noting and citation of primary sources. And in that regard you really can't use citations such as "findings as portrayed in a movie"....or at least you should not.

This begin with you asking for a scenario which would address Paul's point on how Oswald could be associated with Bannister but not under his control and I gave you one based on known FBI practices....I made no attempt to prove it although I do offer evidence of that nature in SWHT. A forum is a poor place for the sort of obnoxious detail that readers should demand in such efforts. You maintained that I had not proved my scenario - which was true - and offered a variety of points to prove yours vs the one I offered. My response was that if they were to be proofs you needed more details and much more solid citation. At that point you back to a generic citation of the Garrison investigation as seen in the movie (great movie, but still only a movie).

All of which leads me back to the suggestion that you do produce a solid book on your overall theory and then offer it to readers and reviewers. That's the best way to really test it. Continuing these sorts of extended threads takes you only so far and without something new I would think most people have gotten your general message at this point. It was an honest suggestion, Larry

Perhaps everyone can now understand why I have previously made the point that before one engages in any sort of debate/discussion about a complex historical event, there must first be a discussion and agreement about what constitutes the applicable rules of logic and evidence.

When you review the last 20-30 messages in this thread -- and, especially, our previous debate in the Harry Dean "Memoirs" thread, it becomes self-evident that the participants in both threads do not have a common understanding regarding what constitutes acceptable evidence nor do all the participants accept or employ the same rules of logic.

1. Larry asks for primary source evidence and "solid citation". I'm not sure that Paul T. understands what that means or why primary source evidence is preferable to other types of evidence.

2. I always ask Paul T. to provide verbatim quotations (or a specific verifiable bibliographic citation) and not merely attribute some comment or belief to an individual or group but he does not think that is important either.

3. Many messages here refer to someone "guessing" about something important but then someone demands specific "evidence" to support the "guess".

4. If a contributor presents a "guess" about something that does not conform to Paul T's interpretation, then (according to Paul) that contributor is "biased", "one-sided" or he is presenting "subjective inferences", "insults" or a "smear job" OR the contributor's comments should immediately be dismissed because he is not qualified to propose any sort of psychological analysis to explain someone's motives or behavior.

5. Larry refers to "known FBI practices" -- but Paul believes that any purported "known practice" should be considered anomalous and rejected if one can find one single FBI Agent who disobeys the "known practice" --- particularly if that Agent writes a book about his alleged experiences even though his book does not have one "solid citation" or footnote and it uses pseudonyms for almost everyone mentioned!

In short, in Paul's scheme of things, there is no such thing as an institutional "known practice" and if you believe otherwise based upon your careful research, then you must have "blind faith" in your sources and, consequently, nothing you have to say is worth considering.

These sorts of epistemological matters can never be resolved unless and until everyone agrees about the basic precepts which should govern everybody's contributions.

Edited by Ernie Lazar
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...