19-06-2015, 10:37 PM
I made a mistake and looked over at the Spartacus Forum.
Paul Trejo came out of the closet. He is an Agency apologist.
He thinks the CIA is innocent of any role in the JFK case. This explains why he writes as he does. I think his idea is: Edwin Walker did it.
But he does say that two CIA guys did confess. And he uses Hunt and Morales as his examples.
Go figure.
Anybody who trusts that phony confession by Hunt should get his head examined. I got the whole story on that from the people who worked on it from the beginning, David Giammarco and Kevin Costner. It was such a painful experience for them, they don't want to talk about it today. But the final result, which was staged by Saint John Hunt, does not resemble what was there at the beginning.
Secondly, as I have said innumerable times, what Morales said does not amount to a confession.
I don't base any of my beliefs of CIA involvement on these two so called confessions. I base it on the evidence, both circumstantial and direct.
And I am very specific about this in both of my recent books. As is, for example, Jim Douglass.
I mean, one really has to wonder how much of the new documentation these people have read.
And if you have not read it, then what value is there to your opinions.
Paul Trejo came out of the closet. He is an Agency apologist.
He thinks the CIA is innocent of any role in the JFK case. This explains why he writes as he does. I think his idea is: Edwin Walker did it.
But he does say that two CIA guys did confess. And he uses Hunt and Morales as his examples.
Go figure.
Anybody who trusts that phony confession by Hunt should get his head examined. I got the whole story on that from the people who worked on it from the beginning, David Giammarco and Kevin Costner. It was such a painful experience for them, they don't want to talk about it today. But the final result, which was staged by Saint John Hunt, does not resemble what was there at the beginning.
Secondly, as I have said innumerable times, what Morales said does not amount to a confession.
I don't base any of my beliefs of CIA involvement on these two so called confessions. I base it on the evidence, both circumstantial and direct.
And I am very specific about this in both of my recent books. As is, for example, Jim Douglass.
I mean, one really has to wonder how much of the new documentation these people have read.
And if you have not read it, then what value is there to your opinions.