Edwin Walker

[Paul Trejo]

The CIA, like the FBI, is not above hiring thugs to do their dirty work. Rough Trejo quote.

So when CIA connected thugs do something like assassinate a president you prefer to see it as a rogue operation? Do you view all CIA operations with similar rose colored glasses?

The point is, Paul B., that you just can't SAY that and make it true. You have to show HARDER EVIDENCE that it's true.

So far the CIA-did-it theorists have mainly shown their bias. The various CIA-did-it theorists disagree with each other, and cannot get their story straight.

You haven't shown, Paul B., that the "CIA connected thugs to do something like assassinate a president." You merely take it for granted. Well, it isn't granted.

On the contrary, in 2014 Bill Simpich (who has worked closely with Larry Hancock) has provided the CIA Mole Hunt scenario of September 1963 that can easily be used to argue that the CIA high-command had no clue what it's own underlings (e.g. David Morales and E.Howard Hunt) were up to.

Yes -- these were Rogues of the CIA -- but I'll go one better than that -- I dispute the claim that these CIA Rogues were even in charge of the JFK murder. I forget who ably argued earlier this year, but the CIA is trained to take orders. Ultimately, they take orders from Civilians, like the US Congress, the US Senate, the US Supreme Court and the US President.

Aside from Morales and Hunt, the hard evidence shows that those who actually confessed to some role in the JFK murder were low-level assets like Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Johnny Roselli, John Martino, Harry Dean, Jack S. Martin, David Ferrie and Thomas Beckham. (If we include the role of Patsy, then we can include Lee Harvey Oswald in that list).

Aside from Morales and Hunt, not one of these people was a CIA Officer. Time to admit the facts.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 17, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

I dont have to prove something. Its you that doesnt understand how the CIA functions. You didnt answer my question other than to say I cant prove the assets had orders. By that definition most CiA operations would be deniable. Which of course they are. Thats the point. Most of the guys you mention worked for the CIA, had control officers. What do you suppose a control officer is! Why the blind spot Paul? Is it a matter of an official government paycheck and a written contract? The more times and ways you repeat your point the more obvious your bias. You think you are trying to prove something. I could never prove what I present. That is the nature of covert operations.

[Paul Trejo]

I dont have to prove something.... I could never prove what I present. That is the nature of covert operations.

And that's the easy answer that all the CIA-did-it JFK theorists ultimately present to the world.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

(Gaal) Dulles himself was allied with the plotters to assassinate French President Charles de Gaulle. Ruby knew CIA asset involved in the assassination operation.of de Gaulle. Bannisters lawyer Gatlin was part of the de Gaulle plot. THE de Gaulle plot a CIA plot.

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

))))))))))))))))))))

Armstrong

On March 11, 1959, Dallas FBI agent Charles Flynn wrote, "on the basis of preliminary contacts and information developed to date, I recommend the captioned individual (Jack Ruby) for informant development." Flynn further wrote, "PCI [Potential Criminal Informant] advised he was willing to assist Bureau by supplying criminal information, on a confidential basis, which comes to his attention. On November 6, 1959, Flynn wrote, "contacts (with Ruby) have been negative to date, it is felt that further attempts to develop this man would be fruitless."

... IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT RUBY TOLD TOM HOWARD ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH A CIA OPERATIVE....

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

• De Gaulle plot from CIA thus GATLIN CIA

see

• General Maurice Challe, protégé of CIA director Allen Dulles, plot against De Gaulle (PDF)

Well, Steven, it seems you might be the poster-boy for the CIA-did-it theorists. It seems you accept as a FACT every rumor that comes down the pike against the CIA. The trouble is, your sources, when they aren't speculating, armchair journalists, are street-thugs.

So you can produce evidence that in 1959 the FBI developed Jack Ruby as an informant. Big deal. Ruby's task for the FBI was to snitch on other Mafia members. That didn't make Jack Ruby any less of a pimp or a drug pusher. Probably Jack Ruby was being blackmailed to be a snitch, too.

It didn't hurt that the FBI paid cash to its formal informants for information. That said, Ruby could be counted on to hold out for the highest bidder for any Mafia information he might have.

So, Steven, you want us to "remember that Ruby told Tom Howard about his relationship with a CIA operative." But let's take a closer look at this so-called CIA "operative", Thomas Eli Davis. He was a Texas bank-robber and a gun-runner. In 1963 history finds Tom Davis in the same camp as confessed JFK killers, Loran Hall and Gerry Patrick Hemming, i.e. working with Bay of Pigs losers in Florida and eventually running guns for them.

You call Tom Davis a CIA "operative", while Armstrong himself only calls Davis "CIA-connected". Connected how? Armstrong says Davis was connected to a CIA "operative" named QJ/WIN, a notorious hit-man, considered as a possible asset to murder Fidel Castro (which I don't deny the CIA tried to do many times).

This hit-man QJ/WIN decided he could use another street-thug on his team, so he bailed Tom Davis out of prison. And this same Tom Davis is the man that you call a "CIA operative". Once again, Steven, you're REACHING.

As for the RUMOR that the CIA was behind the attack on De Gaulle, you GRAB for it -- but it's only a RUMOR.

De Gaulle himself still came to the USA plenty of times after that, and if we ask De Gaulle himself who tried to kill him, he wants us to look at the LOCAL POLICE in the town he was in at the time. "Always look at the local police in such cases," said De Gaulle.

JFK researchers have gone fifty years without a single, serious examination of the Dallas Police Department in the murder of JFK.

JFK research still has a long, long way to go to solve the JFK murder. By blaming the CIA willy-nilly, one is ultimately giving up, and claiming that it can't be solved -- much like Jim Garrison's attitude after he lost his case against Clay Shaw in 1968.

IMHO, it's precisely because of the noise made by the CIA-did-it JFK theorists that progress has been so slow in the past half-century.

(Besides that, the CIA-did-it attitude spills over into nonsense like the LBJ-did-it theory, the Mafia-did-it theory, the Nixon-did-it theory, the Bush-did-it theory, and so on, ad infinitum. Such nonsense only makes the JFK research community look ridiculous to most sober people, and so plays into the strategy of J. Edgar Hoover to prevent the US public from knowing the TRUTH about the JFK murder.)

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 16, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - there are no hard and fast lines between LBJ, the mafia, the CIA, George Bush, Richard Nixon. The lines you draw are porous, something you know well. It is not easy to point the finger of blame at elements of our elected and unelected government. Far easier to imagine 'civilians' plotting the assassination in my opinion. What has kept the research community divided is the awfulness of the truth.

I know I am repeating myself, but all the CIA and FBI assets we are talking about, including the deathbed confessions, are CIA connected. It is not an intellectual copout to point that out. We are most certainly prevented from knowing the whole truth about how the deed was accomplished, not by our lazy intellects, but by our own government, and by our lazy and corrupted media.

[Paul Brancato]

At least you are aware that Hoover is responsible in the first place for the coverup. There is no way to spin that into some patriotic decision by him or the numerous government officials, including LBJ, who participated in that coverup. But I think you have tried to do just that. So have many others. Your original theory is that it was necessary to prevent civil war. Others think it was to prevent nuclear war. I think it was to keep American citizens from the awful truth that they are not in control of their own government, and that the coverup continues unabated lends credence to this theory over the others.

[Steven Gaal]

As for the RUMOR that the CIA was behind the attack on De Gaulle, you GRAB for it -- but it's only a RUMOR. ''Trejo

(the case is sol-ved)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++//

Back in 1967, the CIA’s own Inspector General produced a 133-page internal report that implicated “every living CIA officer who has served as chief of the clandestine service—-Allen Dulles, Richard Bissell, Richard Helms, and Desmond FitzGerald—in conspiracies to commit murder,” writes investigative journalist Tim Weiner in his book “Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA”(Anchor Books).

===================================================================

Source: Excerpts from “France/Algeria 1960s: L’état, c’est

la CIA,” Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions

since WWII, 1995.

================================================

By William Blum, former U.S. State

Department employee who resigned in 1967

in opposition to the Vietnam war.

=================================================

On 22 April, 1961, four French generals

in Algeria seized power in an at

tempt to maintain the country’s union

with France. The putsch [coup d’état] which

held out for only four days, was a direct confrontation

with French President Charles de

Gaulle, who had dramatically proclaimed a

policy leading “not to an Algeria governed from

France, but to an Algerian Algeria.”

The next day, the leftist Italian newspaper,

Il Paese, stated that “It is not by chance

that some people in Paris are accusing the

American secret service headed by Allen Dulles

of having participated in the plot of the four

‘ultra’ generals.” Dulles expressed the opinion

that “This particular myth was a Communist

plant, pure and simple.”

The Washington Star said some of the

rumors were launched by “minor officials at

the Elysee Palace” who gave reporters “to understand

that the generals’ plot was backed by

strongly anti-communist elements in the U.S.

government and military services.”

Whatever its origins, the story spread

rapidly around the world, and the French Foreign Office

refused to refute it. Le Monde asserted in a front-page editorial

on 28 April that “the behavior of the U.S. during the

recent crisis was not particularly skillful. It seems established

that American agents more or less encouraged

[Maurice] Challe [the leader of the putsch].”

Reports from all sources agreed that if the CIA had

been involved in the putsch, it was for two reasons:

(1) the concern that if Algeria weas granted independence,

“communists” would come to power, being those in the

ranks of the National Liberation Front which had been

fighting the French Army in Algeria for several years;

(2) the hope that it would precipitate the downfall of de

Gaulle, an end desired because he was a major stumbling

block to U.S. aspirations concerning NATO. He

refused to incorporate French troops into an integrated

military command and he opposed exclusive U.S. control

over NATO’s nuclear weapons.

Washington Post columnist Marquis Childs said that

the French were so shocked by the generals’ coup that they

had to find a scapegoat. He also quoted “one of the highest

officials of the French government” as saying: “when you

have so many hundreds of agents in every part of the world,

it is not to be wondered at that some of them should have

got in touch with the generals in Algiers” (5 May).

James Reston wrote in the New York Times that the

CIA: “was involved in an embarrassing liaison with the

anti-Gaullist officers who staged last week’s insurrection

in Algiers ... [the Bay of Pigs and Algerian events have]

increased the feeling in the White House that the CIA has

gone beyond the bounds of an objective intelligence-gathering

agency and has become the advocate of men and policies

that have embarrassed the Administration” (29 April).

In May 1961, L’Express, the widely-read French

weekly, published what was perhaps the first detailed account

of the affair. Their Algerian correspondent, Claude

Krief, reported: “Both in Paris and Washington the facts

are now known, though they will never be publicly admitted.

In private, the highest French personalities make no

secret of it. What they say is this: ‘The CIA played a direct

part in the Algiers coup, and certainly weighed heavily on

the decision taken by ex-general Challe to start his putsch.’”

At a Washington luncheon in 1960, Jacques

Soustelle, the former Governor-General of Algeria who had

made public his disagreement with

de Gaulle’s Algeria policy, met

with CIA officials, including Richard

Bissell, head of covert operations.

According to Krief,

Soustelle convinced CIA officials

that Algeria would become,

through de Gaulle’s blundering, “a

Soviet base.” This lunch became

something of a cause célèbre in the

speculation concerning the CIA’s

possible role.

Krief also said that a clandestine

meeting in Madrid on 12

April, 1961, included “various foreign

agents, including members of

the CIA and the Algiers conspirators,

who disclosed their plans to

the CIA men.” The Americans were reported to have angrily

complained that de Gaulle’s policy was “paralyzing

NATO and rendering the defense of Europe impossible,”

and assured the generals that if they and their followers

succeeded, Washington would recognize the new Algerian

government within 48 hours.

Between 1958 and the mid-1960s, there were some 30 serious

assassination attempts upon the life of Charles de Gaulle,

in addition to any number of planned attempts which didn’t

advance much beyond the planning stage. In at least one of

the attempts, the CIA may have been a co-conspirator

against the French president.

++++++++==========================

This government rumor , oops I mean documents re assassination de Gaulle

http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000011788.pdf

+++++++++++++
BUT WAIT !!!!! DULLES has an opinion on the de Gaulle assassination attempt.

====

Phil Dragoo

The Generals' Plot Against DeGaulle

The next day, the leftist Italian newspaper,

Il

Paese

, stated that �It is not by chance

that some people in Paris are accusing the

American secret service headed by Allen Dulles

of having participated in the plot of the four

�ultra� generals.� Dulles expressed the opinion

that �This particular myth was a Communist

plant, pure and simple.�

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/link...s/51_22-23.pdf

#######

CASE IS SOL-VED !!!!!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rkVb5S5AgpY

Edited November 16, 2014 by Steven Gaal

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - there are no hard and fast lines between LBJ, the mafia, the CIA, George Bush, Richard Nixon. The lines you draw are porous, something you know well. It is not easy to point the finger of blame at elements of our elected and unelected government. Far easier to imagine 'civilians' plotting the assassination in my opinion. What has kept the research community divided is the awfulness of the truth.

I know I am repeating myself, but all the CIA and FBI assets we are talking about, including the deathbed confessions, are CIA connected. It is not an intellectual copout to point that out. We are most certainly prevented from knowing the whole truth about how the deed was accomplished, not by our lazy intellects, but by our own government, and by our lazy and corrupted media.

At least you are aware that Hoover is responsible in the first place for the coverup. There is no way to spin that into some patriotic decision by him or the numerous government officials, including LBJ, who participated in that coverup. But I think you have tried to do just that. So have many others.

Your original theory is that it was necessary to prevent civil war. Others think it was to prevent nuclear war. I think it was to keep American citizens from the awful truth that they are not in control of their own government, and that the coverup continues unabated lends credence to this theory over the others.

Okay, Paul B., these are reasonable objections, so I'll consider them slowly.

(1.0) I agree that there are porous lines between LBJ, George Bush and Richard Nixon. They were all US Presidents and they shared information by necessity. I disagree that a porous line exists between US Presidents and the Mafia!

I admit that it is suspicious that JFK attacked the Mafia far more than any other US President. After the JFK murder, US attacks on the Mafia dropped sharply. So, one must try to explain this, because the Mafia controls billions of dollars of the Vice Economy, and it sounds ugly.

Yet IMHO it can be explained -- it's better to let the Mafia roam around free where they can keep an eye on each other, kill each other, and snitch on each other, so that our FBI Agents can keep computerized track of them all -- than to drive them further underground where they can't be tracked. It's more effective, more efficient, and it works. Wise people know that no civilization has ever conquered Vice. It's better to keep close tabs on it, than to try to appease voters by scattering the visible leaders.

(1.1.) I deny that it's easier to imagine a Civilian plot against JFK than a CIA plot. On the contrary. Most of the literature on the JFK murder in the past fifty years has proposed some sort of a CIA plot. This includes some brilliant JFK researchers like Mark Lane, Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen -- and many more. However, they all failed to solve the JFK murder.

(1.2.) On the contrary, the only significant body of JFK literature of a Civilian plot emphasizes the Mafia. Yet Jim Garrison considered that and dropped it for good reasons. There were too many US Government agencies that played along with the JFK plotters -- and the Mafia-did-it theory gives the Mafia way too much credit.

(1.3) I deny that the "awfulness of the truth" keeps the JFK research community divided. There is no topic so offensive or bloody that has been spared from the JFK research literature. It's like reading Pulp Fiction or True Crime stories. Everything is fair game. Nothing has ever been held back -- ever. (For example, remarking on the large number of gay people in the New Orleans side of the JFK plot, Jim Garrison once opined that the JFK murder was a "homosexual thrill killing." That's only the tip of the iceberg in JFK literature.)

(2.0) You are correct, Paul B., when you affirm that most of the people who confessed to the JFK murder were "connected" at some point with the CIA. It can be argued that not all of them were CIA connected, but I must admit that by far most of them were CIA connected.

(2.1) It is significant and must be explained. Nor do I claim to have explained it fully. My only point is to ensure that everybody recognizes that we're talking about CIA "assets" here, and not CIA Officers.

(2.2) I would also point out that CIA "assets" included lots of thugs, criminals, low-life losers, desperados and mercenaries of every stripe, including drug addicts.

(2.3) Until I see harder evidence, I must also insist on the strong likelihood that these CRIMINALS among the CIA "assets" would not be very obedient, cooperative or loyal. They would easily sell-out to a higher bidder. They would exploit their CIA "connections" for prestige and profit. They would give the CIA a bad name (as CIA Director Richard Helms admitted to the HSCA in 1978).

(2.4) The participation of CIA Officers David Morales and Howard Hunt in the JFK murder was a green light for scores of underground criminals close to CIA "assets" to jump on board. In NOLA for example, we find panderers like David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin and Thomas Beckham pretending to be CIA Agents. Yet at the same time, ALL of these people reported in paramilitary fashion to Guy Banister -- the only half-sober man in the lot.

(2.5) It is also significant that most of the confessed JFK killers had some "connection" to the CIA through Cuban Exile training camps -- and that the Plot to Murder Fidel Castro was the magnet that drew all these bizarre people together. (In other words, all of the CIA "assets" who confessed were also working on plots to kill Fidel Castro.)

(3.0) The suppression of the Truth of the JFK murder comes about from the Authorities in the Cover-up. Our Public Media tends to remain very loyal to the US Government -- and they don't want to cross the FBI. It's not laziness -- it's not corruption -- it's loyalty.

(3.1) Yet at the same time, our Freedom of Speech and Press has allowed more than 400 books to appear about JFK murder theories in the past half-century. That's a lot of freedom. It also shows industry -- not laziness.

(3.2) That said, those 400 books mainly make a noisy racket with almost no agreement. Some say that David Ferrie was the most important figure. Others say it was Carlos Marcello. Others say it was Howard Hunt. Others say it was LBJ himself. Others simply blame the "Invisible Government." It seems that every new book will propose a completely new theory -- just trying to get market-share.

(3.3) The chaos of the JFK murder literature is based on sheer confusion -- and one can't blame other people for that.

(4.0) Yes, I am aware that J. Edgar Hoover was the first man to come up with the "Lone Nut" theory of the JFK murder, and that LBJ, Earl Warren, Allen Dulles, the rest of the Warren Commission joined the FBI in pushing that theory as hard as they could.

(4.1) Yet I continue to insist that J. Edgar Hoover acted out of Pure Patriotism in 1963-1964 by promoting the JFK cover-up.

(4.2) I continue to insist that the JFK Cover-up had the ultimate effect of preventing Civil War in the USA (which would have turned into World War III). I also insist that the Cover-up portrait of Oswald was the opposite of the Kill-Team portrait of Oswald -- and this is a new idea in JFK research.

(4.3) I will agree with you that the lingering of the JFK Cover-up far beyond the Cold War is a problem.

(4.4) Yet at the same time, one must take the pulse of the US Mass Media and Government officials today. DO THEY EVEN CARE ABOUT THE JFK MURDER ANYMORE?

(4.5) People in the Mass Media like their cushy jobs. They don't like making waves with US Senate or the FBI. The "Lone Nut" theory fulfilled its duty, and became the "official" story that is still accepted by most of the mainstream media.

(4.6) Therefore, it's my opinion that the MAIN reason that the "Lone Nut" theory still persists down to this day, is simple INERTIA.

(4.7) The vast majority of people in the Mass Media are CONFORMISTS who want to keep their jobs, and don't want to be associated with the "Lunatic Fringe" of JFK Conspiracy culture.

(4.8) So, the reasons for the persistence of the "Lone Nut" theory today are different from the reasons the FBI promoted it so brutally in 1964-1979.

(4.9) In my opinion, the findings of the US Congress in 1979 have already canceled the "Lone Nut" theory. It's amazing to me that Mass Media folks tend to neglect the important conclusions of the HSCA. Yet IMHO that's mostly due to INERTIA than to anything else.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited November 17, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Burnham]

(1.1.) I deny that it's easier to imagine a Civilian plot against JFK than a CIA plot. On the contrary. Most of the literature on the JFK murder in the past fifty years has proposed some sort of a CIA plot. This includes some brilliant JFK researchers like Mark Lane, Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen -- and many more. However, they all failed to solve the JFK murder.

In its traditional definition--as the word "solve" relates to the resolution of a crime--the JFK murder is NOT solvable.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Greg Burnham

[Paul Trejo]

In its traditional definition--as the word "solve" relates to the resolution of a crime--the JFK murder is NOT solvable.

Well, Greg, it seems to me that if (and only if) the US Government releases FOIA documents regarding the assassination of JFK in the year 2017 as provided in the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, then we actually have a chance for a true resolution of this crime.

If (and only if) the identities of the actual plotters and shooters are finally revealed to the American public, then we can finally obtain a full resolution to the JFK murder. I happen to believe, based on some logical postulates, that the US Government possesses such documents. Here's my logic:

1. J. Edgar Hoover knew that his "Lone Nut" theory of Lee Harvey Oswald was false -- but he ordered the FBI to stand by this theory at all costs. This is the best explanation for the FBI tampering with all sorts of material evidence in the case, including witnesses, testimony, ballistics evidence and medical evidence. All evidence must be forced into the doctrine of a "Lone Nut" who had "no accomplices who are still at large."

2. The FBI knew in 1963 who killed JFK, but realized that it was too dangerous to tell the Truth to the American people -- so on the basis of National Security, they forced the "Lone Nut" theory through our Legal System, using Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren as their vehicle.

3. J. Edgar Hoover knew this to be false when he insisted upon it. A few (not many) FBI Agents also knew that the "Lone Nut" theory was false, but they also agreed with Hoover that it was an urgent matter of National Security to force the "Lone Nut' theory through the system. When LBJ, Earl Warren and Allen Dulles all put their signature to the "Lone Nut" theory, the FBI would never back down from that position.

4. Yet because Hoover invented the Lone Nut theory no later than 4pm on 11/22/1963, and he knew it to be false -- this means that he also knew the TRUTH. The Truth was exactly the OPPOSITE of his "Lone Nut' theory -- the Truth was that Lee Harvey Oswald surely had accomplices who were still at large. And J. Edgar Hoover knew exactly who they were.

5. The Kill-Team in the JFK murder wanted the American Public to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist, and that he had Communist accomplices still at large. They had spent nearly half of the year 1963 (from May through September) ensuring that Lee Harvey Oswald was totally sheep-dipped as a Communist in New Orleans and in Mexico City.

6. This proves that the JFK Kill-Team were from the radical Anti-Communist rightwing in the USA.

7. J. Edgar Hoover figured this out quickly, and he acted to combat the JFK Kill-Team with an opposite theory -- the "Lone Nut" theory. The "accomplices" (in the loosest meaning of the term) of Lee Harvey Oswald were the radical right-wing. Their Big Lie was that the "accomplices" of Oswald were the radical left-wing.

8. J. Edgar Hoover solved the problem by removing BOTH wings from the story. Instead, Lee Harvey Oswald would be portrayed as a "Lone Nut" with no accomplices at all.

9. This proves (in my theory) that J. Edgar Hoover knew precisely the members of the American right-wing who did this terrible act -- and he also believed that telling the American public the truth about the JFK killers would start a Civil War in the USA. LBJ agreed. So did Earl Warren and Allen Dulles. So did leading FBI officials. So they all agreed to tamper with the JFK murder evidence, no matter the outcome -- in the interest of National Security.

10. This was virtually admitted by Earl Warren himself, when he said that the Truth about Lee Harvey Oswald must be locked away for 75 years in the interest of National Security.

11. Therefore -- I conclude that that Truth about the JFK murder will include FBI documents about the radical right wing in the USA -- including resigned Major General Edwin A. Walker, and his many civilian supporters, and a few Rogue supporters scattered within US Government Agencies.

In the year 2017, I predict the US Government will release the names of all the JFK conspirators, which will include (but not be limited to) the following LIst:

1. Edwin Walker

2. Guy Banister

3. David Morales

4. Howard Hunt

5. Frank Sturgis

6. Johnny Roselli

7. Gerry Patrick Hemming

8. Loran Hall

9. Larry Howard

10. Clay Shaw

11. Carlos Marcello

12. David Ferrie

13. Jack S. Martin

14. Fred Crisman

15. Thomas Beckham

16. (At least a dozen Cuban Exiles from radical Cuban paramilitary groups)

17. (At least a dozen officials in Dallas, including DPD officers and those linked to the JBS)

18. Lee Harvey Oswald

If (and only if) the US Government releases its secret documents on the JFK assassination in 2017 as promised, then, IMHO, the JFK murder will finally be solved once and for all.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited November 18, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Cliff Varnell]

If (and only if) the US Government releases its secret documents on the JFK assassination in 2017 as promised, then, IMHO, the JFK murder will finally be solved once and for all.

Your faith in USG institutional record-keeping is...touching.

In my view the perps were not subject to any institutional hierarchies and featured men with varied backgrounds and a common purpose -- affect a change in US policy in SE Asia.

E Howard Hunt was a back-up patsy...

Edited November 17, 2014 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

(1.1.) I deny that it's easier to imagine a Civilian plot against JFK than a CIA plot. On the contrary. Most of the literature on the JFK murder in the past fifty years has proposed some sort of a CIA plot. This includes some brilliant JFK researchers like Mark Lane, Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen -- and many more. However, they all failed to solve the JFK murder.

In its traditional definition--as the word "solve" relates to the resolution of a crime--the JFK murder is NOT solvable.

Not in a court of law. Perps in the dock? That was never going to happen.

Out on the street I think we can argue for Persons of Interest.

For instance, McGeorge Bundy calling LBJ on AF1 to announce the lone assassin was in custody, although it was only a few hours after the crime.

How damning is that?

Or the late-night call from the autopsy to the FBI Lab spurred by the questions from the doctors -- autopsy attendee SA James Sibert asked the Lab if there were weapons which fired rounds that wouldn't show up on x-ray.

The question was never answered. The answer: yes, US Army Special Operations Division out of Ft. Detrick, Maryland, had briefed the FBI on the existence of weapons which fired rounds that would not show up on x-ray.

How damning is that?

I think it takes a certain amount of street-smarts to effectively sort through the evidence.

Here's my favorite example of "street-smarts" in relation to study of the JFK assassination.

"Notes on Lunch with Arlen Specter," by Vincent Salandria.

http://politicalassassinations.com/2012/11/1560/

I explained that the day after the Kennedy assassination I met with my then brother-in-law, Harold Feldman.

We decided that if Oswald was the killer, and if the U.S. government were innocent of any complicity in the

assassination, Oswald would live through the weekend. But if he was killed, then we would know that the

assassination was a consequence of a high level U.S. government plot.

Harold Feldman and I also concluded that if Oswald was killed by a Jew, it would indicate a high level WASP plot.

We further decided that the killing of Oswald would signal that no government investigation could upturn the truth.

In that event we as private citizens would have to investigate the assassination to arrive at the historical truth.

High level WASP plot...gets right back to Bundy.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Cliff Varnell

[Paul Trejo]

Your faith in USG institutional record-keeping is...touching.

In my view the perps were not subject to any institutional hierarchies and featured men with varied backgrounds and a common purpose -- affect a change in US policy in SE Asia.....

Well, Cliff, if the US Government fails to follow-through with its promise to deliver all JFK related documents in October, 2017, then I, for one, won't give up.

As for your opinion about the perpetrators being powerful war-mongers who only wanted to escalate in Vietnam, you have Colonel Fletcher Prouty on your side. He influenced Jim Garrison near the end. IMHO, Prouty's view is the result of GIVING UP in the struggle to resolve the JFK assassination. Prouty gave up. Later, Jim Garrison gave up.

After GIVING UP, any anti-Establishment political position becomes plausible -- all because J. Edgar Hoover chose to LIE to the entire American public, and Earl Warren enforced the LIE for 75 years. The damage done by the CYNICISM in our culture due to this Big Lie is severely underestimated.

It's worth a debate -- I'm not 100% that you're mistaken -- but I choose to give the US Government the benefit of the doubt. There's still room for doubt.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Cliff Varnell]

Your faith in USG institutional record-keeping is...touching.

In my view the perps were not subject to any institutional hierarchies and featured men with varied backgrounds and a common purpose -- affect a change in US policy in SE Asia.....

Well, Cliff, if the US Government fails to follow-through with its promise to deliver all JFK related documents in October, 2017, then I, for one, won't give up.

As for your opinion about the perpetrators being powerful war-mongers who only wanted to escalate in Vietnam, you have Colonel Fletcher Prouty on your side.

I'm honored! However, it's my jaundiced view that the top perps needed a militarized So. Vietnam to protect the real object of their desire -- the poppy fields of Laos. Pinning the deed on Castro and the subsequent invasion of Havana would have been a nice bonus, but alas the patsy was captured alive.

He influenced Jim Garrison near the end. IMHO, Prouty's view is the result of GIVING UP in the struggle to resolve the JFK assassination. Prouty gave up. Later, Jim Garrison gave up.

After GIVING UP, any anti-Establishment political position becomes plausible -- all because J. Edgar Hoover chose to LIE to the entire American public, and Earl Warren enforced the LIE for 75 years.

The Lone Nut lie was forced on both those guys. Hoover didn't want to blame a lone nut. He wanted to blame a commie conspiracy. Johnson took his orders on this one from the WASPS -- Harriman, Ball and Bundy.

The damage done by the CYNICISM in our culture due to this Big Lie is severely underestimated.

It's worth a debate -- I'm not 100% that you're mistaken -- but I choose to give the US Government the benefit of the doubt. There's still room for doubt.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...For instance, McGeorge Bundy calling LBJ on AF1 to announce the lone assassin was in custody, although it was only a few hours after the crime.

How damning is that?

...

Well, Cliff, there's actually a reasonable explanation. The Lone Assassin theory was first created by J. Edgar Hoover "less than one hour after Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested." This is what historian Dr. David Wrone reveals.

From that moment, the FBI immediately swung into action to hide all material evidence of more than one shooter at JFK.

This was surprisingly quick response -- and to the unsuspecting it looks just like J,. Edgar Hoover was PART of the Kill-Team.

But closer inspection (closer than even Mark Lane or Jim Garrison would see) shows that the Cover-up Team was the opposite of the Kill-Team. (The Cover-up Team said Oswald was the "Lone Assassin" while the Kill Team said that Oswald was a "Communist" and a member of the global Communist Conspiracy.)

Therefore, J. Edgar Hoover's action before 3pm CST on 11/22/1963 was not part of the JFK murder plot.

FURTHERMORE, this implies that EVERYBODY who spread the "Lone Assassin" theory after 3pm on 11/22/1963 (including McGeorge Bundy) had jumped on board J. Edgar Hoover's strategy to OPPOSE the JFK Kill Team.

FURTHERMORE, this implies (obviously) that J. Edgar Hoover figured out within an hour after the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald that the JFK Kill-Team was composed of the US radical right-wing.

So, it's not necessarily damning at all -- actually.

...Or the late-night call from the autopsy to the FBI Lab spurred by the questions from the doctors -- autopsy attendee SA James Sibert asked the Lab if there were weapons which fired rounds that wouldn't show up on x-ray.

The question was never answered. The answer: yes, US Army Special Operations Division out of Ft. Detrick, Maryland, had briefed the FBI on the existence of weapons which fired rounds that would not show up on x-ray.

How damning is that? .

...

Again, Cliff, it's the same argument. All of the FBI tampering with the material evidence in the JFK murder -- including the medical evidence -- always had one and only one agenda -- namely -- to force the "Lone Assassin" theory through the legal system.

The medical evidence was perhaps the hardest evidence to change -- so they basically had to destroy it -- including JFK's brain (because it showed evidence of multiple bullets, and not just one).

The X-rays had to be destroyed for the same reason. The doctors had to be silenced as well. In other words, the ballistics evidence had to be suppressed, and the medical evidence was considered part of the ballistics evidence.

At the end, the Warren Commission only showed pencil drawings of JFK's wounds. This was wholly unacceptable to any reasonable court case -- BUT IT WAS TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE IN TERMS OF NATIONAL SECURITY.

Anything more a "Lone Shooter" would probably have caused a Civil War in the USA fifty years ago.

So, once again, I say it was justified. So, it wasn't necessarily damning at all.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited November 18, 2014 by Paul Trejo