Paul Brancato

Come on Ron - isn't that what we all try to do here?

I'm giving you another chance to say what you know about Hunt's involvement in the assassination of JFK and/or his physical presence in Dealey Plaza that day. I'm really asking what you know because of your relationship with Hunt, not what you may have read elsewhere.

Completely hijacked thread. But since we are here - Ron - sometimes you seem logical, other times you seem to have drunk the right wing koolaid. There is plenty to be unhappy about with the Clintons if you are like me a progressive humanist 'democrat', but you choose the far right false conspiracies instead of the real ones, very consistently.

David - no problem. The reason I started the thread and then restated my question is that Douglass Caddy was Hunt's Watergate lawyer, and he posts here often and generously. He has some views about the 'alien presence' that are out of the mainstream and for which he credits Hunt as the source. My first statement of the question, referring to the tramps, has been responsible for the tangents, and also made it easy for mr. Caddy to essentially avoid the question I was asking. He may not know the answer, and I have made it clear that I am aware of that. But here we are in 2016 having someone who communicates directly with us here who not only knew Hunt, but was his lawyer. I would like to know what he really thinks about Hunt's possible involvement far more than I want to engage in photographic evidence or confessions.

Can we all agree, notwithstanding photo evidence and confessions, that Nixon referring to the BOP thing was most likely code for the JFK assassination? If we can, the we need to take seriously the possibility that E Howard Hunt, and Frank Sturgis, and possibly Bernard Barker were involved. Do we so lightly dismiss the statements of Marita Lorenz? Don't we all remember the first time we heard the name Frank Sturgis and the suggestion that he was a shooter? I think we should get back to that moment. And by the way David, that does lead to Hemming, doesn't it?

Mr. McBride - thank you for posting your interview on the current state of the RFK case.

I have a few questions:

Has anyone attempted to locate the film 'The Last Campaign'? Have you seen it?

Did I understand you correctly that author Dan Moldea is the only person who knows where Thane Cesar is and he's not telling?

Didn't Noguchi sue to get his job back and win?

What else do we know about Manuel Pena? Is he still alive? Are researchers seeking FOIA files on him?

I'd also like to shamelessly piggyback a few questions I have about officer Tippet. Do you think it a strong possibility that he was a Dealey Plaza shooter? Why do you think he was murdered and by whom? Do you find the theory that his body was taken to Bethesda in the second casket because he looked so much like JFK plausible?

Michael - on the surface it would seem odd that so many CIA operatives would, if they were involved, take the chance of being photographed. But Ron's point is well taken. I would add that since none of the photo evidence had proven anything it's entirely possible that the propagandists knew that would be the case beforehand, and that the subsequent confusion might be a useful diversion.

I believe that Harrelson confessed. Is that not true?

Jim - for me the most interesting thing is Prescott Bush promoting the young Nixon. Of that there is no doubt.

James - I agree it makes no sense that LBJ recommended Ruby to Nixon.

Jim - how do we know that the Jack Rubenstein referred to here is Jack Ruby?

Michael - totally agree on the Hoover memo, a very important clue in my opinion.

This all gets me after a while. How is it that all these years later we are still not sure of any if this? Two Oswalds, two Rubys, two caskets.

When added to the cash payoff and subsequent plane crash which killed Dorothy Hunt, to Hunt's confessions to his son, and to his involvement with Cuban exiles it seems an important question.

I think I should rephrase my question.

Mr. Caddy - to your knowledge, as Hunt's watergate era lawyer, was Hunt involved in the assassination of JFK? Was he in Dealey Plaza that day?

I realize you may have no info at all. Perhaps Hunt never spoke of it to you. But given that the Watergate arrests led directly to Nixon being worried about 'the whole Bay of Pigs thing', which according to Haldeman referred to the JFK assassination, its natural to assume Hunt was involved and probably there, whether we actually have a picture of him there or not.

Mr. Mc.Bride - thanks for posting this interview, which is a thorough review of the RFK case. It is most impressive that Paul Schrade cares enough at age 91 to come forward and appear before Sirhan's review board.

I gave a few questions:

Has anyone attempted to locate the film 'The Last Campaign'? Have you seen it?

Did I understand you correctly that author Dan Moldea is the only person who knows where Thane Cesar is and he isn't telling?

Didn't Noguchi file suit to get his job back and win?

What else do we know about Manuel Pena? Is he still alive? Is anyone specifically seeking foia files on him?

It is often repeated that Jacob Rubinstein, aka Jack Ruby, worked for Richard Nixon in 1947. Yet I recall reading somewhere recently that this is a case of two men with the same name. What is the truth?

I ask this question of you mr. Caddy in hopes that you know the answer. I believe that Hunt denied it, but he did admit some involvement in the assassination. What, in your view was Hunt's role, if any?

Jim - thanks for the clarification on the last section of part two of Linda Pease's great article about Sen. Thomas Dodd. I'm not advocating going light on the CIA, far from it. But the more you scratch at these CIA guys the more you see their extreme right wing views and connections.

Question - when did Dutch journalist Oltmans appear before Dodd's committee? Which committee? Why?

Gene - glad you thought to mention William Pawley. I wish we knew more about Manuel Pena. I wonder if Ernie has some info. Seems like without Trejo around to argue with Ernie disappears.

I'm surprised that Otto Otepka doesn't make it into Pease's article. I have his book, which I think is very self serving. But I'm going to dig around in there a bit today.

A rogues gallery. However, I thought the second part of essay 2 was weak because suddenly the focus shifted to criticizing Russell and Scott. If Pease has written other investigative pieces delving into the very right wing ASC I'd like to read them. But I have no doubts that the CIA had factions within it. They still do. Perhaps you understand this portion of the essay better than I.

Bernie - allow me to step in here. Yes we can quibble about defining the left. I listen to KPFA sometimes, and can tell you that they will barely touch JFK, believing as you apparently do that he was establishment and not really a hero of the people. Like the Nation magazine, Noam Chomsky, and other mouthpieces of the so-called left they believe that JFK's death didn't really change anything. They also by the way give LBJ credit for the Civil Rights Act. They do however consider MLK a death they should properly mourn.

What DiEugenio is rightly pointing out is that they are wrong about the Kennedy brothers. There has been a concerted effort for over 60 years now to keep hidden the real story. I think that James Douglass covered this admirably in his book JFK and the Unspeakable. If you haven't read it you should do so immediately.

There most certainly was a right wing coup in the '60's that changed the course of history. (Perhaps it would be better to say the right wing got rid of the only threat to their already established MIC) JFK was the last truly courageous president we had. Obama may be just as humanist as JFK, but if he is he certainly didn't show the courage. He didn't fight for the millions that came out to vote, and to cheer him on when he won the 2008 election. I think the controlling forces behind the scenes have too much power for any president to do anything about it. Obama's one victory is that millions have been helped by his healthcare reform.

Humanism is the only ism I believe in.

John - that's true. Ernie is an expert on FBI files, and generally on right wing movements. But not on JFK.

Brad - just don't drink that Koolaid

That's essentially what I asked - why are you here?

Lance - this is really simple. You voted for Obama the first time but were so disappointed with his first term. What don't you get about Republican obstructionism? Are you blind? And btw no use pointing out that Dems controlled the Senate for the first two years. It meant next to nothing. One guy defected. Democrats are less party line animals than Republicans. A majority of one means nothing when big money controls the votes of our elected officials.

Jim is right about something else - your opinions have not been formed by reading great books, but rather what you consider a common sense approach. If you read John Newman you will no longer question JFK's aim not to intervene militarily in Vietnam, or any other country trying to overcome the shackles of colonialism. He made that abundantly clear. If you read Douglass you will see that JFK wanted to end the Cold War and was taking steps to do so. You will see in these books facts proving that 'Camelot' was not a myth to be dispelled by clearer thinkers, but rather a reality deliberately hidden from all of us. Time has slowly revealed that our suspicions were correct, and not the product of wishful thinking or slanted political leanings.

So get on board. You're here. Read some good books with up to date information gleaned from the efforts of determined researchers who gave slowly extracted relevant hidden documents from the purposefully secretive government archives. This is no myth. This is reality.

Another thing - I doubt anyone here is dreaming about a Hilary Clinton presidency saving us from evil.

Dawn is correct that party line left wingers are not generally conspiracy minded. Most conspiracy media comes from the right wing fringe by the way. But hey, now I'm using those damned false dichotomies again. Left right and center - what nonsense. Truth is what I care about, and even if it's elusive I still search for it, whether in my personal life or in political and social life.

Lance - why do you read and post here?

It's not an intellectual game for me. And of course my view of the event is informed by my world view. That doesn't make it wrong. Facts can stand on their own regardless of ones point of view. The reason that most researchers and so called conspiracy researchers come at this from a so-called leftist position is that we care. One of our own was murdered, as was his brother. I certainly could never ascribe to the notion that the Kennedy's were no better than the Bushes. I can and do imagine a better world, while being full cognizant of how unlikely that is and always has been. One can understand history and see clearly the influence of money in the modern world and still hold idealistic views.

You seem very proud of your voting record while being blissfully unaware of the deep forces who are running things. I read your post and don't see the person you see youself as - a clear thinking man swimming against the tide. I see a man who is wearing blinders.

I would suggest in the first place that you stop using left and right so glibly. The whole dual nature of our political landscape is a false dichotomy that is better seen as divide and conquer by those really in control.

Can you at least concede that JFK's murder led directly to the death of tens of thousands of mostly poor American soldiers and ultimately millions of southeast Asains? Can you feel the pain of those deaths? Does my sympathy with the plight of the poor and powerless make me a 'left winger' whose views can then be summarily dismissed as biased?

I do care what you think. If I've made unfair assumptions please straighten me out.

No wonder I can't being myself to watch it, despite a few friends telling me that despite its obvious slant it's still very entertaining.

Thank you so much for the extensive time you put into this review. I couldn't read it - 20 pages in I realized Caulfield had no organizational skills and no editor.

Scott - is it your purpose to derail this thread permanently into who knows more about how JFK made his decisions? Are you disputing the central claim of the thread?