• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! DETAILS HERE:

      We are opening registration!! If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We require you use your real name, a valid email address, and your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. Additionally, you will have to send us your photo for use as an avatar and submit a brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Paul Brancato

Members
  • Content count

    2,065
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paul Brancato

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Classical musician and author of several sets of trading cards including Iran-Contra Scandal, Bush League, and Coup D'etat JFK assassination.

Recent Profile Visitors

6,084 profile views
  1. As usual I agree with David Andrews. Notice he used the word 'run'. Compartmentalized is much more believable than rogue. David - do you think Angleton was in this section?
  2. George - new ground would be required for legal proof. I still think that comparing theories can be valuable. How do you interpret the the CIA use of Joannides as the liaison to the HSCA, and their refusal to release pertinent documents on Joannides? Not a day goes by when I don't look at today's world and imagine what it might have been had not some cabal not killed our best and brightest. That picture in my mind convinces me that there was an evil conspiracy at work. I would love it if the pieces were to fall into place and reveal this cabal. But even if that never happens, I will remain convinced that it existed. If certain historical villains (my opinion) were not actually involved, I would still hold them accountable. I was curious about your actual suspects, but I'm ok if you don't share.
  3. Mathias - Nice closeups. If anyone is examining Billings' notes, you will also notice the mention of Oswald being seen in the Carousel Club. With a little digging you will see that the building inspector who filed this report also said that Oswald was with a man who had a noticeable scar over his eye. This is why I believe that Graves uncovered something important. Morales appears to have been 'shepherding' Oswald for some purpose. In New Orleans it might have been as part of the Intel operation to smear the FPCC by linking it to a 'Communist'. But when combined with the sighting at the Carousel, in which a photographer who was taking pictures had his camera taken by Ruby who removed the film, it appears that Morales was up to something more sinister. To me this is important, because Morales was no rogue. Rather, he was the top on the ground operational guy at the CIA. And we know he later bragged about getting that s.o.b. or something to that effect.
  4. Paul T. - could you answer Michael Clark's questions regarding Banister wanting Oswald to kill JFK and Phillips wanting him to kill Castro? Frankly, these kind of beliefs do nothing to advance your theory of Walker being the lynchpin of the assassination. When you answer, try to stick specifically to those two questions without expanding. I would say on its face that the idea that anyone wanted Oswald to kill anyone is absurd. What credentials did Oswald have? Michael also points out that it makes no sense for Phillips to send Oswald on a mission to get into Cuba which Phillips had to know would not be successful. Either Oswald was sent for another purpose, or he didn't go at all, and the whole thing was a charade created to support the myth of Oswald the assassin. George - you started what has become an important thread with your own preconceived theory. I think you should take Prouty seriously. Forgive me if I've missed something. Have you named your 4 conspirators who ran the show?
  5. Pretty close to what I do. In browsing Bellingcat I tried two articles on Ukraine. The second one was by Christo Grozev. I've never heard of any of the journalists, so I picked him and looked him up. Not much there, but he is a Bulgarian national and he owns some media outlets in Holland I think. This subject of Ukraine is important to you, as you have pointed out. I presume you are better able to read details and interpret photos. How do you ascertain the bonafides if someone like Grozev? Or do you need to?
  6. I edited that two word post. Scroll up when you can.
  7. Democracy Now. The reason I mentioned it the first time is that bias is not the important criteria, it's high factual reporting, it's left. Do you have a high factual reporting right you would like to mention? the right wing media dislikes this site, and claims it is leftward. As I said, that adds to the credibility of the mediafactcheck site, since as you surely know, this left/right thing is a charade. It's truth vs lies that is important. I don't bother with sensationalist leftward news sources, don't watch Fox or listen to right wing radio ever. I do my level best to fact check everything, and it's becoming increasingly difficult. I read the center media, watch CNN and MSNBC and do what my dear dad taught me to do - read between the lines, so when I looked at bellingcat I also looked at their critics. That of course confused me, so I dug into a few articles and looked up the authors. The reason - I don't know enough about Ukraine/Crimea and the news that tries to make sense out of that to understand the fine points. But I am not in doubt about the invasion itself.
  8. Lol indeed Tommy. You don't know me at all, and your condescension is not at all appreciated. Do you think everyone is stupid and unable to think for themselves in or outside the box? Let me point out that it was you who assumed, on the basis of one point I made about not being computer savvy that I didn't know how to search on Google. Now you are assuming that I skimmed the surface and didn't look more closely at your suggested website. What is the point of that? Do you have a need to knock others down so you can feel good? This response of yours, to a well meant exploration of your suggestion, is pathetic.
  9. I know you were addressing Paul T., but I would like to respond. To me you have not proved that there was enmity between the JCS and CIA. I'm not really arguing against your suggestion that the assassination was military. JFK was afraid of just that. But Lemnitzer or Dulles passing the buck during an official inquiry isn't proof. I generally think Andrews has it right, and it's not so different than your theory, except for the fact that he doesn't attempt to parse the differences between one group of powerful haters and another. The SILENCE that follows that moment, in which disparate groups coalesce in covering up or properly investigating the crime proves this point. If it wasn't a lone assassin, which I think nearly all of us agree on, a smaller group of conspirators, such as mafia, or rogue CIA, or ex-military, or JBS Minutemen, or Dallas oil and defense, could not have succeeded after the fact in keeping their secret and avoiding punishment. There was no civil or nuclear war that was prevented by wiser heads who decided in the public interest to 'convict' Oswald and move on. All myth to coverup the awful truth that the murder and coverup were acts of STATE, perpetrated by our self appointed ruling class to protect their own interests, which they call the 'national interest'.
  10. Thanks for that. It's a minefield. For me, facts are far more important than bias. It's getting more difficult to fact check, and there are more orgs purporting to be fact checkers that are fake news, or at least biased. I looked through some of the lists on mediabiasfactcheck, and I also tried to figure out whether this website had a bias. Since there are right wing sources that claim it is biased against them I consider that a good sign that it is center left. But I don't agree with the basic idea that a news source with a left bias on their scale is necessarily less factual. An example is Demoracy Now. Having listened for years (off and on) I have great respect for Amy Goodman, who is a fine journalist. Her bias is mine, usually, but I don't think that my bias or hers is due to some blind spot. Generally I am distrustful of labels. I prefer to think of myself as a humanist, and I think that what is called the 'left' is generally that way. I also know some leftists who are not very nice people, and rightists who are. When I talk with people who apparently have a different world view than I do, I try to find common ground. In the thread on Trump that has been moved I engaged with someone who claims to be against Trump but seems to be defending him against the forces of (democratic) intolerance. We agree on many things, yet there is quite a disconnect in how we interpret things. I mean, what do you do with someone that thinks climate science is a hoax? It's ridiculous, and not because I'm waiting fo the sky to fall. What bothers me about this subject in particular is that the whole issue of clean air and water has been subsumed by the question of why the earth is warming. So climate science deniers no longer have to answer for polluters. I spent considerable time trying to figure out what was going on in Ukraine over the last few years. Clearly this subject is one that you are close to. Did you ever engage with John Dolva when he was posting here?
  11. Tommy - I spent the last hour looking on Bellingcat.com, and trying to fact check, and assess the credibility of the journalists. It ain't easy to do. What is the reason that you think they are trustworthy?
  12. Why, the military of course. Do you draw a hard line between CIA and Military Intelligence?
  13. Steve - allow me to challenge you on your last sentence. You say in a response to my post on this thread that the various government agencies like the EPA aren't doing their job anyway. I agree. So do most progressives. (Political labels are limiting aren't they?) But the difference between Bernie Sander's position on government agencies effectiveness, and the current administration, are night and day. How does this square with your sentence? Are you going to take the position that Sanders is not a left wing outsider? How is weakening government institutions a solution for fighting entrenched monied interests? Don't we need better institutions? Anoher question - are you in favor of single payer health care, which you say Hillary Clinton is against? In my opinion Trump and his team including Robert Mercer are trying to weaken government, skew power further towards big money interest and away from public interest. Can we agree on that? I hope so, because there would be little possibility of establishing common ground otherwise.
  14. Mr. Ryder - Mr. Rymer, of course Clinton would have been preferable. Or do you look forward to seeing the EPA gutted? Have you been fooled by your non mainstream media sources of information into believing that climate science is a hoax? In these times it's the Republican Party that has gerrymandered their way into the WH and into control of Congress. It's this party, the white man party if you will, that suppresses the vote.
  15. David - I nearly always agree with you, including this time. The same group of conspirators could be called rogue, or compartmentalised. I believe it's more a semantic argument than a basic disagreement.