Paul Brancato

Anyone else but you think that Walker was the model for Ripper?

Also Cliff - any theory as to who sheep dipped Oswald, and whether the sheep dippers also set him up as a patsy?

So your point is that if Oswald had been killed on November 22 instead of 24 Castro would have been seen as the culprit and Cuba would have been invaded?

I thought Curtis LeMay was the model for Jack D. Ripper

Assuming Oswald was set up, why choose him? Or do you have another theory of Oswald's involvement?

Or maybe I diverted this thread a bit.

Cliff - I think Newman's point was that a real investigation of Oswald would have have led to a conflagration with the USSR, precisely because he was not really a lone nut. Even after the passage of 51 years there are still questions about the patsy that was chosen, about his motives, beliefs, connections. But at the time the obvious connection was to Communism. What would have prevented a deeper investigation of a real lone nut? Perhaps you could flesh out your objection a bit.

Could someone refresh my memory - what is EOB? Also wanted to suggest that in my mind it is not certain that the plotters had in mind linking Oswald to a communist conspiracy in order to precipitate military action against Cuba or the USSR. I think John Newman has a different idea , which is that the Communist linkage would precipitate a coverup, and that the plotters would have counted on this fact to bring on board non-conspirators after the fact. This presupposes two levels of pre-assassination planners - operational guys who thought they would bring about an invasion of Cuba, and high level planners who counted on being able to enlist the anti-Castro crowd to plan and execute the assassination, knowing that they could limit the investigation afterwards. Thus their real aim was simply the removal of JFK, not war with the Soviets or the removal of Castro. Though it does not prove this theory, history does show that Castro was never removed, war with the USSR never happened, the Cold War continued, and the military complex got their war - with Vietnam - and the profits flowed.

I posted recently that I thought Newman, Simpich, and Scott should get together publicly and see if they can coordinate a unified field theory on Mexico City. I would find it strange if they are not communicating privately. Does Simpich still post here? If not, can someone contact him and ask him to join in? Perhaps a new thread would be in order, since this one is about Walker, and I doubt any of the three would conclude that Walker was involved in the MC impersonation.

I wonder if CIA agent (or asset) Gaudet spoke Spanish.

Same here.

Those pesky generals

There was only one other George Bush in the CIA in 1963, and he gave sworn testimony that the memo was not written to him. The only reasonable conclusions are that he was lying under oath, or that George Herbert Walker Bush, who certainly fits your profile, was in the CIA in 1963. I don't find your explanation that financial well being is proof of anything, though it is true that CIA men whose names are public knowledge were certainly well heeled. I prefer to believe Dulles, and think your point makes his statement more believable. We are purposely left in the dark about who is or isn't CIA.

Thanks for posting this Ernie. JFK and the Unspeakable is the book I recommend to friends who ask me why this subject is so important to me. I was especially moved when I found out that RFK jr did the same. The press covered his trip to Dallas, but very poorly imo. If you haven't read the book I sincerely hope you do. You are correct - the question I meant to ask was whether there was independant corroboration of Dean meeting Castro.

We have proof that Dean visited Castro and spoke with him in English?

After reviewing the links that Malcom Ward posted, and re-reading all of Bill Kelly's posts on LeMay, I wind up at the same place. LeMay was up to something. His aide, Dornan, was not with him in northern Michigan or Canada, on Nov 22. According to his family that was very unusual. The explanation given was that LeMay was on a fishing vacation. If that is so, why were there deliberate efforts to hide the fact that he flew back to DC, arriving before AF 1? There are records, nearly destroyed, that prove he flew back in time for the autopsy, whether he was there or not. There is now proof, previously hidden, that his aide determedly tried to contact LeMay while he was inflight to DC bit before he landed. And of course there is one eye witness who stuck to the story that LeMay attended the autopsy, smoking a cigar. I know there is no proof, as writers like Hancock point out, that LeMay attended the autopsy, or that he was doing something other than fishing in northern Michigan. But the circumstantial evidence is suggestive of some other agenda. Could there be another explanation for what he was doing, and why his aide did not accompany him on his trip? It's the lie after the fact that leads me in the direction that he was not on vacation, and that he did attend the autopsy even though his name is not listed on the logs. And the fact that there was an underground sophisticated command and control communications center nearby where he was picked up in Canada makes me wonder if he was there monitoring events in Dallas. If he was, he sure went to great lengths to obfuscate that fact. When combined with the stories of Jack Crichton and other military intelligence being involved with a likewise underground communications center in Dallas it starts to look like a Seven Days in May military run coup.

His question was about Oswald's ability to speak Spanish.

Paul - you completely evaded the issue that Knight raised. I find it strange that you wouldn't simply address the question directly.

I second that motion. Great writing, informative, generous. Thank you Mr. Caddy.

As Dulles said, most CIA officers will never admit as much, nor will the CIA identify them. So how can you decide who is and who isn't CIA? Ironic that Hoover famously wrote a memo to 'George Bush of the CIA'. Does anyone know of other instances where Hoover identified CIA agents by name?

Wow - cant wait to watch this

Thanks for refreshing my memory. I suspect that the change in autopsy location (we do agree that this change was made while AF1 was en route, and that there was disagreement about the change both in the situation room and aboard the aircraft?) was communicated to LeMay so that he could land at the right airport and get to the autopsy in a timely fashion. That's just my take - no actual proof. It's interesting that his biographers would be mistaken about his whereabouts during the autopsy, whether he was actually there or not, and claim he didn't return from vacation until the funeral. Kind of makes you wonder why they would do that, whether they knowingly lied or were lied to.

The Cold War - another one of those mysterious definitions by which we gauge current events. Sure, no more USSR. But the nukes still exist, both sides are increasing their arsenals, and the relations between Putin's Russia and the US and west is murky at best. Currently our allies, the Saudis, are cooperating in bringing about the lowering of oil prices, which is directly aimed at Russia, perhaps because of the Ukrainian situation. I am glad you agree at least that the truth should be known now, though I would argue, contrary to your point, that we would be in much better shape and living in a vastly different world if we Americans and our elected government and 'free' press insisted on the truth in 1964. We will always disagree on this, so no need to repeat your reasons. I understand them.

Absence of the complete AF 1 recordings, absence of proof positive of what communications transpired regarding Oswald. Perhaps as Varnell seems to be pointing out, the writings of historians like Salinger White and Manchester probably reveal more truth than any research into military records or protocols, or edited AF 1 tapes are likely to reveal. Historians like Hancock, who have spent so much time digging for proof, find themselves agnostic when the proof isn't there. If it was only one presidential historian who claimed that Bundy relayed to AF 1 the info that Oswald was guilty and had no accomplices I would be skeptical. But in this case I find myself convinced that Bundy did what the three of them independantly say he did, and have no trouble seeing that as evidence that he was prepared before the fact, or else immediately afterwards, to steer the ship of state in the direction it took. As for LeMay, he sure got his ass back to DC in a hurry, and I still don't know whether it was his adjutant that was on AF 1 calling him mid flight. Someone here explained this to me last year, so if anyone knows for sure how that went down please share that info again.

What continues to befuddle me Paul is how in your next sentence you would say, if asked, that Hoover did the right thing. Do you think the truth that he knew but hid from the American people should still be hidden? Would it be any less disruptive now?