Paul Brancato
-
Posts
6,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Paul Brancato
-
-
Too bad Reiner isnt consulting with top researchers. What’s the point of making another movie if the research going in is half baked?
-
Speaking of Lifton, what happened to the book he was working on in his last years?
-
No Kirk, Jim didn’t say that, I did.
-
Kirk - your distillation of the interview is so colored by your own bias as to make it useless. So I will not repost it here. You mischaracterized the exchange on the 1964 Brazil Coup, made it look like Talbot was ducking evidence that JFK wasn’t really anti-colonialist. I suppose most readers won’t bother to listen to the interview in Ben’s shorter version, much less the full one, so they won’t see what I saw, which is that the question Greenwald was posing, which Talbot did not shy away from, was the biased media coverage, then and now. The Brazil coup took place in the spring of 1964. That should be enough to cause anyone to hesitate assigning blame to JFK. We know for certain that his policy on Vietnam was immediately reversed after his death. Rather than provide evidence that JFK started this 1964 coup, and LBJ finished it, you chose via your own bias to share your intuition that he must have because Talbot didn’t go back to that subject at the end of Greenwald’s long question about media bias. Thanks for that. Now’s your chance to prove your point.
-
-
On 10/29/2023 at 10:16 PM, Michael Crane said:
Don't sing it,bring it.
If the CIA had the goods...they would have produced them.
On 10/30/2023 at 8:12 AM, Michaleen Kilroy said:I think the point of Jeff’s post and of the family member he interviewed is that the CIA deliberately submitted the ‘mystery man’ photo who looked nothing like LHO to create confusion and divert attention away from what they were doing with Lee in MC.
For 60 years that obvious deception has gone unconfirmed by the CIA or the USG investigation bodies. The CIA had the photo of LHO - they chose not to release it and instead lie to investigators and by extension the public.
It’s also clear why they hold on to documents - they don’t want anyone involved in any way to be alive for questioning - in the matter of a presidential assassination.
But you know, just some anonymous nut shooting from a warehouse window…
Two points of view. I’ve always believed the first one, but I’m open to Mr. Kilroy’s idea. The question I have is since CIA was trying to incriminate Oswald, how would pictures of him entering or leaving either Cuban consulate or soviet embassy interfere with CIA agenda? I understand the general idea that CIA would not want to reveal operational interest in Oswald. They’ve done their best to deny it. How would submitting such pics of LHO compromise CIA? In your mind what was CIA doing with him in MC that they are trying to hide?
-
Who was her cia handler?
-
Greg and Doug - are you willing to digress from Prouty for a moment? Or do I have to dredge up an old thread? It seems to me that you are using Prouty to whitewash George Bush. You could be 100% right about Prouty’s claims regarding the names Zapata and Barbara, and be 100% wrong about the more important questions re Bush and Zapata Oil, and about the Hoover memo. It’s almost like Prouty handed you a perfect setup. But that kind of logic doesn’t cut it. I would sincerely like you both to answer this question - was JFK’s assassination the work of Lee Harvey Oswald?
What I’m trying to figure out is why many posters here want to tear Prouty to shreds. Maybe you think Prouty was a deep state tool who deliberately laid traps over rabbit holes for intrepid researchers. Or maybe you think his many assertions are a threat to the continuing deep state dominant narrative and are doing your best to destroy his credibility in defense of that narrative. Maybe it’s something else entirely that drives you. I have no way of knowing without clarification. Are you both of the opinion that GHWB and his Zapata company were in no way involved in the Bay of Pigs? Or are you just here to knock Prouty off a pedestal and restore sanity? Or something else? -
3 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:
Some good points.
What I am seeing is a private letter addressing the topic of the covert Indonesian campaign of 1958. Prouty concludes the letter with a brief aside. Mr Campbell freaks out over the aside, and expends approximately 20 times the equivalent energy and verbiage attacking the intellectual foundations of this brief aside which, in context, appears in a private letter written 34 years ago. He could have saved himself a tremendous amount of personal energies by simply cutting and pasting “Proutyism #5” from John Mcadams’ rather infamous compendium of anti-Prouty talking points, because that is the whole content of his complaints. I think a far more relevant observation is: why are people coming to the Education Forum and promoting the concepts of persons such as John McAdams?
Paul, you earlier asked a question of Prouty’s military career which brings up a bit too much information to make a response at all appealing. All I will say is that his long interview with David Ratcliffe - Understanding Special Operations - appears on the ratical.org website and basically covers what you are interested in. The discussion is focussed on legal, practical and historical implications related to the codification of covert activities during the Eisenhower administration, which is one of the more important topics of which Prouty possessed actual expertise which remains of value.
Thanks - Ratical is an interesting website I have not previously visited. I’m reading the Prouty interviews. I tend to agree with you that his naysayers focus in on one thing or another but miss the forest for the trees. I fail to see what is so incendiary about his recollections that a cottage industry would form in order to discredit him.
-
Maybe all this misses a point. We didn’t need Prouty’s mistaken evidence of a Bush connection to the Bay of Pigs. McBride’s discovery of the Hoover memo to ‘George Bush of the CIA was a far more important clue. Prouty’s revelation was a misdirection, intentional or not. But that doesn’t amount to a vindication of George Bush, whose explanation for the memo, discovered on the eve of his appointment to CIA director, doesn’t ring true. I realize this is a thread about Prouty, not Bush.
-
I’m certainly not on a mission re Prouty. What I’d like the experts here to do is outline in their view what Prouty, in his Liaison role between JCS and CIA would have known or not known regarding covert ops. There are inconsistencies in his testimony, and maybe he had good reasons for not going on the record, or not confirming previous assertions like the military stand down order. But it remains troubling that he held back on Lansdale. He must have known far more about a lot of things than he ever let on.
so what exactly would he have been privy to? -
So - Kirk - you don’t think that Dulles and company killed JFK? Do you dismiss Talbot too? Can you not recognize ‘shoot the messenger’? Did the ARRB help us understand the truth of Nov 22? Or continue to cover up the truth? Are you a CIA rooter? A fan of the Joint Chiefs? Just where do you stand?
-
Special services bureau, located underground at the Dallas Fairgrounds. Steve - is there a list of who was in the bureau?
-
On 10/7/2023 at 5:21 PM, Paul Brancato said:
Last paragraph is sure interesting - Hosty did not want to talk about the subjects he would have known the most about. He is quite sincere about what he was interested in (or perhaps what he was interested in talking to you about?). Do you think that Hosty knew much more than he was telling? You mention contact with subversives. Could you elaborate? What is it that you suspect Hosty may have held back about Oswald’s activity in Dallas re subversives?
When did you question Hosty?
-
17 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
Paul--
The story of the torpedo job on Richard Sprague (he was Op Mocked) and Gonzalez...defies the imagination.
Really, fiction pales next to the truth for gripping drama.
Then Blakey is brought in, to eliminate the CIA as a suspect and pursue the Mob....
I think I’ve read this years ago, but thanks Ben. I recall thinking why would Gonzalez, someone I thought was super progressive, do this. Now, in the fullness of time, it’s more clear.
-
Jim - remind me - who got Sprague ousted?
-
Great question Steve. Wonder if anyone knows? First thing that comes to my mind is his ‘alibi’ for where he was late morning on Nov 22. Since he was supposedly bringing a shoplifter into a police station, and as I recall there are no official records of that incident, only the shop owners decade later statement to the effect that Tippit was the officer who showed up in response to his phone call to the police reporting the shoplifter, such a notebook might clarify this.
-
4 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:
That was indeed one of the related incidents over material from MC that I recall David, but I also know that there also a separate chain of CIA communications expressing virtual panic over material that might expose their activities in MC - and of course it was the CIA who had an immense infrastructure and political connections to pretect in terms of doing espionage in Mexico, not in regard to just Mexico but all of Central America. There electronic and film and travel surveillance "takes" were routinely provided to multiple nations and were the backbone of monitoring Cuban covert activities throughout central and even south America.
As to reliability, personally I think JFK research in general sometimes goes over the edge in judging reliability based on whether sources are saying what we expect to hear, or want to hear. Probably better to admit that to a large extent we are simply left to make subjective calls on credibility and reliability.
I found Hosty to be quite sincere, but also to only talk about what he was interested in, and to totally avoid certain direct questions - particularly in regard to FBI knowledge of Oswald in Dallas, and the FBI monitoring of Oswald in contact with "subversives", as reported in his very early remarks to Secret Service, remarks heard by DPD officers. Which also reinforces the issue that we have to accept that information from virtually any source can be "situational".
Last paragraph is sure interesting - Hosty did not want to talk about the subjects he would have known the most about. He is quite sincere about what he was interested in (or perhaps what he was interested in talking to you about?). Do you think that Hosty knew much more than he was telling? You mention contact with subversives. Could you elaborate? What is it that you suspect Hosty may have held back about Oswald’s activity in Dallas re subversives?
-
They haven’t so far admitted that. What’s your take on the article?
-
On 10/4/2023 at 11:58 AM, Norman T. Field said:
You would loose that bet, for it does make that claim. Selling off American war supplies to the Japanese was but one of his lucrative endevors.
Fortunately I didn’t make that comment.
-
5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:
I've haven't read The Soong Dynasty, but I'd bet good money that it does not claim that Soong "controlled" Chiang. I'd also bet good money that it does not claim that Soong was the wealthiest man in the world.
I haven't read The Soong Dynasty, but I've read many books and many articles on the Sino-Japanese War, Chiang Kai-shek, and the Pacific Theater in WW II, and not one of them makes the false claim that Soong controlled Chiang. Again, for about the tenth time, Soong resigned in disgust from Chiang's government in 1933 and did not return for nine years because he could not persuade Chiang to be as tough against the Japanese as Soong thought he should be.
Prouty's errors about Soong and Chiang, as bad as they are, are not nearly as egregious as his bizarre claims that FDR and Stalin reached an agreement at the Tehran Conference about Mao standing down in China, that Chiang and his delegation attended the Tehran Conference, that Elliott Roosevelt saw the Chinese delegation at Habanaya Airport in Iraq on the way to Tehran, that Elliott Roosevelt knew the Chinese delegation was at the Tehran Conference, that Churchill was delayed at a Russian checkpoint in Tehran because he had no ID on him, and that while Churchill and his delegation were allegedly delayed at the checkpoint the Chinese delegation stood up in their cars and openly laughed and pointed at the British delegation.
All first hand accounts. Are your sources first hand accounts?
-
Michael - do you really want to get to the truth about the assassination?
-
If Prouty’s claims about JFK plans to leave VN were only his statements that would be one thing. But the NS memoranda are real, and the ‘liberal’ journalists who deny this are in fact revisionists. Why would I or anyone care what these ‘liberal’ say? Our media has perpetuated the myth that JFK was killed by a lone nut with no political objectives. Is that what you believe Michael? A simple yes or no would be appreciated.
-
What is the source for your rebuttal?
The Mad Bishops - The Hunt for Earl Anglin James and His Assassin Brethern by James Day
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
This looks interesting. Have you read it? Reminds me of some of the research and personal recollections of Peter Levenda in Sinister Forces.