'Simulated Assassination' gone awry?

[Mike Ellwood]

On the other side, I totally believe the concept of a Simulated Assassination gone awry is credible.

Reading this and the Evica article you posted (for which thanks), I was suddenly reminded that on the same day as both 9/11 and so-called "7/7" (the bombings in London on 7th July 2005) there were "exercises" going on. Without getting into too many CT's, there are plenty of people who disbelieve the official stories of both events. A "Simulated Assassination" is of course an "exercise" by another name.

And an "exercise" is a perfect cover for the real thing.

So I too would not be at all surprised if an "exercise" was taking place on 22nd November 1963.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Mike Ellwood

[Paul Brancato]

Mike - welcome here, and I quite agree with you.

There are many reasons to think such a plan might be the actual truth. But before I try to enumerate them, let me say that the approach Trejo is taking here, such as trying to figure out the significance of the first utterance of such an idea, or trying to fit the idea in with the theory he is wedded to, that Walker was the ringleader, isn't the best approach. Neither is taking a book like the Kennedy Mutiny, written with an obvious pseudonym by an unknown writer, too seriously, or taking the earlier work by Evica, and parsing out the parts we like and the parts we don't.

It's the idea that is fascinating - that an 'exercise' is perfect cover for the real thing, and that the hijacking of the exercise was therefore part of the plan, though unknown to most of the participants. That makes the hijackers most likely a subset of the planners, though it could be that the hijackers were unknown to the planners. We know some things for sure in my opinion. One is that the planners were brilliant. Another is that they were powerful. (No use arguing, at least with me, that Walker did it but that the government was afraid to go after him for fear of civil war. Heck, the government already did the thing that might have caused civil war when they forced the integration of schools in Mississppi. There was unrest but it did not escalate from there, despite the fact that RFK had Walker thrown in jail. Would Trejo argue that had Walker's lawyers not gotten him released there would have been Civil War? Trejo would have us believe that Hoover, America's worst nightmare, was a hero for averting the Civil war that would have erupted had the U.S. government gone after Walker for the murder of a president. That fellow readers is the very definition of absurd. And then of course Congress passed and LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act without causing any major disturbance.)

Rather than look at the iterations of this general theory and tearing their speculative scenarios apart, let's just consider what such a plan would have accomplished, and how clever it would have been. The details, the 'who' and 'how', we can leave alone for now, since we cannot actually know for certain. But how well this would explain the drawing down of support in Dealey Plaza without imagining the worst of the Secret Service and other agencies, or of local FBI. It reminds me a bit of 9/11 in that I think it was an inside job, with the caveat that the planners did not need, and did not expect, the buildings to come down in order to accomplish their political and psychological goals. That makes the collusion of some Bush insiders more understandable. It also makes the ensuing coverup completely understandable in both cases. I'm not too familiar with the London train bombings, so I will leave that to Mike and others. How many times have we heard that the CIA was protecting it's collusion with mafia in its Cuban operations when it lied to the WC? Imagine if they had hatched a fake 'Castro did it' assassination attempt that went awry and resulted in the death of such a beloved president? Would they ever stop lying about that?

I probably take this subject, and this theory, more seriously than most. I welcome the old timers and published authors who post here to shoot down this theory.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Paul Brancato

[Paul Trejo]

On the other side, I totally believe the concept of a Simulated Assassination gone awry is credible.

Reading this and the Evica article you posted (for which thanks), I was suddenly reminded that on the same day as both 9/11 and so-called "7/7" (the bombings in London on 7th July 2005) there were "exercises" going on. Without getting into too many CT's, there are plenty of people who disbelieve the official stories of both events. A "Simulated Assassination" is of course an "exercise" by another name.

And an "exercise" is a perfect cover for the real thing.

So I too would not be at all surprised if an "exercise" was taking place on 22nd November 1963.

Well Mike, although I have laughed at a "Fake Assassination" attempt -- one must admit that many hanging threads can be resolved by such a theory.

For one thing, it could explain why people who would never have become involved in a JFK-Kill plot, would choose to risk involvement in a "harmless" plot like this, and merely flirt with disaster instead of jumping in with both feet.

In that case, it might have been part of a high-level "strategy" for a Lead Conspirator to propose to increase the pool of volunteers in a "patriotic, right-wing demonstration" like a "Fake Assassination."

Such a strategy could even attract people from inside the US Government, if phrased just right.

I will keep an open mind about it for the time being -- even though it's new to me -- for the simple reason that the leader of the "Fake Assassination" theory seems to be "Will Fritz", and his name goes back to the interviews of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Further, "Will Fritz" names Ex-General Edwin Walker as the leader of this "Fake Assassination" plot, and names FBI Agent James Hosty, and SS Agent Forrest Sorrels, as quislings of Edwin Walker.

It is critical here to recognize that James Hosty's FBI task was to monitor Edwin Walker and the Dallas "Friends of Walker." Walker's publisher, Robert Allen Surrey, was also Hosty's long-time bridge partner.

In the light of claims by "Will Fritz," we must wonder who was manipulating whom in those ultra-right bridge games in Dallas in 1963.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 14, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...It's the idea that is fascinating - that an 'exercise' is perfect cover for the real thing, and that the hijacking of the exercise was therefore part of the plan, though unknown to most of the participants. That makes the hijackers most likely a subset of the planners, though it could be that the hijackers were unknown to the planners.

We know some things for sure in my opinion. One is that the planners were brilliant. Another is that they were powerful.

...Heck, the government already did the thing that might have caused civil war when they forced the integration of schools in Mississippi. There was unrest but it did not escalate from there, despite the fact that RFK had Walker thrown in jail. Would Trejo argue that had Walker's lawyers not gotten him released there would have been Civil War?

Trejo would have us believe that Hoover, America's worst nightmare, was a hero for averting the Civil war that would have erupted had the U.S. government gone after Walker for the murder of a president. That fellow readers is the very definition of absurd. And then of course Congress passed and LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act without causing any major disturbance...

Well, Paul B., I do agree that an 'exercise' is "a perfect cover for the real thing." Good point by Mike Ellwood above..

I also suspect, as you do, that "the hijacking of the exercise was therefore part of the plan, though unknown to most of the participants." That is, Edwin Walker planned the whole thing, but told only a few of his people the real plan, while he told most of his followers of the "Fake Assassination" plan.

So, on this score, anyway, we see eye to eye. I agree that the JFK Kill-Team was brilliant and powerful -- and that means to me that they had US Military Experience -- much as an Ex-General would have -- along with wealthy friends, like H.L. Hunt and various Mafia millionaires, supporting paramilitary organizations like Interpen at his beck and call.

As for my Civil War theory, however, you didn't quite nail it, Paul B., rather, I never said that Civil War would be the result of merely arresting Edwin Walker (since as you rightly note he was already arrested once in 1962). Rather, I said that Civil War was a possible result of Walker's being *identified* in the murder of JFK. A very different matter.

If (and only if) I'm right about Edwin Walker (and THE KENNEDY MUTINTY says I'm right) then, I continue to maintain that if the American People had learned in 1963-1964 that JFK was killed by the US extreme right-wing (the JBS, the Minutemen, the Citizens Councils, the "Friends of Walker" and led by Edwin Walker himself), then there would have been riots in the streets of the USA. Insofar as this was the middle of the Cold War, it is not unlikely that Civil War could have resulted.

If (and only if) Civil War could have resulted from the Truth of the JFK murder, then I must conclude that J. Edgar Hoover was a shining hero of the 20th century, by seeing and preventing Civil War in the USA, with his "Lone Nut" theory.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 15, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[David Andrews]

It's a tempting scenario and one that seems to fit Hunt's personality which makes it an even easier sell - especially considering that Hunt was involved both with Domestic Operations as Covert Ops chief and with the Artime project in 1963.

A couple of things jump out at me though.

First off, we have what would have been a pretty simple plan e.g. get

Oswald to stand in a window and fire a shot in the air and claim Castro

sponsorship. Nice, neat, doesn't require a lot of support. So why bring

all sorts of different agencies into it and risk the confidentiality of the whole

thing? Heck, Hunt or even Phillips could decide to do something like that

all on their own. The more people you tell the bigger the risk of somebody

not approving it or of blabbing. If Oswald asks you tell him everybody

approved including JFK himself.

Second, if somebody was compelled to surface the truth, what a risky way to

do it. Of course anybody knowing the intimate details would be under

surveillance from Friday afternoon on. And warned that they would be....at

minimum.

Third and worse, we have the traditional "thick manila envelope, sealed with wax with a thumbprint on it, that contained the documents John said would prove his story." Do we really think somebody documents a project like this with enough paper trail for a think manilla envelope. Or that if you did John would have been able to walk off with copies and keep them aferwards....back to the warning, surveillance and of course retrieval of any documents he had.

Or does anybody think Hunt is/was to moral and ethical to cover his rear if this were true? If you give your plotters the will and skill to do this sort of thing you pretty much have to give them the ability to do whatever it takes to cover it up.

...not to mention that reportedly Estes is now saying that one of the main players in the Johnson plot was none other than our good Sheriff Decker.....so perhaps this is all Decker disinformation?

All in all its still tempting and maybe true, fellows like Morales and Roselli could easily hijack such a plan. But I just wish that manila envelope complete with thumbprint wasn't in it. And I still keep thinking John would never have been on a long enough leash to carry it as far as the story relates?

It's also difficult to believe that Oswald - or anyone - would lack the cynical sense of realpolitik and believe that he would be received back in the states as a hero for firing wild at Kennedy and causing a Cuba invasion. Who was going to thank Oswald for this? Kennedy?

This part of the rationale doesn't discount that Oswald could have been suckered into a false assassination plot. One explanation of Oswald's post-assassination behavior has been that he intended to flee to Cuba, where allegedly he would be welcomed by Castro - whom he would then assassinate. I agree that this is just as sketchy as the other story above, but the Castro assassination lure adds to the "hero's return" reasoning.

The motive of assassinating Castro in Cuba has been put forth in more than one JFK assassination scenario, and if I remember correctly it was part of Richard Case Nagell's revelations on Oswald. I don't know what to say. I've put some credence in Nagell before because of his involvement with Oswald, but it's difficult to believe Oswald would have bought this proposition.

Bill Decker's involvement in the Gary Wean-Audie Murphy-John Tower meeting seems dubious also. One would think Decker involved in the Dallas end of the plot, or at least interested in keeping a lid on it for the sake of Dallas law enforcement.

"Nobody knows."

Edited July 14, 2015 by David Andrews

[Paul Trejo]

...Bill Decker's involvement in the Gary Wean-Audie Murphy-John Tower meeting seems dubious also. One would think Decker involved in the Dallas end of the plot, or at least interested in keeping a lid on it for the sake of Dallas law enforcement...

Well, David, I've thought about Sheriff Bill Decker's involvement, too, and somehow it seems plausible to me.

See, the people who killed JFK (IMHO) thought that they were really doing their patriotic duty (as defined by the Confederate Flag). At some level they wanted to boast about it.

I believe Edwin Walker truly wanted to boast about his "patriotic" deed. But he couldn't, so he fulfilled his need by calling a German newspaper less than 24-hours after JFK was murdered.

I also believe that if Bill Decker was involved (and he was, if Captain Will Fritz was involved) then he would also want to brag about it.

But he couldn't.

And that, IMHO, would be a perfect explanation for the "Simulated Assassination" fiction that had become part of the JFK murder saga since 1963 (assuming that meeting between John Tower, Bill Decker, Audie Murphy and Gary Wean). I am willing to consider that the meeting really took place -- and a full confession was heard -- except that it contained no word of a "Simulated Assassination" -- perhaps that was added only after the story was to go to print.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 14, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[David Andrews]

On the other side, I totally believe the concept of a Simulated Assassination gone awry is credible.

Reading this and the Evica article you posted (for which thanks), I was suddenly reminded that on the same day as both 9/11 and so-called "7/7" (the bombings in London on 7th July 2005) there were "exercises" going on. Without getting into too many CT's, there are plenty of people who disbelieve the official stories of both events. A "Simulated Assassination" is of course an "exercise" by another name.

And an "exercise" is a perfect cover for the real thing.

So I too would not be at all surprised if an "exercise" was taking place on 22nd November 1963.

Indeed - these are important considerations.

Remember that the coup attempt against the president in the novel and film Seven Days in May is to take place during a military exercise, when some actions will seem expected and other actions will be misinterpreted. The authors likely had some military input on the circumstances under which a coup might succeed...or those under which coups were actually planned by the military. Interesting if Knebel & Bailey's research for the novel could be verified on that point.

Remember also that Kennedy felt that the novel was a corrective to indulgence of hardliners in the military, and went out of his way to allow filming movie scenes at the White House. Was the "exercise" dodge plausible to him?

Edited July 15, 2015 by David Andrews

[David Andrews]

...Bill Decker's involvement in the Gary Wean-Audie Murphy-John Tower meeting seems dubious also. One would think Decker involved in the Dallas end of the plot, or at least interested in keeping a lid on it for the sake of Dallas law enforcement...

Well, David, I've thought about Sheriff Bill Decker's involvement, too, and somehow it seems plausible to me.

See, the people who killed JFK (IMHO) thought that they were really doing their patriotic duty (as defined by the Confederate Flag). At some level they wanted to boast about it.

I believe Edwin Walker truly wanted to boast about his "patriotic" deed. But he couldn't, so he fulfilled his need by calling a German newspaper less than 24-hours after JFK was murdered.

I also believe that if Bill Decker was involved (and he was, if Captain Will Fritz was involved) then he would also want to brag about it.

But he couldn't.

And that, IMHO, would be a perfect explanation for the "Simulated Assassination" fiction that had become part of the JFK murder saga since 1963 (assuming that meeting between John Tower, Bill Decker, Audie Murphy and Gary Wean). I am willing to consider that the meeting really took place -- and a full confession was heard -- except that it contained no word of a "Simulated Assassination" -- perhaps that was added only after the story was to go to print.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Well, Paul, what are you saying? That Decker confessed to Murphy with great pride in his patriotism, while John Tower handed over documents that would hang them both?

I don't believe or disbelieve the Murphy-Tower-Decker story as written. I'm waiting for more/better, or for nothing.

[Paul Trejo]

Well, Paul, what are you saying? That Decker confessed to Murphy with great pride in his patriotism, while John Tower handed over documents that would hang them both?

I don't believe or disbelieve the Murphy-Tower-Decker story as written. I'm waiting for more/better, or for nothing.

Well, David, I want to use Occam's Razor here, and propose a minimalist interpretation of these claims by the "Simulated Assassination" theorists.

The earliest claims for this theory begin with an alleged meeting in December 1963, called by John Tower to his friend Dallas Sheriff Bill Decker, who chose to bring two friends to tag along with him -- namely, the famous Audie Murphy, and police officer Gary Wean.

In that meeting, John Tower allegedly told those gathered that he knew that Lee Harvey Oswald was INNOCENT of the JFK murder, and that the actual deed was originally planned by Ex-General Edwin Walker in Dallas, along with several key conspirators with high positions in Dallas. In sum, these "Friends of Walker also manipulated Lee Harvey Oswald starting in early 1963, to be part of their plot -- but they did not tell Oswald of a JFK Kill-Plot, but only of a "Simulated Assassination" attempt.

According to Senator John Tower (says Gary Wean) Lee Harvey Oswald joined Ex-General Edwin Walker's group. Soon , the General convinced Oswald to "Fake" an Assassination attempt on General Walker himself. Oswald agreed to this, and went through with the charade, including his own manufacture of Backyard Photographs, and an album of photographs of General Walker's house. This was all planned by the General.

According to Senator Tower (says Gary Wean) Ex-General Walker then ordered Oswald to botch his work at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall in order to be laid off, to have an excuse to be sent to New Orleans to work with Guy Banister and David Ferrie. In NOLA, Oswald would help Banister create a Fake FPCC, and completely sheep-dip himself as an FPCC Communist in the newspapers, on radio and even on TV. All these clippings were put into an album that Oswald would take to Mexico City, the world's most wire-tapped facility, to get Oswald known even by the CIA and Soviets as an FPCC Communist.

According to Senator Tower (says Gary Wean) Oswald's task on 11/22/1963 was to fire some weak-shells at the JFK limo in a "Simulated Assassination" simply to anger the US public so that they would attack Cuba and depose Fidel Castro. Alek Hidell was supposed to be the scapegoat, and some flunkie would be killed in an airplane crash with Hidell's ID, to close the case. Oswald would then be set free, when it became clear that he and Hidell had a parting of the ways back in New Orleans.

But when Oswald saw the actual results of the "Simulated Assassination" he realized right away that he had been Patsified. The rest is history.

Now -- I reject the details -- but I want to accept the general outline, as follows:

1. General Walker was in control of a JFK-Kill plot starting Easter Sunday 1963

2. General Walker manipulated Lee Harvey Oswald from at least April 1963 through November 1963.

3. Lee Harvey Oswald thought he was part of a right-wing (or perhaps a CIA) plot.

4. Lee Harvey Oswald faked being an FPCC Communist, and Ex-General Walker knew that very well.

5. Guy Banister was a part of General Walker's plot.

6. The Purpose of the JFK-Kill Plot was to convince the USA to invade Cuba and depose Fidel Castro.

In my humble opinion -- this was the real story -- the minimalist story -- that Senator John Tower really told -- because it is the truth. Bill Decker knew it was the truth because he was part of the plot, as was Captain Will Fritz, DPD Chief Jesse Curry, FBI Agent James Hosty and SS Agent Forrest Sorrels, as well as some people in the 112th MI, and countless volunteers among the Minutemen, JBS, Cuban Exiles, BOP veterans, Interpen, and so on.

The "Simulated Assassination" was a smoke-screen for the unwary -- which may have included Lee Harvey Oswald himself. Otherwise, it was only for the consumption of Audie Murphy and Gary Wean.

IMHO, Lee Harvey Oswald never even met Ex-General Edwin Walker personally -- rather, Oswald thought Guy Banister was in charge of the plot -- perhaps aided by some CIA mercenaries and showmen.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 15, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[David Andrews]

Well, Paul...all we have is the late Gary Wean's word that the Murphy-Tower-Decker affair happened the way he says it did. I'm sure he had a hard life in corrupt Ventura County law enforcement, what with the eternal energy business derailment and all, but I don't know how ready we should be to take Wean's word just yet.

We've had Wean's word for several years, thanks to the earlier, revived EF thread and the internet at large. Nobody's done a thing with it yet, but give it one day in God's sunshine and General Walker's involved in it. I believe the various original versions only mention Howard Hunt's name...somewhat suspicious given the timeliness of Watergate.

Edited July 15, 2015 by David Andrews

[Paul Trejo]

Well, Paul...all we have is the late Gary Wean's word that the Murphy-Tower-Decker affair happened the way he says it did. I'm sure he had a hard life in corrupt Ventura County law enforcement, what with the eternal energy business derailment and all, but I don't know how ready we should be to take Wean's word just yet.

We've had Wean's word for several years, thanks to the earlier, revived EF thread and the internet at large. Nobody's done a thing with it yet, but give it one day in God's sunshine and General Walker's involved in it. I believe the various original versions only mention Howard Hunt's name...somewhat suspicious given the timeliness of Watergate.

However, David, we also have this book, THE KENNEDY MUTINY, by "Will Fritz" published in 2002, which repeats this story in a 701 page summary of a two-volume set. (I have not yet seen the two-volume set).

"Will Fritz" asserts innocently that Ex-General Edwin Walker really planned a "Simulated Assassination," but the mean old CIA hijacked Walker's harmless plot -- and specifically, James Jesus Angleton was the hijacker.

So, we have more to go on today than just Gary Wean's story about Bill Decker.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 15, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...

Remember that the coup attempt against the president in the novel and film Seven Days in May is to take place during a military exercise, when some actions will seem expected and other actions will be misinterpreted. The authors likely had some military input on the circumstances under which a coup might succeed...or those under which coups were actually planned by the military. Interesting if Knebel & Bailey's research for the novel could be verified on that point.

Remember also that Kennedy felt that the novel was a corrective to indulgence of hardliners in the military, and went out of his way to allow filming movie scenes at the White House. Was the "exercise" dodge plausible to him?

I totally forgot that the novel and film Seven Days in May (1964) included a "Simulated" Military exercise.

Now I'm very curious.

I would point out, too, that the main villain of that movie was modeled after General Walker. For example, whenever Edwin Walker made a political speech in late 1961, early 1962, he packed auditoriums, and would receive an average of 12 standing ovations every hour -- and would finish to a thunderous, two minute ovation. (Here's an example from YouTube):

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYyONwsHqbw]

It's not well-known today, but Edwin Walker was so famous in 1961 that he made the cover of Newsweek:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19611204_Newsweek_Cover.JPG

Two famous movies were made about Edwin Walker: Seven Days in May (1964) in which Burt Lancaster portrayed General James Mattoon Scott, and Dr. Strangelove (1964) in which Sterling Hayden portrayed Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper.

Both movies included "Simulated" military exercises in their plots.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 15, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Uh Paul, I'm pretty sure the main villain in Seven Days in May was modeled off Curtis LeMay - or at least a more PR oriented version of LeMay

[Paul Trejo]

Uh Paul, I'm pretty sure the main villain in Seven Days in May was modeled off Curtis LeMay - or at least a more PR oriented version of LeMay

Well, Larry, I suppose that General Mattoon was probably a composite character, as Ex-General Walker was often cited as at least a part of that character.

For example, Mattoon's far-rightist political speeches to stadiums full of wildly cheering crowds -- that wasn't General LeMay -- that was Ex-General Walker.

On the other hand, the fact that General Mattoon was a sitting General -- that was clearly like LeMay, because Edwin Walker had resigned from the US Army in 1961.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 16, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[David Andrews]

Douglas MacArthur's feud with Truman and his political popularity also come into play here, hence the character's thrice-ethnic name: Gen. James Mattoon Scott.