Paul Brancato

Jim - well done. Trejo's dismissal of Joannides as just another xxxx who kept the HSCA in the dark because it was 'merely Congress' is laughable. CIA could have sent anyone to do that. They chose Joannides because he knew how to keep hidden the JM Wave operations and the DRE - knew what to watch for better than anyone. They are still hiding the documents on him. It is also ridiculous that he keeps insisting on using a novel by Phillips, a professional xxxx and propagandist, as proof of LHO's connection to Castro assassination plots. Veciana was very clear when he said in 2013 that Phillips knew Oswald would not succeed in getting into Cuba, and that therefore the MC visit had a hidden purpose. What else could it be but to set Oswald up? And - why would Dulles and the WC want to keep things hidden for 75 years? To protect Edwin Walker?

James - thanks for the clarifications. As you know, Bill Simpich believes that CIA did not know who impersonated Oswald, and instituted a mole hunt with marked cards in order to figure this out. The implication is that if CIA agents, such as David Morales, were behind the assassination they were working outside of the CIA chain of command, I.e. rogue. Personally I think the mole hunt does not prove that high brass did not know what was going on. In the hall of mirrors world it might even suggest the opposite - that they knew who was impersonating Oswald and trying to connect him with Kostikov, but wanted to appear like they didn't to intrepid researchers who might in the future be able to penetrate deeply enough to see what appeared to be confusion in the ranks, so that they would draw the conclusion that CIA was in the dark about this. What is your opinion on this whole episode? If my thoughts fly in the face of reason or seem naive, feel free to reject my framework and insert your own.

Good post Jim. It is amazing that CIA and FBI were on the same page leading up to Nov. 22. Conventional wisdom has, for decades, said that the intelligence agencies are so engaged in turf battles that they cannot coordinate. In reality the distance between Dulles and Hoover is a phone call. And if Hoover's agents, like Gheesling and Hosty and the SAC in New Orleans, whose name escapes me, do the incomprehensible things they did, it's Hoover, a hands on FBI director, that we should question. We know he was integral to the coverup, but want to absolve him for the actions of his agents. And I should add ex agents like Banister.

Jim - thanks for the document. I wonder whether Mae Brussell had more than this? She mentioned Division 5 often. Paul - it does matter who Kostikov was, because if he wasn't the scary dude he was portrayed as, it wouldn't matter what ties LHO had with him. Then it would be important to know who created that legend. I've tried finding out more but hit a brick wall. Does anyone have proof that he was, or wasn't KGB head of assassinations? Paul - there is another way to read the CIA actions leading up to Nov 22, 1963. The effect of what Simpich refers to as the mole hunt, combined with Gheesling's removal of LHO, enabled the plotters to have Oswald in place at the TSBD for whatever purpose they had in mind, and regardless of whether he was an actual part of the plot, which as you know we disagree on. I've read Simpich, and read your interpretations of it many times as well. You overstate his case consistently, and seem to elevate his work to a status alone at the top of researchers who have studied Mexico City in detail, because your interpretation of his book dovetails with your personal theory. Before that book David Sánchez Morales was no where in your theory, and when it became obvious to you that leaving him out was a mistake, you then incorporated him into your theory as a 'rogue', using Simpich as proof that he couldn't possibly be working within some CIA chain of command, and completely and conveniently absolving Phillips, Shackley, Angleton, Helms, Dulles in the process. Since then you have been on a rampage against what you call the CIA did it researchers. What the mole hunt definitely proves is that Angleton and Goodpasture were up to something. It does not prove, and I wish you and others would think about this more clearly, that the aforementioned CIA brass were in the dark about the Oswald impersonations. It remains only one possibility for the deliberate obfuscations of Angleton and Goodpasture that enabled the plot to move forward. There are others. I remain open to Simpich, but also think that Newman has done incredible work in this area, and he has a lot more of a resume than Simpich. Jim DEugenio - you have many years of experience, and have studied Ann Goodpasture extensively. What is your reading of her actions after the Mexico City visits of whoever that was, Oswald or not? Did you ever dig into the Kostikov story?

i recall reading somewhere that Kostikov wasn't connected to the KBG assassinations at all. I cannot figure out where I read this, but the implication was that his scary bonafides were planted not real. . Gheesling was ordered to remove Oswald from the flash list by headquarters. Who exactly? How is that different from the watch list? Very confusing indeed.

Exactly right. The hand of Allen Dulles is apparent.

I should add that I'm not absolving the CIA in regards to warnings about LHO in Dallas.

Is there any evidence that Hoover knew about LHO before the assassination? Is there any evidence that Marvin Gheesling was following orders when he removed LHO from the FBI watch list? Paul T - is it your contention that Hosty worked for Walker while in his official FBI capacity he was supposed to be watching him and others? Where does the blame fall, in your opinion, for leaving LHO in place without any suspicion, Hosty, or Gheesling, or both? To turn this on its head a bit, if we assume LHO was innocent, and a patsy set up by someone, what difference does it make what Hosty or Gheesling did about LHO other than to possibly help set him up? In this scenario. Whatever either of them did or didn't do, it had the effect, intentional or not, of keeping him in place as a patsy, not as a marksman. I think that matters a lot.

Jim - is, or was there really an FBI division 5?

Hmm

Never heard that one Chris

You are conveniently leaving out FBI took LHO off the watch list. Did Hoover mention that in his testimony?

Jim - couldn't agree more that it was a coup d'etat, and really great to have all those pertinent details outlined by you. That's what I called my trading cards, for what they are worth.

Apparently LHO used the alias Hidell at least in New Orleans. Didn't Nagell also use this name?

Yes he is. The whole Hidell thing seems to me like a clue whose meaning we still haven't unearthed

It's the books you leave out that are so telling. I'm not going to enumerate, because unlike you I am just exchanging with the folks here, not trying to outsmart them, or convince some invisible audience that I'm right.

Ray - never saw that Seinfeld episode? Very entertaining, probably find the relevant part of the episode on YouTube

Who besides you Paul T could believe that the same guy that tried to kill Walker was trying to get into Cuba to kill Castro? And then to top it off was involved in the assassination of JFK?

Not to mention the 'magic loogie' on Seinfeld.

I'm not sure of the folloiwing is a diversion from the subject of the Lovelady shirt. I've always enjoyed reading Lifton, articles, posts, books. But from the beginning his excellent and organized writing style never quite convinced me that he was trustworthy. This bs about the shirt doesn't surprise me.

Craig - you asked some good questions. What answers would you give? I'm having trouble connecting your opening statement about the Mafia with the questions later in your post.

This short report by Secret Service inspector Kelley is very interesting. Oswald never admitted to using Hidell as an alias. Is that technically correct?

Actually the 20th century did solve it in broad outline. It was the CIA.

Proof ? Trejo, you have no proof either. If it's your Walker theory you claim facts. If it's a CIA theory you claim no facts to support it. You don't apply the same standards when viewing your own pet theories as you do when critiquing anothers.

Saying Ferrie 'confessed' to Garrison and then covering your ass when someone knowledgeable points out that there is no evidence of that. Unacceptable Paul Trejo.