Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

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.

Mark: Your message may be the best summary of the deficiencies in Paul's argument ever presented in this forum. Many of us have posted comparable messages but we've never been able to penetrate Paul's defensive replies.

On several occasions, I have pointed out that an author of fiction is NOT constrained by anything except his own imagination. Good fiction, by definition, is something which seems superficially plausible but is NOT based upon proven facts. Fiction is not reality.

Some contributors on EF have suggested that Paul's ideas should be characterized as an "hypothesis". I prefer the word "speculation" which means conjecture without firm evidence.

Significantly, Paul has had a unique advantage over the rest of us -- because Paul has spent (apparently considerable) time going through Edwin Walker's personal papers. However, when I asked Paul very clear, specific questions regarding what he found in those papers that might support his "speculation" -- he refused to give a direct answer. However, it appears (from his unwillingness to answer "yes" or "no") that the following statements are correct:

1. There is nothing in Walker's personal papers which clearly and directly "connects" or "links" Walker to Harry Dean.

2. There is nothing in Walker's personal papers which clearly and directly "connects" or "links" Walker to any sort of "Birch Society plot" against JFK or anybody else

3. There is nothing in Walker's personal papers which establishes that Walker even knew of the existence of principals connected to the "JBS plot" such as Guy Galbadon

4. There is nothing in Walker's personal papers which reveals or even hints that John Rousselot or Robert Welch or any other national JBS official had any knowledge about, or interest in, a plot to murder JFK

5. There is nothing in Walker's personal papers which reveals or even hints that Walker was aware of the $10,000 cash payment allegedly made by Rousselot to Galbadon to carry out the "JBS plot"

On many occasions, I have asked Paul to tell us what evidence trail we should pursue, i.e.

*whom, specifically, should we contact?

*what personal papers should we review and where are they located?

*what oral history interviews (audiotapes or video recordings) should we watch or listen to and where are they located?

*what documentary evidence should we search for?

*what correspondence, diaries, or other material should we try to find?

Paul does not really have any specific ideas other than (apparently) (1) he wants us to discover the name of every JBS member in Dallas during the 1960's and (2) he wants us to wait until 2017 when he thinks that the FBI will release some heretofore "secret files".

Unfortunately (as your message suggests) nothing which Paul has presented helps us determine whether or not the "JBS plot" against JFK (as described in Paul's eBook) actually existed and nothing Paul has presented regarding Edwin Walker actually moves his "speculation" into the "facts" column.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

...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

Here again we confront an epistemological problem, or, perhaps it is a linguistic problem when we try to parse what Paul means?

Paul uses words differently from most people.

1. Most people believe the word "solve" means to discover the correct answer to a question or problem

SYNONYMS for "solve" include: resolve, decipher, decode

2. Most people believe the word "confession" means to admit guilt with respect to a crime

SYNONYMS for "confession" include: admission, acknowledgement

3. But, apparently, Paul now wants us to believe that when he wrote that Walker's "confession is encoded in his personal papers" --- that DOES NOT mean the crime has been resolved, deciphered, or decoded because Walker did NOT "admit" or "acknowledge" anything?

4. Normally, a confession "solves" a crime -- but on Planet Trejo it appears that is not the case?

AND---if you bring such linguistic idiosyncrasies or anomalies to Paul's attention -- then you are "misrepresenting" Paul?

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

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"

Well, Ernie, here we go by the numbers:

(1) "belonged" -- formal membership, whether in a family, a social group, a political group

(2) "linking" -- connection by event, relationship or plausibility

(3) "connect" -- linking by event, relationship or plausibility

(4) "connected" -- linked by event, relationship or plausibility

Why do you ask?

--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites

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"

Well, Ernie, here we go by the numbers:

(1) "belonged" -- formal membership, whether in a family, a social group, a political group

(2) "linking" -- connection by event, relationship or plausibility

(3) "connect" -- linking by event, relationship or plausibility

(4) "connected" -- linked by event, relationship or plausibility

Why do you ask?

--Paul Trejo

Because you seem to use words like "connected" or "linked" in lowest-common-denominator terms.

If, for example, you and I happened to be attending the same event in the same city -- you might say we were "connected" or "linked" even though we had no knowledge of each other, never spoke to each other, never saw each other, and we were not even attending that event for the same reason.

I might have been there to take notes on what type of people were going to that event and what happened during the event and you could have been attending because you were a long-standing member of the sponsoring group or even an official of that group or you might have been an organizer of that event.

However, it would be wrong to say that we were "connected" or "linked" in any way -- particularly if we don't even know each other and have no relationship to each other. It also would be mistaken to say we both "belonged" to that sponsoring group.

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark: Your message may be the best summary of the deficiencies in Paul's argument ever presented in this forum. Many of us have posted comparable messages but we've never been able to penetrate Paul's defensive replies.

On several occasions, I have pointed out that an author of fiction is NOT constrained by anything except his own imagination. Good fiction, by definition, is something which seems superficially plausible but is NOT based upon proven facts. Fiction is not reality.

Some contributors on EF have suggested that Paul's ideas should be characterized as an "hypothesis". I prefer the word "speculation" which means conjecture without firm evidence.

Significantly, Paul has had a unique advantage over the rest of us -- because Paul has spent (apparently considerable) time going through Edwin Walker's personal papers. However, when I asked Paul very clear, specific questions regarding what he found in those papers that might support his "speculation" -- he refused to give a direct answer. However, it appears (from his unwillingness to answer "yes" or "no") that the following statements are correct:

1. There is nothing in Walker's personal papers which clearly and directly "connects" or "links" Walker to Harry Dean.

2. There is nothing in Walker's personal papers which clearly and directly "connects" or "links" Walker to any sort of "Birch Society plot" against JFK or anybody else

3. There is nothing in Walker's personal papers which establishes that Walker even knew of the existence of principals connected to the "JBS plot" such as Guy Galbadon

4. There is nothing in Walker's personal papers which reveals or even hints that John Rousselot or Robert Welch or any other national JBS official had any knowledge about, or interest in, a plot to murder JFK

5. There is nothing in Walker's personal papers which reveals or even hints that Walker was aware of the $10,000 cash payment allegedly made by Rousselot to Galbadon to carry out the "JBS plot"

On many occasions, I have asked Paul to tell us what evidence trail we should pursue, i.e.

*whom, specifically, should we contact?

*what personal papers should we review and where are they located?

*what oral history interviews (audiotapes or video recordings) should we watch or listen to and where are they located?

*what documentary evidence should we search for?

*what correspondence, diaries, or other material should we try to find?

Paul does not really have any specific ideas other than (apparently) (1) he wants us to discover the name of every JBS member in Dallas during the 1960's and (2) he wants us to wait until 2017 when he thinks that the FBI will release some heretofore "secret files".

Unfortunately (as your message suggests) nothing which Paul has presented helps us determine whether or not the "JBS plot" against JFK (as described in Paul's eBook) actually existed and nothing Paul has presented regarding Edwin Walker actually moves his "speculation" into the "facts" column.

Ernie, your flattery of Mark is transparently self-serving. Mark is repeating what you've said many times, and you approve. Big deal.

You fool yourself if you think anybody needs to be told that reality is not fiction. You flatter yourself.

I have used the word THEORY. Other people say I should use the word HYPOTHESIS. Others say, SPECULATION. As if this is some big deal. It's not.

As for WALKER's personal papers, I spent two semesters over them, under the watchful eye of historian H.W. Brands at UT Austin. The Dolph Briscoe Center will not allow me to publish my copies, though, without a hefty payment of royalties. I wish I could -- but I can't afford it.

As for giving direct answers to you, Ernie, I answer you directly all the time -- but you don't like what you hear. Here, for example, are my direct answers to your questions above:

(1) TRUE

(2) PARTIALLY TRUE. John Birch Society literature (whether in WALKER's papers or not) always links the JBS with the murder of JFK, because the JBS preached that JFK was a Communist. Those were killing words in 1963. The JBS bears much blame.

(3) PARTIALLY TRUE. Using WALKER's personal papers, we can connect WALKER directly with Gerry Patrick Hemming and Robert Morris. Hemming is directly connected to Loran Hall. Loran Hall told Jim Garrison that he and Howard and Hemming visited the home of WALKER in 1963, in the context of a meeting with attorney Robert Morris. (Jim Garrison didn't think this was very interesting.) Loran Hall is also connected with Guy Gabaldon and Harry Dean -- personally.

(4) TRUE

(5) TRUE

* Whom should we contact? -- Children of Dallas participants in the JFK/OSWALD episode.

* What personal papers should we review and where are they located? -- Edwin WALKER's, at UT Austin

* What oral history interviews should we watch or listen to? -- (Video) JFK: A Revisionist History (2002)

* What documentary evidence should we search for? -- Historical documents of the JBS 1963; any books by Guy Gabaldon.

* What correspondence, diaries, or other material should we try to find? -- Any material that links WALKER with BANISTER, HEMMING, HALL, HOWARD, BRINGUIER.

While it would be nice to have the name of every JBS member in Dallas in the 1960's, if we do get them, I predict that we will solve the JFK case very quickly, and will not need to wait until 26 October 2017 for the JFK Records Act.

Sadly, this generation is almost wholly ignorant of the Warren Commission volumes. So-called JFK "Research" is to blame for this -- for their one-sided method of throwing out the baby (testimony) with the bathwater (Lone Nut theory).

If not for that, y'all would be struck with the fact that the name of Edwin WALKER appears more than 500 times in those volumes -- FOR A GOOD REASON.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark: Your message may be the best summary of the deficiencies in Paul's argument ever presented in this forum. Many of us have posted comparable messages but we've never been able to penetrate Paul's defensive replies.

On several occasions, I have pointed out that an author of fiction is NOT constrained by anything except his own imagination. Good fiction, by definition, is something which seems superficially plausible but is NOT based upon proven facts. Fiction is not reality.

Some contributors on EF have suggested that Paul's ideas should be characterized as an "hypothesis". I prefer the word "speculation" which means conjecture without firm evidence.

Significantly, Paul has had a unique advantage over the rest of us -- because Paul has spent (apparently considerable) time going through Edwin Walker's personal papers. However, when I asked Paul very clear, specific questions regarding what he found in those papers that might support his "speculation" -- he refused to give a direct answer. However, it appears (from his unwillingness to answer "yes" or "no") that the following statements are correct:

1. There is nothing in Walker's personal papers which clearly and directly "connects" or "links" Walker to Harry Dean.

2. There is nothing in Walker's personal papers which clearly and directly "connects" or "links" Walker to any sort of "Birch Society plot" against JFK or anybody else

3. There is nothing in Walker's personal papers which establishes that Walker even knew of the existence of principals connected to the "JBS plot" such as Guy Galbadon

4. There is nothing in Walker's personal papers which reveals or even hints that John Rousselot or Robert Welch or any other national JBS official had any knowledge about, or interest in, a plot to murder JFK

5. There is nothing in Walker's personal papers which reveals or even hints that Walker was aware of the $10,000 cash payment allegedly made by Rousselot to Galbadon to carry out the "JBS plot"

On many occasions, I have asked Paul to tell us what evidence trail we should pursue, i.e.

*whom, specifically, should we contact?

*what personal papers should we review and where are they located?

*what oral history interviews (audiotapes or video recordings) should we watch or listen to and where are they located?

*what documentary evidence should we search for?

*what correspondence, diaries, or other material should we try to find?

Paul does not really have any specific ideas other than (apparently) (1) he wants us to discover the name of every JBS member in Dallas during the 1960's and (2) he wants us to wait until 2017 when he thinks that the FBI will release some heretofore "secret files".

Unfortunately (as your message suggests) nothing which Paul has presented helps us determine whether or not the "JBS plot" against JFK (as described in Paul's eBook) actually existed and nothing Paul has presented regarding Edwin Walker actually moves his "speculation" into the "facts" column.

Ernie, your flattery of Mark is transparently self-serving. Mark is repeating what you've said many times, and you approve. Big deal.

You fool yourself if you think anybody needs to be told that reality is not fiction. You flatter yourself.

I have used the word THEORY. Other people say I should use the word HYPOTHESIS. Others say, SPECULATION. As if this is some big deal. It's not.

As for WALKER's personal papers, I spent two semesters over them, under the watchful eye of historian H.W. Brands at UT Austin. The Dolph Briscoe Center will not allow me to publish my copies, though, without a hefty payment of royalties. I wish I could -- but I can't afford it.

As for giving direct answers to you, Ernie, I answer you directly all the time -- but you don't like what you hear. Here, for example, are my direct answers to your questions above:

(1) TRUE

(2) PARTIALLY TRUE. John Birch Society literature (whether in WALKER's papers or not) always links the JBS with the murder of JFK, because the JBS preached that JFK was a Communist. Those were killing words in 1963. The JBS bears much blame.

(3) PARTIALLY TRUE. Using WALKER's personal papers, we can connect WALKER directly with Gerry Patrick Hemming and Robert Morris. Hemming is directly connected to Loran Hall. Loran Hall told Jim Garrison that he and Howard and Hemming visited the home of WALKER in 1963, in the context of a meeting with attorney Robert Morris. (Jim Garrison didn't think this was very interesting.) Loran Hall is also connected with Guy Gabaldon and Harry Dean -- personally.

(4) TRUE

(5) TRUE

* Whom should we contact? -- Children of Dallas participants in the JFK/OSWALD episode.

* What personal papers should we review and where are they located? -- Edwin WALKER's, at UT Austin

* What oral history interviews should we watch or listen to? -- (Video) JFK: A Revisionist History (2002)

* What documentary evidence should we search for? -- Historical documents of the JBS 1963, books by Guy Gabaldon.

* What correspondence, diaries, or other material should we try to find? -- Any material that links WALKER with BANISTER, HEMMING, HALL, HOWARD, BRINGUIER.

While it would be nice to have the name of every JBS member in Dallas in the 1960's, if we do get them, I predict that we will solve the JFK case very quickly, and will not need to wait until 26 October 2017 for the JFK Records Act.

Sadly, this generation is almost wholly ignorant of the Warren Commission volumes. So-called JFK "Research" is to blame for this -- for their one-sided method of throwing out the baby (testimony) with the bathwater (Lone Nut theory).

If not for that, y'all would be struck with the fact that the name of Edwin WALKER appears more than 500 times in those volumes -- FOR A GOOD REASON.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

1. It was not "flattery". It was a recognition that Mark was able to concisely summarize in a few brief paragraphs everything which is wrong with your reasoning.

2. The correct terminology to describe what is being presented is always important (except to you).

3. You do not always provide "direct answers". When somebody asks you questions that require only "yes" or "no", then the most direct answer would be "yes" or "no". Your original replies to my questions were (as other people here also pointed out) Trejo-Speak.

4. Possession of JBS literature does not "connect" anybody to anything. Another example of your defective reasoning. In your scheme of things, I must be connected to JFK's murder because I have thousands of pages of JBS literature including numerous pamphlets, books, and articles which refer to most of our government officials since Woodrow Wilson as "traitors" -- and that includes highly defamatory literature regarding JFK.

5. Hemming and Morris were not "principals" in the alleged JBS murder plot so whether Walker was familiar with them or people connected to them is irrelevant. Another example of your defective reasoning.

6. BOTTOM-LINE: You have no specific verifiable factual evidence to connect Walker to any sort of murder plot -- period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. It was not "flattery". It was a recognition that Mark was able to concisely summarize in a few brief paragraphs everything which is wrong with your reasoning.

2. The correct terminology to describe what is being presented is always important (except to you).

3. You do not always provide "direct answers". When somebody asks you questions that require only "yes" or "no", then the most direct answer would be "yes" or "no". Your original replies to my questions were (as other people here also pointed out) Trejo-Speak.

4. Possession of JBS literature does not "connect" anybody to anything. Another example of your defective reasoning. In your scheme of things, I must be connected to JFK's murder because I have thousands of pages of JBS literature including numerous pamphlets, books, and articles which refer to most of our government officials since Woodrow Wilson as "traitors" -- and that includes highly defamatory literature regarding JFK.

5. Hemming and Morris were not "principals" in the alleged JBS murder plot so whether Walker was familiar with them or people connected to them is irrelevant. Another example of your defective reasoning.

6. BOTTOM-LINE: You have no specific verifiable factual evidence to connect Walker to any sort of murder plot -- period.

1. It was clearly self-flattery. You WISH Mark was able to criticize my theory as well as you imagine; that would flatter your efforts to criticize my theory as well. You both fail miserably, because you evade the issues.

2. The correct terminology is important -- unless you keep changing it to suit yourself.

3. You don't have the moral right to demand "yes" or "no" answers from me, Ernie. Your own logic is faulty, and I point that out, and you can't stand it. But I'll continue to point it out.

4. You act like I'm saying that every JBS member deserves the death penalty for killing JFK. I'm not. However, some penalty is reasonable -- the JBS ideology killed JFK. They called JFK a "traitor" as you just admitted. I will continue to build upon that historical truth.

5. YOU say that Hemming and Morris were not "principals" in the JFK murder, but Gaeton Fonzi and A.J. Weberman think differently. They are lifelong experts in the JFK murder, Ernie, while you are not.

5.1. Claiming that Hemming and Morris were "principals" in the JFK murder (and its JBS plot) is not "defective reasoning," Ernie, but familiarity with the best of the JFK literature.

6. BOTTOM-LINE: There is plenty of factual evidence to connect Walker to the JFK murder -- but you and Mark and so many others here simply cover your ears and sing 'la-la-la-la' whenever I point it out.

I'm not the only one who has named Loran Hall and Gerry Patrick Hemming (two people connecting WALKER and BANISTER) in connection with the JFK murder, Ernie, yet it seems you're unaware of the literature in question.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. It was not "flattery". It was a recognition that Mark was able to concisely summarize in a few brief paragraphs everything which is wrong with your reasoning.

2. The correct terminology to describe what is being presented is always important (except to you).

3. You do not always provide "direct answers". When somebody asks you questions that require only "yes" or "no", then the most direct answer would be "yes" or "no". Your original replies to my questions were (as other people here also pointed out) Trejo-Speak.

4. Possession of JBS literature does not "connect" anybody to anything. Another example of your defective reasoning. In your scheme of things, I must be connected to JFK's murder because I have thousands of pages of JBS literature including numerous pamphlets, books, and articles which refer to most of our government officials since Woodrow Wilson as "traitors" -- and that includes highly defamatory literature regarding JFK.

5. Hemming and Morris were not "principals" in the alleged JBS murder plot so whether Walker was familiar with them or people connected to them is irrelevant. Another example of your defective reasoning.

6. BOTTOM-LINE: You have no specific verifiable factual evidence to connect Walker to any sort of murder plot -- period.

1. It was clearly self-flattery. You WISH Mark was able to criticize my theory as well as you imagine; that would flatter your efforts to criticize my theory as well. You both fail miserably, because you evade the issues.

2. The correct terminology is important -- unless you keep changing it to suit yourself.

3. You don't have the moral right to demand "yes" or "no" answers from me, Ernie. Your own logic is faulty, and I point that out, and you can't stand it. But I'll continue to point it out.

4. You act like I'm saying that every JBS member deserves the death penalty for killing JFK. I'm not. However, some penalty is reasonable -- the JBS ideology killed JFK. They called JFK a "traitor" as you just admitted. I will continue to build upon that historical truth.

5. YOU say that Hemming and Morris were not "principals" in the JFK murder, but Gaeton Fonzi and A.J. Weberman think differently. They are lifelong experts in the JFK murder, Ernie, while you are not.

Claiming that Hemming and Morris were "principals" in the JFK murder (and its JBS plot) is not "defective reasoning," Ernie, but familiarity with the best of the JFK literature.

6. BOTTOM-LINE: There is plenty of factual evidence to connect Walker to the JFK murder -- but you and Mark and so many others here simply cover your ears and sing 'la-la-la-la' whenever I point it out.

I'm not the only one who has named Loran Hall and Gerry Patrick Hemming (two people connecting WALKER and BANISTER) in connection with the JFK murder, Ernie, yet it seems you're unaware of the literature in question.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

BY THE NUMBERS:

1. You are incapable of accepting criticism of your ideas. I suggest you add a "poll question" to your next message and see how many people here (or anyplace else) agree with you.

2. I've never changed any terminology and I frequently copy literal word definitions into my messages to illustrate that you do not use language correctly - so another straw-man argument by you.

3. Another example of how you attempt to evade pertinent questions regarding your beliefs. I never "demand" answers -- I ask obvious questions which upsets you (as other people here have pointed out repeatedly). Mark correctly summarized your reasoning problems and others here (Greg, Tommy, Paul B., and others) have done the exact same thing.

4. If your operative principle is that unpopular or defamatory ideological beliefs deserve some sort of "penalty" then what prevents a Bircher from demanding the exact same treatment of you?

5. There is nothing in your eBook (or any other source) which presents verifiable factual evidence to connect Morris or Hemming to any criminal JBS plot. And you cannot "prove" something by citing as experts only those people who agree with what you prefer to believe. This is the fallacious type of reasoning which searches for "confirmations" while ignoring or devaluing all contradictory evidence. It is much more significant to note that the overwhelming majority of JFK-murder researchers have dismissed your "theory" and they also do not find Harry Dean to be a credible "eyewitness". Obviously, you are (or were) invested in Harry's story. But independent analysts who may not agree about other matters nevertheless dismiss his (and your) "hypothesis". BUT -- as I have said repeatedly, I will be the FIRST person to acknowledge if you ever discover verifiable FACTUAL evidence to support your contentions.

6. There will always be "literature" (aka speculative ideas) to "connect" somebody to JFK's murder. [People still argue about Lincoln's assassination!] That is why there are at least 13 different "hypotheses" regarding the key actors allegedly involved in the "plot" and many of them are mutually exclusive.

Your problem continues to be that you have no objective standard (of evidence and logic) for making credible judgments. In your scheme of things, anything which "connects" or "links" the JBS to the "plot" is accurate and truthful (and therefore factual) .

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

BY THE NUMBERS:

1. You are incapable of accepting criticism of your ideas. I suggest you add a "poll question" to your next message and see how many people here (or anyplace else) agree with you.

2. I've never changed any terminology and I frequently copy literal word definitions into my messages to illustrate that you do not use language correctly - so another straw-man argument by you.

3. Another example of how you attempt to evade pertinent questions regarding your beliefs. I never "demand" answers -- I ask obvious questions which upsets you (as other people here have pointed out repeatedly). Mark correctly summarized your reasoning problems and others here (Greg, Tommy, Paul B., and others) have done the exact same thing.

4. If your operative principle is that unpopular or defamatory ideological beliefs deserve some sort of "penalty" then what prevents a Bircher from demanding the exact same treatment of you?

5. There is nothing in your eBook (or any other source) which presents verifiable factual evidence to connect Morris or Hemming to any criminal JBS plot. And you cannot "prove" something by citing as experts only those people who agree with what you prefer to believe. This is the fallacious type of reasoning which searches for "confirmations" while ignoring or devaluing all contradictory evidence. It is much more significant to note that the overwhelming majority of JFK-murder researchers have dismissed your "theory" and they also do not find Harry Dean to be a credible "eyewitness". Obviously, you are (or were) invested in Harry's story. But independent analysts who may not agree about other matters nevertheless dismiss his (and your) "hypothesis". BUT -- as I have said repeatedly, I will be the FIRST person to acknowledge if you ever discover verifiable FACTUAL evidence to support your contentions.

6. There will always be "literature" (aka speculative ideas) to "connect" somebody to JFK's murder. [People still argue about Lincoln's assassination!] That is why there are at least 13 different "hypotheses" regarding the key actors allegedly involved in the "plot" and many of them are mutually exclusive.

Your problem continues to be that you have no objective standard (of evidence and logic) for making credible judgments. In your scheme of things, anything which "connects" or "links" the JBS to the "plot" is accurate and truthful (and therefore factual) .

OK, Ernie, by the numbers:

1. I'm capable of accepting criticism of my ideas. I've accepted lots of valid criticism on the FORUM (but not from the people you name). I will continue to reject INVALID criticism.

1.1. My critics seem to be incapable of accepting criticism of THEIR ideas.

1.2. It is folly to add a "poll question" in a DEBATE FORUM. These are SUPPOSED to be controversial issues.

2. Ernie, you use terms in your own unique way -- you consider yourself to be an expert in logic, but I have studied under some very strict logicians, and you don't make the grade. You have a blind spot when it comes to your own arguments. Your bias is insuperable.

3. Actually, Ernie, your style (like Mark's) is hostile. If you deny it, then everybody here can see your folly.

3.1. As for Mark, Greg, Tommy, Paul B. and yourself -- your objections to my position have consistently been frivolous, insulting, smart alek, biased and logically weak.

3.2. Larry Hancock is the only one, so far, who has occasionally treated my theory with some respect -- and this is partly because I use his theory to support mine.

3.3. Also, Larry Hancock is open to the idea that the JFK Cover-up Team was different and even OPPOSED to the JFK Kill Team.

4. In a public FORUM, I expect the John Bircher to back down -- or to run away fast. There is nothing that can defend their Unamerican practice of accusing US Presidents of being "traitors". There is nothing patriotic about it. It belongs to the Cold War paranoia. It is out of place -- and it is more shameful today than it was in the 1960's.

5. As for my eBook, it does not contain all the references and citations that I've read in my life.

5.1. I don't claim to have PROOF. I claim to have a viable THEORY. I've said this almost daily since I joined the FORUM in 2011.

5.2. It is utterly insignificant that the vast majority of JFK "Researchers" have dismissed my theory -- since they have NOTHING BETTER TO OFFER. Their nonsense about LBJ-did-it, or Bush-did-it, or the Mafia-did-it, clearly devalues their judgment and shows their incapacity for logic.

5.3. Not only do my critics reject Harry Dean as a credible witness -- THEY ALSO REJECT MARINA OSWALD. So, their opinion on the matter is seriously devalued.

6. My standards for making credible judgments are the same as for any serious thinker -- Scientific Method -- Observation -- Experimentation -- Analysis.

6.1. Anybody who says Marina Oswald was lying (without proving it), or that GHW Bush killed JFK, has no logical right to criticize my logical methods.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

BY THE NUMBERS:

1. You are incapable of accepting criticism of your ideas. I suggest you add a "poll question" to your next message and see how many people here (or anyplace else) agree with you.

2. I've never changed any terminology and I frequently copy literal word definitions into my messages to illustrate that you do not use language correctly - so another straw-man argument by you.

3. Another example of how you attempt to evade pertinent questions regarding your beliefs. I never "demand" answers -- I ask obvious questions which upsets you (as other people here have pointed out repeatedly). Mark correctly summarized your reasoning problems and others here (Greg, Tommy, Paul B., and others) have done the exact same thing.

4. If your operative principle is that unpopular or defamatory ideological beliefs deserve some sort of "penalty" then what prevents a Bircher from demanding the exact same treatment of you?

5. There is nothing in your eBook (or any other source) which presents verifiable factual evidence to connect Morris or Hemming to any criminal JBS plot. And you cannot "prove" something by citing as experts only those people who agree with what you prefer to believe. This is the fallacious type of reasoning which searches for "confirmations" while ignoring or devaluing all contradictory evidence. It is much more significant to note that the overwhelming majority of JFK-murder researchers have dismissed your "theory" and they also do not find Harry Dean to be a credible "eyewitness". Obviously, you are (or were) invested in Harry's story. But independent analysts who may not agree about other matters nevertheless dismiss his (and your) "hypothesis". BUT -- as I have said repeatedly, I will be the FIRST person to acknowledge if you ever discover verifiable FACTUAL evidence to support your contentions.

6. There will always be "literature" (aka speculative ideas) to "connect" somebody to JFK's murder. [People still argue about Lincoln's assassination!] That is why there are at least 13 different "hypotheses" regarding the key actors allegedly involved in the "plot" and many of them are mutually exclusive.

Your problem continues to be that you have no objective standard (of evidence and logic) for making credible judgments. In your scheme of things, anything which "connects" or "links" the JBS to the "plot" is accurate and truthful (and therefore factual) .

OK, Ernie, by the numbers:

1. I'm capable of accepting criticism of my ideas. I've accepted lots of valid criticism on the FORUM (but not from the people you name). I will continue to reject INVALID criticism.

1.1. My critics seem to be incapable of accepting criticism of THEIR ideas.

1.2. It is folly to add a "poll question" in a DEBATE FORUM. These are SUPPOSED to be controversial issues.

2. Ernie, you use terms in your own unique way -- you consider yourself to be an expert in logic, but I have studied under some very strict logicians, and you don't make the grade. You have a blind spot when it comes to your own arguments. Your bias is insuperable.

3. Actually, Ernie, your style (like Mark's) is hostile. If you deny it, then everybody here can see your folly.

3.1. As for Mark, Greg, Tommy, Paul B. and yourself -- your objections to my position have consistently been frivolous, insulting, smart alek, biased and logically weak.

3.2. Larry Hancock is the only one, so far, who has occasionally treated my theory with some respect -- and this is partly because I use his theory to support mine.

3.3. Also, Larry Hancock is open to the idea that the Cover-up Team was different and even OPPOSED to the Kill Team.

4. In a public FORUM, I expect the John Bircher to back down -- or to run away fast. There is nothing that can defend their Unamerican practice of accusing US Presidents of being "traitors". There is nothing patriotic about it. It belongs to the Cold War paranoia. It is out of place -- and it is more shameful today than it was in the 1960's.

5. As for my eBook, it does not contain all the references and citations that I've read in my life.

5.1. I don't claim to have PROOF. I claim to have a viable THEORY. I've said this almost daily since I joined the FORUM in 2011.

5.2. It is utterly insignificant that the vast majority of JFK "Researchers" have dismissed my theory -- since they have NOTHING BETTER TO OFFER. Their nonsense about LBJ-did-it, or Bush-did-it, or the Mafia-did-it, clearly devalues their judgment and shows their incapacity for logic.

5.3. Not only do my critics reject Harry Dean as a credible witness -- THEY ALSO REJECT MARINA OSWALD. So, their opinion on the matter is seriously devalued.

6. My standards for making credible judgments is the same as any other serious thinker -- Scientific Method -- Observation -- Experimentation -- Analysis.

6.1. Anybody who says Marina Oswald was lying (without proving it), or that GHW Bush killed JFK, has no right to criticize my logical methods.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

One-word reply: Delusional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul - I don't dismiss the possibility that your Walker JBS Banister etc theory is right. I never have. The problem for me is that you overstate your 'case'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul - I don't dismiss the possibility that your Walker JBS Banister etc theory is right. I never have. The problem for me is that you overstate your 'case'.

OK, Paul B., you say I overstate my case. How strongly do you believe that President GHW Bush led the plot to kill JFK?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, in 1963 GHW Bush wasn't at the top of ANY pyramid, when it comes to the JFK assassination. He may have been a "player," he may have had a "bit" part, but there's no way he was at the top. But that's the straw man you keep dragging out whenever anyone criticizes your "theory." In a backhand way, you "accuse" your critics of supporting some equally unproven theory.

The problem is, you have many of us all wrong. I'm a STUDENT of the assassination. I haven't solved anything, nor do I claim that there's any "coded" confession in anyone's papers. I'm convinced that the JFK assassination is a jigsaw puzzle. Some of the pieces are missing. And some pieces have been tossed in that won't ever fit. But it's up to us to build a case.

I can't watch someone try to construct a Taj Mahal with a foundation of cardboard...and thin cardboard at that. Until or unless you can find something concrete to reinforce that cardboard, the Taj Mahal is going to come down around you and crush you. And I'm still waiting to see something concrete from you.

Notice I used the term "build a case." As Bill Kelly brought up some time back, we need to come up with evidence that a prosecutor can present to a grand jury, evidence that will stand up to cross-examination from a dozen different sides. Yet when I question the quality of your evidence, suddenly I'm harassing you. Obviously, you must never have seen any courtroom proceedings; otherwise, you'd know that my questioning you HARDLY qualifies as harassment. I don't even know Ernie Lazar or Paul Brancato, but they see the same flaws and missing pieces in the structure you're building, and they question you about them for the same reasons I do.

I actually WANT you to be right. I WANT you to solve the JFK assassination. But you can't have as many missing pieces in the foundation of the structure you're building as you currently do, and solve the case.

So what was it that Harry Truman said about heat and the kitchen? [i think you know...] So go FIND your missing evidence...if it exists. And if it doesn't, be man enough to say so. "Coulda-woulda-shoulda-been-there" evidence never made a case...ever. It's YOUR theory; YOU have to fix the holes in the FOUNDATION before you can expect anyone to pat you on the back for the walls you're constructing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Mark. I never said Bush was at the top of the pyramid. I do suspect his involvement, but I would not presume to overstate that case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...The problem is, you have many of us all wrong. I'm a STUDENT of the assassination. I haven't solved anything, nor do I claim that there's any "coded" confession in anyone's papers. I'm convinced that the JFK assassination is a jigsaw puzzle. Some of the pieces are missing. And some pieces have been tossed in that won't ever fit. But it's up to us to build a case.

I can't watch someone try to construct a Taj Mahal with a foundation of cardboard...and thin cardboard at that. Until or unless you can find something concrete to reinforce that cardboard, the Taj Mahal is going to come down around you and crush you. And I'm still waiting to see something concrete from you.

Notice I used the term "build a case." As Bill Kelly brought up some time back, we need to come up with evidence that a prosecutor can present to a grand jury, evidence that will stand up to cross-examination from a dozen different sides. Yet when I question the quality of your evidence, suddenly I'm harassing you. Obviously, you must never have seen any courtroom proceedings; otherwise, you'd know that my questioning you HARDLY qualifies as harassment. I don't even know Ernie Lazar or Paul Brancato, but they see the same flaws and missing pieces in the structure you're building, and they question you about them for the same reasons I do.

I actually WANT you to be right. I WANT you to solve the JFK assassination. But you can't have as many missing pieces in the foundation of the structure you're building as you currently do, and solve the case.

So what was it that Harry Truman said about heat and the kitchen? [i think you know...] So go FIND your missing evidence...if it exists. And if it doesn't, be man enough to say so. "Coulda-woulda-shoulda-been-there" evidence never made a case...ever. It's YOUR theory; YOU have to fix the holes in the FOUNDATION before you can expect anyone to pat you on the back for the walls you're constructing.

Actually, Mark, my FOUNDATION is stronger than you think. Edwin WALKER was considered a suspect in the JFK murder even by some WC attorneys -- and the questions that WALKER was asked by the WC attorneys go far beyond the time when OSWALD tried to kill him.

WALKER was grilled about the Deutsche Nationalzeitung; about his connections with the DRE and Carlos Bringuier; about the Black-bordered Ad; and about the Wanted for Treason: JFK handbills. WALKER was a person of interest in 1963-1964, however, WALKER was inadvertently protected by the WC mission -- to prove that OSWALD was a "Lone Nut."

Any talk that OSWALD might not have been alone in the JFK murder (e.g. that WALKER was somehow involved) would raise the problem of Accomplices, and that would have led to the film, radio and newspaper evidence that OSWALD had FPCC and Communist Accomplices -- exactly as WALKER insisted -- and had planned all along (IMHO).

Rather than debate whether OSWALD worked for the Rightists or the Leftists, J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ, Earl Warren and Allen Dulles preferred to avoid the whole question by relying on the "Lone Nut" theory of OSWALD. For that reason, WALKER would just walk away.

Among the best WC clues are: Deutsche Nationalzeitung, Carlos Bringuier and the DRE, the Black-bordered Ad and the Wanted for Treason: JFK handbills -- and their close relationship with the John Birch Society program.

The WC had to stop digging by necessity of National Security. We today have no such excuse.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...