Paul Brancato

Assuming it was Morales, what was he up to?

Paul - Simpich was quite clear that after all his studying he was still not sure if Oswald was ever in MC. That should be enough to give you pause.

Joseph McBride covered this Tippit ground in his fine book, but I don't recall him saying that the JBS actually had meetings at the restaurant. Did Sommersett have advance knowledge of the MLK assassination? Perhaps slightly off topic, but did he so inform his FBI contact prior to the MLK killing? If so, what did he say?

Joseph McBride covered this Tippit ground in his fine book, but I don't recall him saying that the JBS actually had meetings at the restaurant.

That's not an answer to my question. Did Blakey later admit he was using the wrong bullet for illustration purposes?

On point 5.3 this is a surprise to me. So the real bullet is still on file? Or Walker 'knew' it was still on file? Clarification needed

For how long did Koch serve on the JBS board? Was he not an early financial backer?

What policy differences over Vietnam are you referring to?

So Paul, what is your term for today's power elite? You can't be serious when you say America has no royalty. If you mean they don't have royal titles or heraldry I get that. I think it's ok to use the word royalty to describe Americas ruling families. I read recently that the Koch family founded the JBS. Don't you think that certain people are above the law?

Mr. Serious - assuming it is Morales scratching his neck, what do you think he was doing there? I've said before it looks more like a signal than an itchy neck. Who might he be signaling? What do you think was his role that day? Do you think he was involved in the assassination? If so, who do you think he was working for?

Paul T - Kill team? Where does Jim say that?

Guy Banister was no lone nut. I never said Dulles did it - that is a straw man argument. I have no prejudice against rich people, and doubt that others here do either. Making reference to class does not equal prejudice. Class is very real Paul, as you well know.

The point I am trying to make is that you are casting aspersions on researchers who look at Dulles Angleton Helms etc with suspicion not because they lack 'proof' but because you cannot imagine such great Americans could do such an evil deed. I don't see any of the researchers you criticize here being wedded to a theory the way you are. If I kept reading 'CIA' every time I read some researcher posting here I might get annoyed the way I get annoyed at you for taking every possible opportunity to say 'Walker'. In a way you are the worst advocate for the theory you espouse. One mistake I truly believe you make is dividing the political landscape into too rigid demarcations. An example - why would you believe that Walker was more right wing than say Hoover? Do the public pronouncements or written words of Walker or anyone else necessarily reflect their true viewpoints? Don't actions speak louder than words? If Walker did the deed and Hoover covered it up, why would you interpret that as Hoover saving the nation from civil war? Couldn't it just as well be because there was a shared point of view? Hoover proved his racist bonafides when he tried to destroy MLK and his movement under the guise of anti-communism. That was the same excuse that the Christian racist southern whites used to justify their racism. I prefer to look at Hoover through the same lens as I would look at the white citizens councils. His actions speak very loudly. What's the distinction? Hoover kept his actual racist views to himself. So what? The reason I don't have a problem with looking at the various possibilities of who may have been aligning with who, and who was ordering what, and who was carrying out what horrific action, is that it is perfectly clear to me that they all shared a common agenda.

Paul T - according to you my theory is 'a wet noodle'. What theory are you referring to? According to you Caulfield's new book 'debunks all the lame CIA-did-it theories still making money in the lecture circuits out there'. What is your proof? "Bill Simpich conclusively absolves the CIA high command from a JFK plot". You repeat it over and over but when questioned you then claim it is your 'reading' of his book. As you well know Simpich would not agree with your interpretation. He was also quite clear on this board that he was 'agnostic' on the question of whether Oswald was ever in Mexico City. One thing he and others before him, such as Peter Dale Scott (who you love to put down) and John Newman, have proved is that Oswald was impersonated more than once in MC. Anyone with a brain knows that when dealing with CIA and covert intelligence operations it's a hall of mirrors. Once again I will point out that the mole hunt which Simpich and others have documented, being run by Angleton and his operatives in MC, not only doesn't clear Angleton, it actually makes him more suspicious. It's like the layers of the onion. You just haven't peeled it far enough. When you put down with such insulting language researchers who focus on CIA/Cuban exile/Mafia operations as the likely source for the assassination it only reveals your own agenda. And since we know by your own words what heroes you think the Dulles brothers were your prejudice is completely obvious. You then go on to praise JFK, and say by way of explaining why you care about his assassination that he was a great president and that his death precipitated the bloody Vietnam escalation. These two things are mutually contradictory. JFK was rightfully angry at A. Dulles for his insubordination, enough so to fire him. And it wasn't just because of the Bay of Pigs. I hope you read Talbot's book. (I am reading Caulfield's, which I wish was available on kindle since it weighs a ton and is very difficult to read because of that). Then you go on to say that the jury is out on J Edgar Hoover. Really? Any one else reading this agree?

Well Paul Trejo - the more you repeat yourself with statements like "lame CIA-did-it theories still making money in the lecture circuits out there" the more sure I am that top CIA operatives were involved. I wonder how much money these theorists are making. Now we have David Talbot's excellent book 'the Devil's Chessboard' to read and debate here, and one inescapable fact we can be sure of is that the Dulles brothers were traitors, not heroes.

Paul's method here is to repeat ad nauseum (despite having been corrected by others here) half truths and spins as if they are gospel. People who browse here just don't know the history, don't dig enough to realize what he is up to.

BS. And Pamela is no fool so she knows it is BS

Paul - it is absolutely shameful of you to put words in Simpich's mouth. He most certainly does not absolve upper level CIA. And you know it. Jon - James has answered all of Trejo's garbage. Healy is right. Trejo should go and interview Ruth Paine. He is no historian. DiEugenio is, and a very fine one at that. Trejo, just because you find a mistake in someone's work doesn't negate their work. How many mistakes have posters here found in your posts? Dozens. You know it, but you rely on repeating things over and over because your real aim is to prove to the world at large, especially casual passersby that you and you alone have solved the puzzle of who killed JFK. And I think it's bears repeating that your reasons for caring about JFK are more than unclear. Anyone who thinks Hoover and Dulles and LeMay were heroes and great Americans, as you do and have stated, could not possibly understand what the real flesh and blood JFK was up against and what he stood for.

Kathleen - I have the same memory of watching Ruby shoot Oswald and my dad and I coming to the same conclusion immediately. That seminal moment explains why the world still believes there was a conspiracy. When the Zapruder film was finally shown publicly it reinforced that belief.

Paul - you weren't at that party either, nor did you interview Ruth Paine. I would also suggest that if a teenage girl remembers feeling hit on that is serious business, not to be dismissed by saying there is a fair chance she misread his intentions.

It's not just spelling it's sentence construction. It just doesn't read like Oswald to me.

Great book, great review. Considering it is real documented history, and is selling well, it is very telling that the NYT and WP are not reviewing it. I was struck by a small section in which Harriman is weighing in on JFK's choice of McCone to replace Dulles. He is very definitely taking a stance to the left of JFK here, saying straight out (I think to Schlesinger) that JFK has not done nearly enough to change the old boy CIA network despite firing Dulles, and complaining about CIA funny business in SE Asia. According to Talbot Mac Bundy is clearly in the Dulles camp. On the surface it looks like Mac Bundy and Harriman were miles apart.

A most interesting thread. I had never noticed the part of Ruby's statement about JBS and Walker that mentioned Decker, and it is clear that he prefaces his remarks by implying that Decker told him what to say. Incredible.

Back to the letter Paul, I asked that question because I don't recall other examples of Oswald's writing that are as well composed. Perhaps you know otherwise?

Paul T - if Oswald did write the typed letter to the USSR embassy he at least had help. So who helped him? On what typewriter was the letter typed?