Paul Brancato

Good try Roy.

Scott - how do you know that Galbraith never went to Vietnam?

For me this story makes no sense. As you ask, why return it to DPS? In the absence of further proof, like the actual DL or a good photo it lacks substance.

David - that is one instance when I might take Fritz's notes skeptically

Martin - the continuity from JFK to Iran-Contra is striking. A few of the Cuban operatives and CIA handlers died along the way, but some survived and thrived. For me the most striking thing is the George Bush connection. This even extends to Junior appointing Porter Goss to head the CIA. Shackley doesn't get nearly enough scrutiny. He and others, I think William Harvey, got their training in Germany when Gehlen became head of their CIA.

I think there is adequate evidence that Kilgallen was onto something and getting ready to break a story. The absence of any discovery of notes pertaining to her interview with Ruby after her death is for me enough proof that she was murdered.

Roy - is there evidence that GJ was in LA during the RFK?

Ashton - what's your take on Daniel Ellsberg? What does 'amoral member of the "intelligence" cult' mean?

Chuck - Agree with all of that, logical assumptions.

I am going to review all the Nagell stuff, including DiEugenio's detailed review. But I have to say this story just seems like some complex disinfo to me.

James - why would Nagell try to warn Oswald of the plot, and claim Oswald didn't believe him, only later to state that Oswald was part of the plot?

And I would only add to that remarkable post that Nixon won the 1968 election. I recall so clearly the feeling of doom when RFK died. He would have been president, of that I have no doubt.

I am still shocked by how many of my contemporaries are unaware of the second gunman at the Ambassador hotel, and how few of them ever considered the idea that the same still hidden group murdered both Kennedy brothers - and MLK for that matter.

Enrique Hernandez - Gene, I am sure you recognize this name. He was the guy who did the polygraph exam on the young campaign worker named Serrano who witnessed the girl in the polka dot dress. That three part 30 minute total YouTube video called 'the Girl in the Polka Dot Dress' is chilling. What if anything do we know about Enrique Hernandez? Like Manuel Pena he was also an ex LA cop who returned at this critical time. ( I think). Funny - in Dallas the body of JFK was taken away from local authorities at gunpoint and the investigation was thereafter controlled at the Federal level. In the case of RFK it appears that Feds were sent in to LA to take over the local investigation.

James - yes as in MC's were being investigated?

In any case this Manuel Pena thing is really bugging me because of the directions it leads in. Reminds me of Mae Brussell, who pointed out the nazi connections. Guess that begins with mr. Dulles

I'm blanking - what are mc's

Duh

Thanks David - I had forgotten that tidbit, and wonder if it's factual. It might be a clue even if it's not literally true.

In any case, I think we should be looking more closely at the American Security Council.

I don't think it merely coincidental that Oswald ordered his two weapons (if he did at all) from the two main targets of Senator Thomas Dodd's committee on juvenile delinquency investigation of mail order weapons purchases. Either he played a small part in this investigation by ordering guns when there were far easier and more easily hidden ways to purchase guns, or evidence was faked after the fact with these two exact companies. Either scenario leads to Senator Dodd, who chaired the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee's investigation of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Another coincidence? Really? This same committee was in cahoots with William Pawley's Operation Tilt, a serious but failed attempt to embarrass JFK and bring about an invasion of Cuba. This was also the apparent motive behind choosing Oswald as the patsy in the murder of JFK.

I would add to this unlikely stream the connection between Dodd's SISS and Otto Otepka, a man who vilified the Kennedys and blamed RFK for his ouster from the State Department post from which he monitored, among other things, the false defector program which Oswald was part of. Of course Otepka claimed that it was his Oswald file that got him in trouble with RFK and Walter Sheridan, implying that they were worried about their own connections to Oswald. I think it far more likely that the Kennedys were trying to stop the SISS and Otepka from running their own foreign policy operations behind their backs.

I was unaware of Dodd's connection to the ASC, a group of nazis in my opinion.

Gene - that's astounding. I was somewhat aware of Dodd but unaware of Pena. Was this committee the senate intelligence security subcommittee or a different one..

Yes - it's true that musical geniuses for instance get a very early start in most cases, but not true that an early start guarantees success.

You go James.

David - the angle you brought up - that Mike Paine looked enough like Oswald that he was mistaken for him, is interesting.

How ironic that Paine and Oswald are Bronx connected.

William Harvey is a far more likely suspect than Edwin Walker. Connecting him to Morales is easy isn't it? Instead, Trejo opines that Morales must have supplied Banister with intelligence. Apparently you will engage in any twisting and turning to distance the CIA from the assassination, and when others like myself point this out you lump us together as 'CIA did it' theorists.

Mr. Trejo - you persist in suggesting a relationship between Morales and Banister. You know that there is no evidence to support this. But it would conveniently support your theory, so you repeat it over and over and over and over again as if doing so makes it true. Meanwhile, the real Morales, with his real history as a top CIA operative you put aside, and claim that since he was very likely involved in the assassination it just had to be as a rogue.

For me you lose all credibility when you do this.

Like what was the point of that Dropbox link?

Scott - I don't understand anything you write, and don't think this has anything to do with being an intellectual. It has to do with organizing your thoughts, and it has to do with assuming the best of your readers. When you take the position that you are the truth teller and the rest of us ignorant intellectuals aren't listening you turn everybody off.

Why Mr. Trejo to you have to spell out your theory again?