Paul Brancato

Robert - just curious - where do you think the shot originated that entered the back of JfK's skull and exited the throat? What kind of gun was used, and who fired it? I realize it's all conjecture, and I don't dismiss your scenario out of hand. I just went throught the entirety of John Judge's original piece on Jonestown, in order to glean what I could about Mark Lane's activities there. I still think that the most logical conclusion is that he was an attention seeker as well as an earnest critic, and that senior moment is probably the best way to describe his recent statement. But reviewing Jonestown is sure scary.

I have to agree with Pat on this, even though Lane made mistakes. I think he had a senior moment claiming exit wound in the throat. Lane was a proponent of a frontal throat wound from the beginning. As a NYC youth of 16 I went to hear Mark Lane present his case, and later saw him debate Melvin Belli. He was very impressive. Many have tried to smear him over the years with his association with Jim Jones, his work for the Liberty Lobby etc., but looking over his life work I see a man concerned with truth telling, and not a CIA asset.

I noticed that

Question for Mr. Frank - do you think Angleton was KGB? For me number one comes closest.

Actually Steve I am not familiar with the 'coincidences' you referred to. Can you fill me in a bit?

Doug - the article is indeed interesting. In a nutshell, both Oswald and Atta took actions in the months preceding the major events they are both credited with performing that should have resulted in more intense scrutiny on the part of Intelligence, rather than less. But we know that Oswald (or an imposter) took very provocative actions in New Orleans and Mexico City especially that perversely resulted in a blackout of info on him and his removal by the FBI from an important watch list, exactly the opposite of what should have happened. It looks like the same thing occurred with Atta, though we don't have the benefit of 50 years of research. We do know in essence that the CIA failed to inform the FBI that a certain group of terrorist suspects they had under close watch in Malaysia (maybe Indonesia - might have this detail wrong) had entered the US in the months preceding 9/11. In both the JFK coup and the 9/11 attacks we have a kind of 'standing down' on the part of our intelligence branch protectors when the opposite was clearly called for. JFK was in danger, as the Chicago and Miami incidents show, and Al Qaida was a domestic terror threat, as NSC Rice was forced to admit to Congress. Can we draw conclusions from this bizarre comparison? I sense this is uncomfortable territory here, but I am really curious what you all think. For me the two brazen acts committed in the full light of day (three if you count Ruby shooting Oswald, and of course 9/11 wasn't just one plane but 4) suggest something deeper, still hidden. If forced to say what that might be, I would suggest that the results of those acts suggest the reasons behind them: Increased military budgets and operations is the most obvious, and the sense of disempowerment and even acquiescence in the populace a deeper long lasting effect.

'George Bush of the CIA', says J Edgar Hoover. It may be that Poppy, George DeM's friend, writing such a forward is an ironic historical twist of incomparable proportion.

Helms is near the top of my own list.

A new Cold War. Seems like we are there now.

According to info on another thread Joannides reported to Kent (Gupton) and Kent reported to Phillips. So who did Phillips report to? And is my first sentence correct?

Thomas - I can see you would rather this thread try to focus on substantive issues raised by Newman, yet somehow the Sforza claim became the focus. I agree with you.

Jon - by that logic it would seem that you are suggesting that CIA would go to extraordinary lengths to keep the prying eyes of State off of a man they suspected of being a Soviet recruit - Oswald. I don't buy it. There has to be more to the relationship with Oswald than simply observing.

I think that Newman would respond by saying that the Sforza family is lying. I would hope that James has more to go on for his assertion than the word of the Sforza family.

Jon - in a previous post you say that if the CIA was trying to keep tabs on Oswald it would not want any other agency like the state dept messing up its plans. I'd like to point out what appears to be a logical fallacy. 'Keeping tabs' isnt the same as 'plans'. If all the CIA was doing was watching Oswald they wouldn't be so concerned about Otepka or anyone else like wise watching Oswald. This implies that they had 'plans'. On another post you point out that CIA has two functions that don't overlap - gathering intelligence and running operations. Larry agrees and says we often confuse the two and forget the distinction. Angleton as head of CI did not run operations other than gathering intelligence. Am I understanding this correctly?

Anthony Tepedino, who Newman claims is the person known to is as Tony Sforza, born in 1900 Salerno. Quite a difference in age. Wish Newman was here to engage, since you seem quite sure, and I am not expert.

That would make Phillips two levels above Joannides, since Gupton/Kent was Joannides case officer, and Kent worked for Phillips.

I found Newman's argument convincing. James - why do you think Newman got the Sforza bio wrong?

David - what is your take on the Otepka piece?

I was confusing the 112th with the 488th.

Jon - didn't the 112th claim they had no records on Oswald?

No can do as much as I might like to.

Jon - the question revolves around semantics. Agent, asset, informer, and other more subtle gradations. I believe it was Bill Kelly who posted a complete glossary. If Oswald was not involved in some capacity in Intelligence operations, why was he surrounded by intelligence operations and characters? How can we determine his relative usefulness? That was up to the person or persons using him. He was important enough to the CIA that they segregated his 201file and kept their actual knowledge of his life actions and movements close to their vests and shared considerably less than they knew to everyone else.

I'm likewise performing Messiah this week, though not with original instruments. For violinists the Messiah is a long haul.

I agree with Don that we don't have to present a counter theory and then be able to defend it with the same scrutiny we have applied over the decades to the WC case against Oswald. I also don't see where Don's subtle language regarding lone nutters crossed the line.

Thanks Larry - do you find Newman's evidence on Sforza's real name unconvincing? I gathered from Simpich that Angleton's end run around JM wave while mole hunting after the Oswald impersonation was a clue that he suspected someone at JM wave being the mole. Just to be clear, are you saying that what Newman refers to as PP staff was not connected to Angleton? I get confused with all the letter codes so I hope the questions don't sound stupid. So am I incorrect when I interpret Morley's work on Joannides as saying that he was head of PP at JM wave?