Paul Brancato

Thanks Jim - for taking on the task of countering propaganda. 

Chris - thanks for the detail on Hosty's inbox. I don't mean to interject while you and Trejo are going back and forth. 

What I am asking is not why Hosty didn't see the cable. It's why, if FBI headquarters had received a CIA memo detailing a meeting between Oswald and Kostikov, they didn't make sure that a possible assassin with connections to Dept. 13 wasn't in a position to attempt an assassination in Dallas. Sending a memo to Hosty directly, and letting Hosty deal with it himself, makes no sense. Wouldn't Shanklin have been notified as well? 

Seriously, how does the cable get into Hosty's box? Isn't that the missing piece?

In a very real sense most CIA operations, maybe all, are designed with cover in mind. Chain of command is hidden, deniability built in. So after the fact, operations such as assassination can be, as a last resort, termed rogue, no matter how many CIA informants, cut outs, assets, agents, or officers are implicated, as long as no paper trail or other unequivocal evidence is uncovered. This is why Newman's painstaking work on code names and classifications in CIA is so important and difficult. Those  researchers like Newman who see footprints of intelligence when they investigate this crime have made much progress over the decades, contrary to Trejo's assertions. 

Speaking for myself, I have not ruled out the possibility that the conspiracy originated at the highest levels of the national security state, nor the possibility that a faction of CIA carried it out with a limited chain of command. Calling this latter possibility 'rogue' strikes me as providing a smidgen of cover for the accusers, not a hard and fast definition of the operation itself. The absence of paper trail signifies little, and the presence of paper trail does not guarantee that it is truthful. The absence of photos of Oswald in MC is suspicious, but to conclude that there were pictures, but that they were never shown to investigators because CIA brass hid them in order to find out who impersonated Oswald, strikes me as naive. The false description of Oswald, and the middle name change from Harvey to Henry, no doubt deliberate obfuscations with some purpose or purposes in mind, cannot be read as proof that the originators of that false description, most likely Angleton and his staff, didn't know who impersonated Oswald. There can be other explanations, such as a deliberately false paper trail. I don't rule out the Simpich analysis, I just don't take it as proof of the innocence of anyone above Morales in the CIA. 

Trejo once told me privately (am I revealing too much Paul?) that his constant repetitions were targeted towards passersby on the site, not towards the posters. Must be the case, since there could be no other point. Every time one of us points something out that is inconsistent or untrue he launches into his theory, and usually disses other viewpoints. If he is forced, as recently was the case with the Kostikov cable, to admit something he was wrong about, he inserts it into his theory. This also happened with David Morales. Because he had to account for Morales 'confession' and other evidence of involvement, he redefined Morales as rogue and imagined a relationship between Morales and Walker/Banister. Simpich is Paul's savior now, even though Simpich has not posted in quite a while. Simpich's mole hunt was not an original contribution, though his interpretation of it was. It's easy to see that the Lee 'Henry' Oswald and false pic of the visitor to the MC embassies does not absolve CIA, Phillips in particular. I doubt that Newman would sign on to the Simpich or Trejo interpretations, since last I checked he had fingered Angleton as the only one who could have run such a deep level conspiracy. Paul repeats that the mole hunt absolves high level CIA every chance he gets. I have pointed out that it does no such thing, though on the surface it implies that CIA brass was confused about who impersonated Oswald.  

I don't recall any of you weighing in on this point. So - do any of you think the 'marked card' and the photo that is not Oswald proves what Trejo says it does? 

Tillerson is a Mormon?

Smug is a good word for mr. Trejo. 'Rogue CIA' is exactly who RFK Jr. says his father believed was responsible. To me that says a lot.

Caulfield's book, which I purchased, is unreadable. He can't hold a candle to DiEugenio. 

So Hosty implies in his book that the Oswald Kostikov connection was hidden from him, but not from higher ups. I think this implicates Hoover before the fact than it does Hosty.

Interesting post Doug. Even though I am not sure what to make of Hunt's last words to you, I think you raise interesting questions about the national security state and Trump. I read that there is some disagreement about the CIA conclusions of Russian interference in the election. But in essence the FBI helped Trump get elected, and now the CIA is laying some blame on the Russians. It's unusual for there to be this kind of deep division, and it has to be significant. Where is the KGB in all this? 

Help me understand this thread please. Who in the FBI saw the CIA Kostikov/Oswald cable of 10/18/63?

Are we to suppose that Hosty saw the CIA cable that is at the heart of what Trejo, and I presume Simpich, calls the mole hunt, and did not think it was the Lee Oswald that he knew? Forgive my ignorance - if Hosty read this cable didn't everyone? 

Glenn - you hit the nail on the head. 

Oswald in MC was a cover story to explain why he went there at all. The operation he was most likely involved in was smearing the FPCC, not the assassination of Castro. Couldn't very well go to the embassies and say 'hey, I'm here to make sure everyone knows that FPCC is a communist front'. So he made a lot of noise about going to Cuba, knowing he would not be going anytime.  Since we know that Phillips met with LHO and that he was involved in this anti FPCC operation, and that he knew, according to Veciana, that it would be nothing more than a pipe dream for LHO to get into Cuba that way, he could not have sent him as part of an assassination plot against Castro. But of course it could be as part of a different assassination, the one that actually took place. 

I assumed that it was Ruby that supplied Kilgallen with the info that started her on the search.

Phillips admitted his connection to LHO? 

Veciana clearly states that DAP knew LHO would never get into Cuba through MC. Therefore there was another purpose to the visit to the embassies, if LHO was there at all. Can you just stick to that one fact? And can you stop using DAP fictional account as reality?

leaving aside your assumptions about my theory, Phillips was involved in the smearing of FPCC. So was LHO. So the most 'innocent' view of their connection is that one, not the assassination of Castro. The other not so innocent possibility is that Phillips was involved in sheep dipping Oswald, which would put Phillips in the middle of the Dallas conspiracy. 

Paul - I've never seen a written version of Veciana's appearance, I think 2013, at one of the researcher symposiums. Someone here posted a link and I watched the whole thing - about an hour. This was the well known day that he finally said that Phillips was Bishop. He had an interpreter and spoke in Spanish. I'll try to fine the link.

Yes - well - Felix R. was so proud of this he pretty much admitted it - when he testified to Congress during the Iran Contra hearings he was wearing Che's watch! Good question about Morales though. 

Paul - where do you get the term 'field worker'? 

Veciana said quite clearly that Phillips did not send Oswald to MC in order to get him into Cuba, that Phillips knew he would never get into Cuba. I never said Veciana knew anything about the JFK plot. I mentioned this because I think your theory about Oswald's involvement with a plan to assassinate Castro is nonsense. I'm sure Veciana would agree with that. 

I recall thinking that if her story was true it was monumental, and yes she seemed very believable. But what a weird tale she told.

It seems very important to me too. I had heard that he was recommending that book to people.

Larry - Is this 2017 doc release supposed to be the final one?

Jeez - Paul - Morales was the can do guy, that's what operational means.

there is evidence everywhere you look, including, for gosh sakes, Morales, and Phillips, in Simpich's book. What the ....are you talking about? It's obvious you never watched the one hour interview with Veciana.

5 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

YIKES!  I try to keep up, but this is Big News to me.

There are references all over the net about RFK Jr. saying his dad suspected "rogue CIA" agents of killing JFK.  I've done some searching, but can anyone point me to a video of RFK Jr. directly talking about "rogue CIA" agents and the death of JFK?

In short - no. Not only was it never aired, but the news coverage was misleading. The first article, Dallas Morning News the day after, put the words 'rogue CIA' in RFK Jr.'s mouth, but all subsequent coverage had Rose saying 'mafia or rogue CIA. In the first story, Jr. said his dad thought there was a conspiracy, and Rose said 'you mean like the Mafia, and Jr. finished his sentence. Big difference. There is a thread on this somewhere.

yes Paul - but Morales was at the top of the operational CIA, the guy that got things done on the ground under orders. So because there is an apparent mole hunt (yes, apparent, and not conclusive at all re Phillips)  it must follow, according to your logic, that Morales, who has been elevated from just another person of interest (you've named a few dozen in the years I've been here) to an integral part of the plot, was involved outside of the chain of command and in league with Banister and Walker rather than with Phillips and Helms. And once again, no direct evidence that Morales knew your protagonists, versus was the top operational officer for the CIA brass. You use Phillips' book, a work of fiction, to support your claim of his non involvement. According to Veciana, who knew Phillips as Bishop, Phillips did not send Oswald to Mexico City so he could get into Cuba and assassinate Castro. The Oswald impersonator did try, successfully, to sheep dip Oswald, which when you think logically about it must have been Phillips' plan for Oswald in MC. And Phillips was in high gear immediately after the assassination, pushing his already in place false stories trying likewise to tie Oswald to Castro. For some illogical reason, you've assumed that the 'mole hunt' proves CIA innocence. Yet even you would admit that CIA had a lot more evidence than any of us have ever seen, such as pictures, voice recordings, close up records of the interrogation of Sylvia Duran - two actually. That is not the action of innocents, certainly not where Phillips is concerned. Yet Phillips enjoyed a long and successful career. What - no punishment for Phillips, no future demotion, when it was his operation that got out of his control? When LBJ and co. decided not to go with the story that Phillips pushed? 

At some point you'll include Phillips in your theory, and draw a new line in the sand between Phillips and the rest of the CIA. You almost have to. There is too much that points to Phillips, and as others have shown here, using a somewhat fictional book by a man who kept his secrets and was an expert first and foremost in propaganda, as proof of your line between Phillps and Morales, is folly. And Even Simpich had said, here, that he is not sure that the mole hunt exonerates Phillips. He is, if I understand him, exonerating Angleton. Of course I don't agree with this either, because I view CIA records as a hall of mirrors. There is no record of Angleton or anyone else saying to anyone that they didn't know who impersonated Oswald. Angleton did leave a small trail which suggests that they were trying to find out who the impersonator was. But this presupposes that they really didn't have pictures, and I think that is a very convenient lie. And Newman, who has spent way more hours and years on MC than Simpich, has not yet to my knowledge changed his view that the most likely candidate for running the show was Angleton. If one makes the logical assumption that pictures did exist of whoever went into the embassies, and phone records exist of all phone calls, and that the CIA kept much of this evidence hidden (still), it follows that records implying they didn't know who did the impersonation(s) were planted to support their own false history. 

Pamela - that's so sad.