Paul Brancato

Tommy - i think Simpich's book is well worth reading. Simpich had many opportunities to respond when I pointed out that Egerter inserting the misleading photo does not prove that her superiors were in the dark about the Oswald impersonation. Someone above her, Phillips, Angleton, who knows how high this decision went, told her to do it. The term mole hunt is very misleading in this case. It is correctly used when applied to earlier insertions into Oswald's files designed to ferret out possible Soviet moles. But the Oswald impersonator was not a mole. He was part of a plot to set up a Communist as the murderer of the president, with obvious implications. To assert, as Trejo often does, that David Morales impersonated Oswald behind the backs of his superiors like Phillips, and that therefore Phillips hid the real photos of Oswald because he didn't know that his very close associate was the impersonator, is absurd on its face. Morales, if he was the impersonator, was no mole. He was the top operational henchman who worked within the CIA chain of command for his entire nefarious career. if we start from the assumption that Morales was the impersonator, and that he did it under orders, can we find another reason to obscure the truth about Oswald in Mexico? Well, for one, there may not exist real photos because Oswald may never have been in MC. In that case the whole thing is a charade perpetrated by the CIA, and the photo in question part of that operation. But what if Oswald was there? In that case real photos existed, but to this day have not been shared, proving only that CIA is hiding something, rather than proving that they were in the dark about who the impersonator was. As Trejo knows well, Newman and Scott and many others don't agree with Simpich on his ultimate conclusion that the false photo takes Phillips, Angleton and others off the hook. And even Simpich is not so sure that Phillips was out of the loop. So how does the insertion of the false photo prove that the CIA Brass was in the dark? They obscured the real record one way or the other, and guessing at their reasons by calling Egerter's actions proof that they did not know who impersonated Oswald, and conflating that devious move with earlier marked cards in Oswald's official record, is a leap of faith, not a foregone and obvious explanation for her actions.

I agree with Ken, and Cliff, on this one. I think the basic premise was first articulated by Vince Salandria. In his opinion the WC critics find it too painful to move beyond argument and theory and face the fact that our great president was taken from us by an evil cabal within our own government. Once we stop arguing about detail and agree on that basic premise we are only left with one option - do something about it. We, all of us, are virtually powerless, and that is a debilitating and hopeless state of being. So George, while I appreciate your hopeful and idealistic point of view, I don't find solace knowing that we all care enough to be here sharing words. It's not enough. The guilty have not been bought to justice, and the national psyche was mortally wounded. It's worth remembering that the term 'conspiracy theorist' was a CIA invention meant to forever relegate us to the realm of theory rather than fact.

Which is why I don't understand arguing whether he did, or how often. The only value in studying Oswald's life, assuming his innocence, is to look for his handlers and connections - who set him up? Most of the discussions involving the behavior or psychology of Oswald sound like character assassination. Once I decided he was innocent if the crime of shooting JFK I lost interest in that kind of discussion, other than to wonder about the motives of the accusers.

Mr. Trejo - stop ducking the question.

I don't agree that anyone here has a cavalier attitude towards spousal abuse.

he has no answer, or he's at a loss for words (?)

I guess I have to bump this to bring it to Trejo's attention.

Paul - looking over an old thread resurrected by Michael Clark about Joachim Joesten, you claimed in 2013 that Walker accepted Eisenhower posting him to Augsburg Germany on the 'secret condition that he would promote JBS literature to his troops'. What is your source for that claim?

Please

Mr. J - thanks from Mr. B. George - good analysis. I don't know who initiated the coup. The operational link between Dulles and the Joint Chiefs is obvious. I'm not sure why Mr. T thinks paramilitary and military and military reserve are separate entities. He knows better, but persists anyway. Perhaps he doesn't know that Lemnitzer congratulated Walker on his Pro Blue program. Or he imagines that Walker and Bannister were somehow more extreme in their views than Dulles or Angleton or LeMay and Lemnitzer. It's bizarre. I really like your explanation of the deal between civilian and military after the assassination. Mr. T will answer your question by saying that the coverup was the result of wiser heads - Dulles, Hoover etc, and civilian leadership, preferring coverup to civil war.

George and David - those were the points I was trying to make with my questions. Way too little examination of our military, and not just the autopsy. Cuban invasion may have been the overt motive, but history to me demonstrates another agenda. We never did invade Cuba. It was small potatoes. Hatred of Castro may have motivated some part of the operation, but it wasn't the prime motive.

George - couple of points: If JFK had been injured, or even just shot at and missed, and the would be assassin had been caught and identified with Castro, would that not have accomplished the same goal? Inotherwords, why kill JFK? Other point, referencing something you said on a different thread, do you suppose that it was some rogue CIA operation with no US military component?

I have no idea. Glad someone else here is watching.

Jim - do you think Oswald was adlibbing in Snyder's embassy office? I'm sure everyone who has heard that story has reacted with "huh"? He was doing something. What is your view on Oswald and US Intelligence? Your thread is about Oswald the Legend. Was he a rogue ex-marine that others conveniently turned into a legend? Or was he a witting participant? I think it's mostly the latter. im not trying to defend Scott, just wanted to post his theory, since he has done so much good research that I find his opinions worth paying attention to. His deeper look at Continuity of Government operations likewise makes sense to me.

Larry - your time frame probably makes sense, at least officially. But in 1963 the 488th reserve intelligence was up to something. Too many links to the motorcade and the DPD

Is anyone else watching Homeland this season. It's following two different plot lines. In one, Israel is trying to prove to the US that Iran is getting around Its no nuke deal with the US by collaborating with North Korea. It appears that their evidence is being faked. The second plot line concerns a terrorist act in NYC that looks Islamic but has actually been planned by a private security firm working for an as yet unknown entity. In this one the president-elect, a woman (guess this was filmed before Clinton lost ) is taken to a secure location and deprived of communicating with her chief of staff. She is held virtually a prisoner, until she escapes, by a Continuity of Government group. its fascinating and must be pissing some people off - seems to me to be rather too close to the truth.

George - there could be other reasons why Oswald used the word patsy - for instance that he was part of a US intelligence gathering operation that put him close to the center of the action.

Peter Dale Scott surmises that Oswald never gave anything of value to the Soviets about the U2, and that his outburst at the US embassy was kind of a barium meal to see where his words would end up. Apparently KGB did not take the bait. He cites as 'proof' that the outburst was part of an intelligence gathering operation, the utter lack of concern in US intelligence circles and the ease with which he later re-entered the US.

Thomas its an amazing document. Thanks for posting it.

Any wet blanket takers now?

Amazingly, in the '90's, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Crichton was involved in opening up the Russian oil industry. Funny to think how we are likely witnessing the end game - Exxon's huge deal with Putin, the Russian annexation of Crimea, the appointment of former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson to Secretary of State, the enormous efforts to hide links between Trump and Putin, the move to lift sanctions that would allow the Exxon deal to reach fruition.

Paul Trejo - believing Oswald innocent of the crime is not the same as believing he was a 'choir boy'. Oswald calling himself a 'patsy' does not prove his involvement in the plot. You are free to have your opinions, but not to twist others opinions with characterizations of them that are derogatory and inaccurate. Hargrove, Walton and others like myself think Oswald was working for US Intel, and not a choir boy. We choose to view his interactions with intelligence figures as something other than as a plotter. Clark - wet blanket is a phrase I used to suggest that it's a waste of time for me and maybe others who agree with me that Oswald was innocent to defend his character. Yes, I choose, like DiEugenio said, to view the incriminations of Oswald's character as elements of a wider plot to convict him in absentia. But even if it was conclusively proved that he beat Marina, it would not alter my position on his guilt or innocence. So without regret I view debating this as a waste of time. It doesn't clarify anything for me. If others enjoy debating his wife beating that's fine. But I think it's good to remind everyone that it is immaterial.

I see your point Michael. To Sandy - you were nice enough to acknowledge my point. I've seen you go into a few things in great detail, such as this thread, and the mail order rifle. I deliberately posted on a thread I would like to see you turn your attention to started by Steve Thomas about all the Colonels. I admit I'm not a nuts and bolts guy, and that I'd rather talk about who and why than how. I also think that the thread about William Harvey possibly being at Parkland when Oswald was shot is worthy of attention.

I wish threads like this didn't disappear.

Steve - thanks for refocusing attention on Colonel Brandstetter. I'm so struck by his associations, and with reading about his connection with Philippe de Vosjoli. In 1960 Vosjoli was posted to the US as liaison between CIA and SDECE, French Intelligence. He got to know Angleton while posted here. Of course Angleton pointed out to Vosjoli the KGB infiltration of SDECE. In November of 1963 he resigned from his post, and apparently right after the JFK assassination he skedaddled to Mexico to stay with - Colonel Brandstetter, in Acapulco! Of course Brandstetter, US Army Colonel, was a member of Jack Crichton's 488th. What do you make of this? It brings to mind the presence of at least one French assassin in Dallas - Soutre. Peter Dale Scott, a researcher who has done such incredible work on the details of CIA files, and is credited by Bill Simpich and John Newman as the source for their own research into Mexico City, Phillips, etc, now believes, according to his recent work Dallas - '63, that the Continuity of Government bunker, manned by Crichton and the 488th, served as a private communications network for the Dallas detectives in the presidential motorcade, like Lumpkin, a member of both the 488th and the DPD. He suggests that the first descriptions of LHO at 12:45 came from that connection (Tommy - the false physical description). He also thinks we have paid far too little attention to the 488th and the COG, especially because the COG reappears at all the 'deep state' events since, such as the Iran contra scandal (Oliver North), 1980 October surprise, and even 9/11. I think you nailed it Steve. While browsing the old thread on AF 1 that Michael Clark resurrected I found a post of mine that simply said 'those pesky generals'. I was referring mostly to LeMay, but now, with all the retired and reserve US Army connections I'm looking at Lemnitzer. Chuck Shwartz pointed out that the 488th had direct communications with the head of Army Intel. I think it's worth mentioning that although Oswald was linked mostly with Marine Intel, it was the Army connection that was all over Dallas.