Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Remind me again, Mr. Trejo...where is the concrete link between Banister and Walker?

I don't want any guesses...please FIRMLY connect Banister with Walker.

The firm, documented link between Guy Banister and Edwin WALKER will be given in a book to be published this year (to the best of my knowledge) by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield. Dr. Caufield has been working independently on Edwin WALKER for many years. He is nearly ready to publish.

Both Banister and WALKER were active in segregationist politics, and their politics led them to the same groups of people in Louisiana and the South generally. This included the JBS, the States Rights Parties, the White Citizens' Councils and even the KKK, evidently.

When Dr. Caufield finally publishes his book, a new era of JFK Research will have begun.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In other words...until this book is published...

...your response is: "I got nothin'..."

Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words...until this book is published...

...your response is: "I got nothin'..."

Not at all, Mark. In fact, the history of Edwin WALKER, although neglected by JFK "Researchers," is not some arcane, secret stash. Although there are no full-length books on WALKER yet, there are streams and rivers of data, and some readers have already found them.

The personal papers of Edwin WALKER seem to me to be a "virtual confession" to the JFK murder. WALKER was basically an honest man -- he really wanted the world to know that he was the JFK Killer. But he had made too many deals with too many private people -- and he would not betray them.

Edwin WALKER was as proud of the JFK murder as he was proud of the riots at Ole Miss and the humiliation of Adlai Stevenson. He always said said he would do exactly the same thing again.

If you haven't read much about Ex-General Edwin WALKER, Mark, then that's your fault. Don't blame somebody else. The material is out there. Here's your first clue: start with WALKER's Warren Commission testimony.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found NOTHING to date that puts Walker and Banister in the same room, or on the same telephone call, or any correspondence between them via the U. S. Mail...which means that I cannot connect them EXCEPT through "guilt-by-association" with ORGANIZATIONS, and not persons.

CAN YOU CITE EVIDENCE TO REFUTE THAT? I don't think you can. I think all you have is your "theory," and your "theory" hinges on a connection that you can't prove.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found NOTHING to date that puts Walker and Banister in the same room, or on the same telephone call, or any correspondence between them via the U. S. Mail...which means that I cannot connect them EXCEPT through "guilt-by-association" with ORGANIZATIONS, and not persons.

CAN YOU CITE EVIDENCE TO REFUTE THAT? I don't think you can. I think all you have is your "theory," and your "theory" hinges on a connection that you can't prove.

No, Mark, that falls back on you. Walker and Banister belonged to the same political organizations in the South. CAN YOU CITE EVIDENCE TO REFUTE THAT?

I think all you have is your "skepticism" which merely says "no" to everything, as if that's some sort of safe position.

Break out of your Safety Zone, Mark. Read more about Edwin WALKER.

For example: Jim Garrison connects Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and Carlos Bringuier with Guy Banister. When Jim Garrison interviewed Loran Hall, Hall also connected Gerry Hemming with Edwin WALKER.

We also have documentation linking WALKER with Carlos Bringiuer -- not only speaking at the same rightst venues in the South along with Kent Courtney, but also with WALKER's cash donations to the DRE that we read about in the WC volumes.

Don't confuse the lack of "research" done by JFK "Researchers" in the past 50 years as a lack of evidence, Mark. There's much more than meets the eye.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're confusing "conjecture" with "evidence."

BIG difference.

I was a member of the National Rifle Association at the same time that George Herbert Walker Bush was a member. But I can assure you that I never met him, never talked on the phone with him, never conspired with him, and never sent him a letter or received a letter from him. To use our membership in the same organization as a means to tie us together is a ludicrous leap of faith.

That's the same leap of faith you're making with Walker and Banister. And it's just as wrong, without actual evidence that they ever met or exchanged any communications.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're confusing "conjecture" with "evidence."

BIG difference.

I was a member of the National Rifle Association at the same time that George Herbert Walker Bush was a member. But I can assure you that I never met him, never talked on the phone with him, never conspired with him, and never sent him a letter or received a letter from him. To use our membership in the same organization as a means to tie us together is a ludicrous leap of faith.

That's the same leap of faith you're making with Walker and Banister. And it's just as wrong, without actual evidence that they ever met or exchanged any communications.

Well, Mark, your arguments here, like your objections to my theory generally, are superficial.

As if you're saying anything that everybody doesn't already know.

I suppose the major difference between our positions is that I still look forward to seeing NEW INFORMATION -- without the prejudice that JFK "Researchers" already have all the information they need.

You, Mark, seem to conclude that if you can't find some data today, THEN IT MUST NOT EXIST.

That's a major error in the JFK murder mystery, because of all the lies that have been told in the past 50 years.

First, the FBI squashed all true evidence (medical, material, ballistics, witnesses, documents, photographs, film) that contradicted Hoover's "Lone Nut" theory.

Secondly, the FBI introduced bogus evidence to promote Hoover's "Lone Nut" theory.

Thirdly, JFK "Researchers" come up with many theories and approaches -- mostly bone-headed nonsense -- to try to explain the discrepancies between material evidence and the FBI (and WC) conclusions.

One must be very careful with JFK murder evidence -- and one must also be open to seeing things that might have been suppressed for a half-century -- by all the forces that would suppress the Truth.

IMHO the 1st lie was by the JFK Kill Team that pretended that Lee Harvey OSWALD was a "Communist."

IMHO the 2nd lie was by the JFK Cover-up Team that pretended that Lee Harvey OSWALD was a "Lone Nut."

IMHO the 3rd lie consists of fifty years of JFK "Research" that pushes nonsense, such as, CIA-did-it, Mafia-did-it, LBJ-did-it, Bush-did-it, and so on.

The question is whom to believe -- and where to look next.

It seems to me, Mark, that you don't really have a theory of your own -- that you just sit back and say "No" to anything you're not familiar with.

Where do you stand? Do you have the wherewithal to tell us?

I have said that the alleged WALKER and BANISTER connection is my theory -- and I'm still seeking evidence. You have said "it's just wrong," as if you have PROOF. You don't. You're just pushing for the heck of it. Your implication is that I must PROVE my theory today, because you've decided that TIME'S UP...Really?

Now, ordinarily on the FORUM I would just IGNORE your posts. However, you happen to be an ADMIN on the FORUM, and therefore, I can't set your posts to IGNORE.

But is there some reason that you target my posts for harassment, Mark? Why not bother others with what THEY have proposed and cannot yet prove?

Why me?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Trejo, I'm not saying your your idea that Walker and Banister are connected is wrong; I'm simply pointing out that you have no proof that they collaborated on ANYTHING...even a mundane lunch.

But this missing--or even totally nonexistent--evidence is the very FOUNDATION of your theory. If it doesn't exist, your theory falls flat, like a house of cards. MOST theories begin with a fact or two and build on them. Yours starts with an unproven assumption, and builds a Trump Tower.

Have I stated anything---ANYTHING at all--about your theory that isn't true?

Can you answer that question? YES or NO will suffice.

If Walker and Banister never met, if they have no working relationship, then it's hard to sell the idea that Walker was at the top of a pyramid which had Banister directly under him. You have yet to show that this relationship existed. You have a BELIEF that it did, and you have FAITH that you're correct. What you lack is the facts to support it.

I'm challenging you, Mr. Trejo. It's not up to ME to prove YOUR theory; that part is up to YOU. And up to now, your proof is miserably lacking. You keep saying that you've solved the JFK assassination, yet your "solution" is based upon "facts" without proof. Give me proof. Give me evidence.

I'm not being any tougher on you than Tommy Graves has been on some of the others for their theories. I don't think I'm anywhere nearly as relentless as Greg Parker. But the men I just mentioned have one thing in common with me: they expect facts as a basis for any "solution."

If asking you for facts meant that I "waste your time," then it seems to me that your work should be labeled "fiction." For if your "solution" isn't supported by facts, then it's a novel.

And your "culprit" is falsely accused.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Trejo, I'm not saying your your idea that Walker and Banister are connected is wrong; I'm simply pointing out that you have no proof that they collaborated on ANYTHING...even a mundane lunch.

But this missing--or even totally nonexistent--evidence is the very FOUNDATION of your theory. If it doesn't exist, your theory falls flat, like a house of cards. MOST theories begin with a fact or two and build on them. Yours starts with an unproven assumption, and builds a Trump Tower.

Have I stated anything---ANYTHING at all--about your theory that isn't true?

Can you answer that question? YES or NO will suffice.

YES.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough.

At what point have I lied?

Link to post
Share on other sites

...You keep saying that you've solved the JFK assassination, yet your "solution" is based upon "facts" without proof. Give me proof. Give me evidence.

Well, Mark, never once did I ever say that I've solved the JFK assassination.

You're simply misrepresenting me.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying you have NEVER....EVER...referred to your theory as a solution?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Trejo said:

"This is the CONFESSION of Edwin Walker as found encoded in his personal papers. It provides the full solution to the JFK murder, and it was not guessed by Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Harold Weisberg, Jim Marrs, Sylvia Meagher, Joan Mellen, Gaeton Fonzi, Lamar Waldron, Larry Hancock, Bill Simpich or any other researcher in the past fifty years."

This quote at least IMPLIES that your theory "...provides the full solution to the JFK murder, and it was not guessed by Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Harold Weisberg, Jim Marrs, Sylvia Meagher, Joan Mellen, Gaeton Fonzi, Lamar Waldron, Larry Hancock, Bill Simpich or any other researcher in the past fifty years."

As I decipher Trejo-speak, you're saying that your interpretation of Walker "confessing" to the murder of JFK provides the "full solution."

I didn't use the word "solution" in relation to your theory until after YOU did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Trejo said:

"This is the CONFESSION of Edwin Walker as found encoded in his personal papers. It provides the full solution to the JFK murder, and it was not guessed by Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Harold Weisberg, Jim Marrs, Sylvia Meagher, Joan Mellen, Gaeton Fonzi, Lamar Waldron, Larry Hancock, Bill Simpich or any other researcher in the past fifty years."

This quote at least IMPLIES that your theory "...provides the full solution to the JFK murder, and it was not guessed by Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Harold Weisberg, Jim Marrs, Sylvia Meagher, Joan Mellen, Gaeton Fonzi, Lamar Waldron, Larry Hancock, Bill Simpich or any other researcher in the past fifty years."

As I decipher Trejo-speak, you're saying that your interpretation of Walker "confessing" to the murder of JFK provides the "full solution."

I didn't use the word "solution" in relation to your theory until after YOU did.

Well, Mark, you took it out of context.

The context of that thread was my Theory, with a capital T. A Theory, as you should know, is presented with Proofs to come in the future -- or not.

If the Proofs come in the future, then the Theory turns out to be true; great satisfaction. If the Proofs fail to come in the future, then the Theory turns out to be false; mild disappointment.

The context was the context of Theory, so that IF (AND ONLY IF) "the CONFESSION of WALKER is encoded in his personal papers," THEN (AND ONLY THEN) would we have "Proof" and indeed "Proof in full" of the ground-level conspiracy to kill JFK.

I still stand by that statement, when taken in context. It was presented as a THEORY -- as you well know.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found NOTHING to date that puts Walker and Banister in the same room, or on the same telephone call, or any correspondence between them via the U. S. Mail...which means that I cannot connect them EXCEPT through "guilt-by-association" with ORGANIZATIONS, and not persons.

CAN YOU CITE EVIDENCE TO REFUTE THAT? I don't think you can. I think all you have is your "theory," and your "theory" hinges on a connection that you can't prove.

No, Mark, that falls back on you. Walker and Banister belonged to the same political organizations in the South. CAN YOU CITE EVIDENCE TO REFUTE THAT?

I think all you have is your "skepticism" which merely says "no" to everything, as if that's some sort of safe position.

Break out of your Safety Zone, Mark. Read more about Edwin WALKER.

For example: Jim Garrison connects Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and Carlos Bringuier with Guy Banister. When Jim Garrison interviewed Loran Hall, Hall also connected Gerry Hemming with Edwin WALKER.

We also have documentation linking WALKER with Carlos Bringiuer -- not only speaking at the same rightst venues in the South along with Kent Courtney, but also with WALKER's cash donations to the DRE that we read about in the WC volumes.

Don't confuse the lack of "research" done by JFK "Researchers" in the past 50 years as a lack of evidence, Mark. There's much more than meets the eye.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul --- you need to give us some idea about how you use or limit the following words.

Is there ANY kind of limitation you accept with respect to the scope of these words or are they open-ended and you apply them to everything where two people appear to have some tenuous "connection" or "link"?

"belonged"

"linking"

"connect"

"connected"

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...