Paul Brancato

Pat - I think that Mr. Graves asked a pertinent question. Ultimately the only reason that a correct analysis of the wounds matters is if it helps us construct the details of the shooting. I'm not trying to derail the conflicting opinions being argued here about how to read the medical info or disinfo we have. But the only thing that really matters to me is who did it and why. I don't suspect any hidden agenda from you or Greg. But would you both do me/us the courtesy of briefly summarizing your findings as they relate to the kill zone - where did shots originate, how many shooters, the sequence of shots. Please....

Scott - please take a deep breath, and then consider the possibility that your ability to communicate what you earnestly feel is limited. If truth telling is what you are genuinely interested in you need to find a different path. I suggested an editor. I also suggested a clear timeline of your father's life without your editorializing, allowing it to stand on its own.

Yes it was a very good conspiracy. And yes it goes way beyond state secrets. It changed the course of US history. Of course there is no way of knowing how far JFK would have gotten in dismantling the MIC. But I have no doubts personally that he was trying to do just that.

James - thanks for the memory refresher

Very good article Shane. Thanks for posting it here. I have a related question - I believe you are the researcher who interviewed various people who supported your theory that Morales was present at RFK's assassination. I could do some digging and refresh my memory of this, but would you mind posting something here? Did your critics convince you of their pov or do you stand by your initial finding?

I for one found your evidence pretty compelling on Morales, until other researchers with credibility said otherwise. Sorry for the lack of details...

Very good - the Charlie Rose interview and coverage of it was scandalous.

So who, in your opinion Jon, is the CIA protecting if it's not it's own ass or its operatives?

What CIA theory? Cut the crap Paul

Jim - I agree with your Livingston quote.

I also find it silly that Trejo and Tidd could spin these CIA connected confessions the way they do, and openly declare that their missions are in part to absolve the CIA. Well, I for one am not on a mission to find the CIA guilty, though I have been labelled as such. But I could not dismiss Hunt, Morales, Phillips, Sturgis, or the names they dropped, so easily. I think it's obvious that there is truth in those confessions. I don't presume to know how much truth exactly, or exactly what it means.

When any one of us claims to know the truth, we fall into the trap best illustrated by the blind men and the elephant fallacy. It's only by putting collective visions together can us blind persons hope to see what the elephant actually looks like. One thing I would like to point out is that drawing hard and fast lines between the various groups (CIA, FBI, ONI, Secret Service, DPD, Minutemen, Mafia) and individuals on the list of suspects is a mistake. The lines of demarcation must be taken as suggestions, not truths. As some examples, we cannot know for sure the exact nature of the relationship between Hoover and Banister, between Angleton and Helms, Dulles and Bundy, between the DPD and the Minutemen. I could go on ad infinitum. The point is we really don't know how the decision to kill a president, or for that matter his brother, came about. And so, when we get believable statements from family members or friends of deceased suspects we should use that to open doors, not close them.

Russ Baker is one of the few writers whose been willing to tackle what I view as the 800 lb gorilla in the room - the remarkable intersection of the Bush family with Nazi Germany, Dallas, Vietnam, Watergate, Iran Contra, 9/11, Iraq, all the way to Jeb. It's not particularly reassuring that this current incarnation is not apparently having a successful run at the presidency (it ain't over). It doesn't give me faith that powerful families come and go, that our great Democracy asserts itself and eventually balances the scales. It's the tip of a huge iceberg.

scott - you commandeered this thread. In my opinion you should confine your posts about your BOP theory to an appropriate thread, such as the ones you started.

I think this letter shows us the real George, and makes his I am a Patsy manuscript a self serving lie. George cared more about his connections to high society than anything else, and this makes his so called friendship with The Oswalds a lie as well. With that in mind everything that he supplied which incriminated Oswald, any story he told about the rifle, the 'hunter of fascists' photo, the Walker incident, all suspect. It also puts his letter to George Bush while the latter was CIA director in a clearer light. Yes, George was afraid, as he should have been. Yes he was being watched because he knew way more than he had ever told about the nature of his involvement.

Scott - what's that chip - more like log - on your shoulder all about?

Mr. Trejo - you have obviously not read my JFK cards, but you have no problem telling me what's in them. Your response to me is so full of wrong assumptions that I am discouraged from engaging further. Maybe tomorrow I'll find the fortitude.

Scott - we have no way of knowing what you are talking about. You need an editor. Please don't view this as an insult. What may be perfectly clear to you in your experience is not coming across, and I am sure you want it to be understood and felt. Get your ego out of the way and do what I suggested - write an emotionless timeline of your father's life and let it stand on its own at first. You have to birth the baby before it can grow into an adult. Do the hard work and present it here to an audience that is receptive.

Ruth has done pretty well without your help Paul. Despite her closeness to the events, despite her CIA family connections she has never been cross-examined. So she is fair game. The Paine's tax returns from the period in question are still withheld, something she could rectify, and her great friend Marina, to whom she showed so much Quaker charity, refuses her friendship and hasn't spoken to her for over 50 years. Researchers such as Hewitt have the right to their opinions, and you have the right to examine their ideas and disagree with them. But your rudeness surpasses all bounds of propriety.

Yeah Scott - too bad you are so inscrutable. Seriously - I don't understand anything you write.

Appropriately cynical view which resonates with me completely. Thanks for posting David.

You know Paul, you try over and over to put words in my mouth and mis characterize me. It is what bothers me about you. You are intellectually dishonest. Show me where I demonstrated extreme prejudice against your 'theory'. No Paul, not your theory, your method of argument is what I am extremely prejudiced against. And just take a look at your last response. I did not mis state your oft repeated Weberman snippet. You can say I did, but anyone reading this thread knows I did not. Then you choose, by way of that bs, to ignore my point - Hemming was a known falsifier. So rather than consider that this story that he called Oswald from Miami yadayada etc was a fabrication, you make up your own story about how Oswald must have met Hemming's confederate outside the TSBD and handed off the rifle. On what basis other than Hemming's statement to Weberman to you conclude this? None. No one has ever come forward having seen this hand off, Hemming never named his confederate. Hence, you offer nothing even remotely resembling truth.

Paul - you are the one who loves to demand 'facts' when other people state their theories. Hold yourself to the same standard.

You know Tommy, and Paul Trejo - it's not your earnest criticism of author and reviewer James DiEugenio that bothers me, it's the obnoxious tone of that criticism. It had no place here in my opinion, and whatever modicum of respect I had for you both is rapidly disappearing.

Yes I noticed that too. I don't personally get how you could be accused of never meeting a conspiracy theory you didn't like. Petition/poll was nuanced, and I have no problem with your use of language.

I don't want to inject myself between James and Tommy too much, both of whom I appreciate as members of this forum. My hope was to open any wounds and clean them out. Tommy - only you know whether Jimbo is a term of endearment or derision, so if it is the latter please refrain from using it.

James - Tommy's explanation for his dealings with Trejo and for his poll on him is accurate. I take him at his word that it wasn't a petition. And in a way his position and yours are very close. His language is nuanced, but it is clear that he admits to being annoyed with Trejo's posting style and was 'naively' hoping it might change. We all agree with that I am sure, and repeating it here is perhaps giving Trejo another chance to view himself through a different lens.

Go on - tell us again how Hoover then decided for the good of the country to let Walker and company slide for the murder of the president in order to avoid civil conflict.

Paul Trejo - You have quoted Hemming's 'confession' to Weberman over and over for years on numerous threads that he offered LHO double for his rifle if he would bring it to work. Now you decide that there is no good evidence that LHO entered the TSBD with a rifle that day. Rather than accept the obvious choice that Hemming, a known falsifier, was lying, you simply make up a story to account for the discrepancy. And then you want the readers to take your criticisms of the work of other researchers - Hewitt, DiEugenio, Peter Dale Scott and others seriously.

I for one do get that Tommy. I doubt that Jim thinks you and trejo are birds of a feather.