Paul Brancato

you have mentioned Weaver’s book before and left a review of it on Amazon in 2017. I tried to find a copy but as you noted it was very expensive if available at all. You didn’t mention your copy of his notes in the review, and I’ll presume you got them later. It would be nice if you made them available to researchers. 

Do you have Weaver’s notes?

9 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Paul,

     However, if LBJ was colluding in the assassination plot, (as some believe) wouldn't he have also been in collusion with the primary motive?

     In other words, if the plan was to use the assassination as a pretext to invade Cuba, would LBJ, as a co-conspirator, have dared to abruptly overturn the plan?

     In contrast, LBJ allegedly told the Joint Chiefs, in December of 1963, "O.K., gentlemen, you can have your war, (in Vietnam) just make sure I get elected next year."

It is unclear whether the real motive of the planners of the assassination was to go after Castro, even though so many pieces were laid in place beforehand and activated immediately after. I’ve often said here that it wasn’t necessary to kill JFK if the motive was really Cuba, because an unsuccessful attempt to do so would suffice as long as the attempt pointed at Castro. This is why I think the real motive of the actual killing of the President was to further the deeper aims of the Military Industrial Complex which were a war in Vietnam and a continuation of US Cold War policies. I think it’s clear that JFK wanted to end the Cold War and seek a new Peace. 

12 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

The theory goes that JFK was assassinated as a pretext for invasion of Cuba. Following this into a further theory; it is suggested some sort of countermanding of this narrative, to be replaced by the lone-nut assassin narrative. I would be grateful if anyone can explain why there was not apparently any pushback against this changing of the narrative. At first blush, it seems extremely unlikely that, if a group desired the success of the initial pretext that they would meekly accept the lone-note theory. If a group had the power to set up the pretext , then surely they would have the levers to reinforce the message?

Eddy - I’m not expert enough to lay down details, but I’m pretty sure there was pushback. My reading of it is that LBJ, and his White House and Hoover clamped down on the conspiracy theories revolving around Oswald in MC, Castro, and nipped in the bud plans already in place to proceed with a military led Cuba invasion and possibly far worse, full on nuclear with the Soviets and Chinese, plans for which had been developed by the JCS and presented to JFK. That didn’t stop the conspirators in Mexico City, David Phillips/Winston Scott/DFS and others from continuing to provide reasons why LBJ should act against Cuba at least. So the way I read it, your last sentence underestimates the power of the Executive to put a stop to the aims of the clique that carried out the assassination. 

Good work by Jeff. For me he answers some things satisfactorily, like the Liberty Lobby stuff from the early ‘90’s. I would encourage Jeff to write a sequel, and suggest he grapple with the part that Mr. Montenegro hammered home about Operation Bloodstone, and about his work in a very secretive part of the government. I’m too lazy at the moment to give exact info, but what I’m mostly interested in is whether Prouty knew far more than he ever revealed. Metta, in his follow on to Garrison, claims that Prouty named CMC and Harriman. According to a friend who translated the article written in Italian that Metta credits for that info, Prouty doesn’t actually come out and say that. 
The other most important issue is Lansdale. Was he in Dallas? Did Prouty actually point the finger at him? 
Someone at some time borrowed my first edition copy of The Secret Team. Does that book, or possibly another, name names?

Leslie - a reputable ink and paper analysis was already done - is that correct? I’m sure you’ve answered this question before, but if you don’t mind, could you explain why the results are not public? If a nda is hanging this up, does it have to do with Hank’s untimely passing?

Anyone reading or posting here besides Leslie should be assumed to have the worthy motive of authenticating what might be a hugely important document. 

38 minutes ago, Pete Mellor said:

Scott joined the FBI in March 1941. Originally assigned to the Cryptography division, he asked to become a Special Agent. He was sent to spy on the German population in Pittsburgh, and in February 1943 loaned to the US Embassy in Cuba. After returning to Washington, D.C. he was recruited by the Office of Strategic Services and assigned to London, where he became head of the Germany section of X-2 (OSS' Counter Espionage Branch).

After the end of World War II Scott remained stationed in London, becoming the CIA's first London station chief in 1947. In 1950 he became head of the Western European division of the Office of Special Operations, overseeing espionage throughout Western Europe.

In 1955 Scott asked for a transfer to Mexico City, and took office as station chief there in August 1956.

Thank you Pete. It’s his European sojourn I’m most curious about. 

Sandy et al - what do we know about Win Scott prior to his coming to MC?

You all know I’m reading all this. I think the June Cobb story, wherever it leads, is a crucial one. All parties interested in this share a common purpose - to get at the truth. Which estate has control over the Albarelli/Cobb interviews? What can be done to bring them into the light? That question is not to be misunderstood as questioning Albarelli’s journalistic integrity. I for one do not for a second think that Hank made up his relationship with Cobb. Her life has been under a veil of secrecy, and Hank has done us all a service by finding her and befriending her under difficult circumstances. 

Reading with interest and appreciation for both your efforts. 

Interesting post. Not sure about the MJ12 story. 

News flash to those that insult me - Kirk - I am a well informed citizen who finds your posts incomprehensible. I’m in good company there. You just enjoy tearing people down. 
Andrew - you don’t have a clue. Nothing you said is factual. 
william - I don’t need a lesson in the Republican bubble. I’m not confused or leaning rightward. The problem is the opposite. I’m far to the left in my political opinions than any of you. I’m hoping you will realize you are being manipulated. by fear of Trump into embracing corporate Military industrial media congressional complex fascism. 
Is it too much to ask that people fact check by listening to the man himself? The journalist I most respect in the world is clearly on his side. Talbot is an expert on the Kennedy family history, on CIA manipulations. He sees through all the crap you all apparently take as gospel. Kirk is grasping at straws when he tries to poke holes in Talbot’s truthful study of the Kennedy brothers. 
 

Wow - 

8 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Paul,

    There's no such thing as a "Democratic bubble."  False equivalence.

    You must be thinking of the Fox News/MAGA "bubble" in contemporary America.

    Did you ever read the UC Berkeley study about "partisan coverage filtering" and Fox News viewers?

    A good current example is the Fox-filtered coverage of Trump's historic Georgia indictments.

     

It’s interesting that you don’t see the bubble on the Democratic side. A good example is their coverage of RFK Jr. 

1 hour ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

Do a lot of Democratic candidates lunch with Mike Pompeo?

I’m sure they don’t. RFK Jr doesn’t live in the current Democratic bubble. Did JFK go to an Orange County and talk about the dangers of conspiracy thinking to the local Birchers? Do we only talk to those with whom we agree?  Was that your point Andrew? 

2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

How many times did the Russia-hacked-the-DNC story make the cable news cycle (any story reported and repeated throughout a 9am EST - 9am EST 24 hour cycle) during the 2016 campaign?

Twice: 6/14-15 and 7/24-25.

On October 7, 2016 the Obama Administration formally accused Russia of meddling in the US election.  A half hour later the Access Hollywood tape dropped and a half hour after that the Podesta e-mails hit the airwaves.

”RussiaGate” was buried, never made the cable news cycle over the last 70 days of the campaign.

 

Yes. I remember the enormous frustration I felt during that campaign and the bizarre flow, or lack thereof, of the pertinent information. Whatever faith remaining in media coverage died at that time for me. A few years later I unplugged the news. Now if I take a peek I find it laughable. Talking heads weighing in with no depth, paid for by unknown entities, lawyers in the background negotiating the terms of their media appearances, unknown writers and editors. At first it was just Fox, but it was at this time that I realized it went far deeper than that. PBS news? Marginally better, sometimes. And now, we want to pick at David Talbot? 

3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 Of course, he was only 14. You're now being told by Talbot he first learned all this from Talbot at the age of 50 in 2004! You realize now all of his knowledge is from Talbot and other Dulles did it authors? I don't want this to sound conspiratorial, but in regards to these matters,  he's being groomed. But we don't have to focus on that.

 

Roger, I've been wondering whether to comment. I admire your spirit and I want to be kind and constructive.. But I see a lot of projection here.

 

 

So they know completely what's going down at all times and they're not Little Red Riding Hoods  riding through the dark forest of CIA, NSA agents who always seem to suck them in like Sheridan, who tried to  hoodwink Bobby to accept that Garrison's case was a fraud, and after 30 years, went to his deathbed, keeping that a secret as Jim Di says?

heh heh       That jokes not on you Roger!

 

Ok, so first things first. Let's put the Vietnam War and the race riots on  hold and get to the bottom of this, right?.

 

Ok, the fun's over. This is the focus! If you didn't know before, you know now that you are talking to someone who actually lived through that era.

 

Honestly Roger, That sounds like the kind of impression you would only  get  by listening to some of the  JFKA centric  "parachuting" into the 60's  kind of distortion of some deluded JFKA  authors.  I'm going to give you a more comprehensive, rather sobering   alternative viewpoint.

 

I can almost get from that, the other issues 1.The Vietnam War and 2. the race riots were just a distraction from the JFKA.

But  I know you've never seen anything like this in your life.

"About 15 million Americans took part in the demonstration of October 15, making it the largest protests in a single day up to that point. A second round of "Moratorium" demonstrations was held on November 15 and attracted more people than the first."

There was more civil unrest than anything we've seen since, including now. And we're just talking Americans, Roger. We're not even talking about world protest! I'm sure the number of Vietnam protesters in the 1965-74 period  was well over 100 million. Who is motivated to protest the "American war machine" now? Nobody! .

How many people were in the civil rights marches in the 60's. I don't have total estimates in any case. But I did get this.

 "Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin and Martin Luther King Jr. More than 200,000 people of all races congregated in Washington, D. C. for the peaceful march with the main purpose of forcing civil rights legislation and establishing job equality for everyone."

I would say the total number of people protesting at  Civil Rights events everywhere in the 60's could be in the 10's of millions. And of course, there were dozens of race riots, with  deaths in almost every major city in the second half of the 60's!  Of course, it's not a fair comparison, but how many people protested the Warren report in the 60's? Zero!

 It was left to the grit of small time people. A truly grass roots movement.

 

But these numbers matter to politicians. Maybe you can better gauge now the scope of the problems facing RFK when  he would take office. This Vietnam War and race riots aren't a joke. And the JFKA wasn't the elephant in the room, but in the overall picture, maybe a gnat!  I don't think  establishing an investigation into his brother's death would even be in the Congress's top 10! It's his own project. He'll get heat from it unless it produces definitive results.

 

So you're a Dulles did it guy?. So bringing Allen Dulles to justice, is no sweat? Are you kidding me? Do you realize that would take years? He's about to die anyway.

 

We currently have a case in Georgia about fixing an election that at least up to now, it's taking them 3 years to make up their minds   if they even want to  indict where there's a smoking gun tape that's about as hard evidence as you could have and they can  subpoena e mails, which didn't exist back then. 

 

And in this case, if  RFK fails, in what his detractors would then call a self indulgent witch hunt. That could jeopardize his peace plan and a lot of efforts he could make to eventually unify the country. Which is a goal that involved 200 million people!

Talbot's "foregone conclusion"---no way!

 

 

 

 

Kirk - what happened leading up to the Iraq war? Massive protests here and abroad, by some accounts the largest ever. Do you recall the media making fun of SF protestors? Did it do any good? Our failure to stop what was to become the worst disaster was numbing. things now are so much worse than 1968. Then we thought we could make a difference, and the major tool to nullify the peace movement was assassination, and a few campus shootings, Altamount - what am I leaving out? Oh yeah, the 1970’s, Congressional investigations that were revealing but failed to move the needle. And led to George Bush taking over the CIA, the AFIO and the October Surprise, and Ronald Reagan. Somehow, after 9/11, people rallied again to try and stop the war machine. We were right. The NYT etc was wrong. Surprised ? No, same old, We are living in a fascist state, Talbot is one of the few good guys, period. 

4 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Not voting for Bernie in '16 because he couldn't beat Trump was not only gutless reasoning, Paul, it was wrong. Former Congressman Alan Grayson (remember him?) commissioned a national poll of 1600 registered voters by Gravis Marketing, an established pollster, two days before the election in '16. The result was Bernie 56%, Trump 44%.  That's a landslide. Even if off a bit, it leaves no doubt about who would have won.

Needless to say that information was buried, primarily by the frenzy Hillary stirred up about Russiagate. But you can still find it on the internet.

I do remember - thanks for the reminder on Grayson. What loyal democratic voters seem to misunderstand is the value of a candidate that also appeals to voters who would normally vote Republican. Bernie spoke to them, Hilary did not. A certain candidate today speaks to them and gets lambasted for it. I’m so sick of the politics of division. Did JFK travel to Republican strongholds? Yes. Now, candidates stick to their assigned ‘colors’. Bernie would have gotten pretty much every older Democrat plus some libertarians and working class Republicans, plus he would have energized the younger Democrats. 

27 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Clearly this topic, which is focused upon the 1960 Presidential Election debates, has struck a raw nerve in some who worship the memory of the Kennedys as if they were 'gods'. Personal attacks by some have replaced sensible comments about events leading up to the 'Bay of Pigs' invasion. My intention is to post only that which is known and can be both documented and proven, or to raise questions about information whether it can be proven. But some seem to be rather fanatical in their fury and hence their comments descend to the level of mere belief in a cause of their own making. While I would like to read what others have to say about those televised debates, those posting personal abuse will be ignored.

Mervyn - you have entered the fray on this forum before. You start with a theory based around off shore radio stations, but quickly move to indicting RFK. I pointed this out to you a few years ago, and asked you why you segue from one to another, why you insert your RFK denunciation in the middle of your theory about McLendon and Murchison as if they are somehow connected. Are they connected? Or are a few commentators here correct in labeling your entries as anti-Kennedy? 

14 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Of course the Nixon Humphrey election in 1968 was very close, with Humphrey closing in in the last couple of weeks.
Humphrey was LBJ's VP and was tied to LBJ's Vietnam war policy, and the Democrats were suffering mightily in the polls because of the riots at the Chicago Convention.

Both of these hurt Humphrey. I wonder if Mc Carthy had supported Humphrey even a month earlier. Would that have been enough to pull Humphrey over the top? It's really a shame because if Humphrey had become President, we almost certainly would have had expanded Health Care 50 years ago and a single payer system because that issue was his baby!

Regarding RFK ruining Mc Carthy, there's no question about that. But it is interesting that just before the California primary, Mc Carthy did beat RFK in Oregon!

But if RFK didn't enter the race, the Democratic establishment  would have gone with the incumbent LBJ. Because of the sequence of events, I think LBJ dropped out because he feared running against RFK, and had had enough of the protests and the fact that he had rightfully been turned into a villain for his Vietnam War policy.

How is there ‘no question’ that RFK ruined McCarthy? I have friends who go a step further and say that RFK should have kept his mouth shut and stayed out of the 1968 primaries because it muddied the waters for the anti-war candidate. You point out that had he followed that advice the battle would have been between LBJ and McCarthy for the Democratic nomination - unless LBJ would have dropped out anyway for the reasons you stated. I’m not sure where you stand on this. You’ve covered your bases pretty well, but basically you blame RFK anyway. Why do Democrats insist on limiting their possibilities? It’s been true my entire lifetime, and it’s always cast as politics being the art of the possible, as if nominating a true alternative candidate would always be doomed. This happened the Bernie Sanders in 2016, and my friends who would have welcomed a Sanders presidency were nevertheless happy he didn’t get the nomination because he had no chance in a general election. I simply reject this kind of reasoning (not saying that would be your reasoning) as gutless. We are still run by the Military Industrial Complex as a result of being afraid to take them on. We get what we deserve - that is an axiom I do agree with. 

16 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Walinsky;He had an acute understanding of how difficult that kind of investigation is, even if you had all the power of the presidency."

 

He's the only real direct source so far. That's why it's important. And he's talking about the problems involved in investigating. He's  not saying. we were definitely going to start an investigation into his brother's death.

I do agree with Walinsky, more than you do.

You do remember Paul.  I said,

Bobby would have more on his plate than any President since FDR! 

I don't buy Talbot's assertion that this was a foregone conclusion. No one can prove one way of the other.

 

Paul, I was in High School and  into Eugene Mc Carthy's anti war campaign. Then after the New Hampshire primary showed LBJ was weak because of the Vietnam War. Bobby entered the race. I was a little bit pissed because  Bobby was a johnny come lately to the anti war cause, but I was young and sort of facing that this was the way political things happen.  But I did regret that Mc Carthy was the first politician to make a political anti war movement, (sort of similar economically  to 2016 Bernie Sanders) and yet would be ultimately swept aside, but I knew the force was with Bobby, 

 

Then in the next few months, I liked where his campaign was going and what I saw was a change of consciousness , he befriended Caesar Chavez and he was campaigning in California a lot, and he was given the mantle of the poor and dispossessed, and not just the anti war movement. Being into both of them, and knowing Bobby was going to step on toes which is what I saw myself  sort of doing in my small way, I really looked forward to his campaign and beating Nixon again.

Actually a lot of politicians who were young at that time will say they entered politics because of Bobby Kennedy's influence including Biden.

 

Is that good enough, Paul,? Do i get to stay here? Remember your earlier comment. "What are you doing here?"

 

I've got a SF story for you Paul. I believe It was in October 1968, I remember going with some of my friends up to SF to see Eugene Mc Carthy. At that point people were badgering him to support Dem candidate Hubert Humphrey.

 

 All the state Dems were there, Pat Brown and Jerry Brown, Mayor Joe Alioto, John Burton and Willie Brown and I think Jesse Unruh,  My friends and I were all impressed how all these guys particularly Alioto look immaculate close up with every hair in place!. We were wondering if Mc Carthy would make news and throw his support to Humphrey, but he disappointed the party hacks and said he would not support any  candidate at that time. As I recall, he did support Humphrey maybe the day before the election.

 

Interesting last paragraph. It’s not too hard to see how distasteful it might have been for him to support Humphrey. Like Bernie supporting Clinton or Biden perhaps. 
one last clarification - do you think RFK ruined McCarthy?

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Good work, Ron! Thanks! That's more what I remember. Your quotes from Devil's Chessboard answers most of the outstanding questions but this tape sequence here tends to completely muddle everything concerning Bobby reopening the case as President.

 

Walinsky: "One of the things you learned around Kennedy, you learned what it was to be serious," said RFK's Senate aide Adam Walinsky.  "Serious people, when faced with something like that-you don't speculate out loud about it. . . .  He had an acute understanding of how difficult that kind of investigation is, even if you had all the power of the presidency."

 

Paul: Kirk assumed the source was Walinsky. It doesn’t say that

 

Paul, read what Ron wrote again. Walinsky is our only direct  source. That's exactly what it says. Walinsky alludes  to the idea that he knew Bobby was considering  launching an investigation but was well aware of the problems involved.

 

 

What's strange is Walinsky  is still alive and has been around many years and has been a very public figure. I don't why he would hold this as such a secret now for 50 years. If he were now to come out with the fact that Bobby had such suspicions he wanted to act on, it would probably be a good for RK's campaign. I'll grant the overall pickup wouldn't be much but the fact that RK's claims are not alone but was shared by his Father boosts his credibility.

 

Talbot is not a source, Paul.  Who else is a source here?  Yet curiously Talbot doesn't use his canon, Walinsky's quote but prefers to use, of all people Walter Sheridan's widow Nancy,  whose not even  a direct source!  And then he in essence further credits her by  crediting  Walter Sheridan, saying Bobby was using a "top investigator" in Walter Sheridan but doesn't mention to us (or RK?)  the context that Bobby used Sheridan to look into Garrison's investigation and that was, in essence a bust! And you're left to imply that RK and Sheridan were going to launch this case when they got into office. Anybody new to the case, would eventually find that a misdirection. 

 

 And this all leads to Talbot saying positively that Bobby was going to launch an investigation into his brother''s death  But even his best quote,  Walinsky's  only suggest  Bobby had  "an acute understanding of how difficult that kind of investigation is, even if you had all the power of the presidency!" 

Which I'll tell you is true! Bobby would have more on his plate than any President since FDR! 

I don't buy that this was a foregone conclusion.

 

To answer your question Paul,  I gave you a thumbnail about what I think of Talbot on my first post, which is favorable.  We're all familiar with Talbot. If you stick with his passage from DC, you're pretty consistent. But about this clip, It's like a different person delivered it.  I'll just say, What a completely disjointed presentation.

 

 

 

 

So if Talbots source was Walinsky, where does that lead you? Why is this important? Btw what was your 1968 opinion of RFK? 

Nice Bartok soundtrack. The second part of the video could use some explanation. Did you do the video Vince?

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, some of the things Ed told me when I interviewed him at his house in southern New York state were kind of funny.

I asked him, "It took the Kostikov cable 8 days to get to headquarters?"

He said, "You never heard of Pony Express?"

Then i asked, "Who was Anne Goodpasture?"

Without batting an eyelash, he said, "She's a lying, conniving b---h, and if there was any justice in this world she would be in jail."

 

Jim - your first hand accounting is so valuable.