Paul Brancato

Ever seen the film by Martin you speak of? Anyone?

You have no evidence dating from before the assassination that Walker knew who Oswald was until after the event, other that the statements of Harry Dean.

Mr. Simkin - that seems like a reasonable assumption, more than a possibility.

Paul T - your definitions of who is a nazi and who isn't, your nuances as you put it, are increasingly imaginary. Walker, touring around the south with racists, living with neo nazis and confessing to real German nazis, is somehow not himself a racist or a nazi, just a friendly anti-communist politically expedient Bircher who just happened to plot and carry out the murder of the president of the USA because at heart he was really one of the good guys, a true patriot, who, apparently, went a little too far in his self righteous indignation. Sheer fantasy.

Come on - Surrey is hard enough evidence.

Are you linking Walker with the Nazi party?

I am no expert on dissecting Zapruder and timing of SS reactions. But it has always seemed to me that Connally had been hit right before the fatal head shot. He goes from turning around to leaning back in what looks like obvious pain. It doesn't look like he leans back to protect his wife. Its looks involuntary.

Thanks John - that about says it all.

How would you compare FBI surveillance of MLK to that of Walker?

Me too!

Ernie - I really don't question the value of FBI files to serious researchers such as yourself, and the writers and researchers who have done such good work over the years on the '60's in particular. Having said that, I have no doubt that Hoover had a beef with MLK and JFK and RFK, and it was personal. So what I mean to say is that there is nothing in FBI files that could possibly dissuade me from believing something so obvious, and my bet is that you would agree with me from your vantage point as well.

Ernie - I think the Mafia, some of whose leaders were Hoover's friends, was much more dangerous than the pathetic Communist party USA. From personal experiences of my dad, who was in the party for a while, the FBI presence at party meetings and functions was huge. There was no way American Communists posed a threat to the US, even when they were in the government. I am sure your facts and figures are right, but they miss my point entirely. Free speech is supposed to be protected by our Bill of Rights. There was never any danger of. communist revolution here, yet Hoover's FBI focussed on them as if they were dangerous. This is institutional. JFK was killed in my opinion largely because he could see a world in which we could co-exist peacefully with Communism. Meanwhile the Mafia continued its cozy relationship with FBI and CIA despite the fact that they were a destructive force with a bloody history. Why don't you tell me why our national security state saw Communism as the greater threat? I have no wish to engage in the kind of procedural details you are so familiar with. My focus is completely on the big picture. You think the truth lies in the details of FBI reports and procedures. I don't. I think Hoover vacationing at DelMar says much more about him than any FBI documents proving they were monitoring the Mafia. You think that Hoover had MLK monitored because of his known associations with Communists. I don't. I don't care what the files show, or what nice words Hoover uttered about the Civil Rights movement. Sure, Communists were active in that movement, to their credit.

Ernie - your methodology is impressive. I am not going to engage with you on that level though. We both know that Hoover and his FBI spent much more time monitoring MLK than the Mafia. We know that anti-communism was used to justify everything. JBS did the same. We all know that States Rights arguments are cover for racism. No need to prove any of this. I'm glad that Trejo has come out of the closet. I don't think he understands that the rest of us don't view Walker as a man of peace, or Hoover as a patriot. And he can't resist laying out his theories. I'll try not to post on this thread anymore. It's hard sometimes, but it is futile.

And Walker lent his office and home space to known Nazis.

You shall know the tree by its fruits. What Hoover, and Walker, said or didn't say publicly doesn't impress me. Hoover claimed he was worried about Communist influence on the Civil Rights movement, Walker claimed his objection to Brown vs Board of Education was a States Rights issue. Both of them engaged in hostile acts for years that belied their words.

Yes David, I would truly like to see that.

Could Sloman/Sforza be David Morales? If not, were the names Sloman and Sforza aliases for someone? I thought that is where Newman was going with that. I am not sure which edition of SWHT I have. I'll check.

Larry - if you have an hour to spare would you watch Newman's presentation and see if I just nodded off or something? He spent considerable time leading up to the punchline. His methodology is really fascinating. He claimed, for instance, that Phillips, and others, used many aliases, and that sometimes CIA memos concerned communications between two people who were in fact the same person, and were created to confuse. He was very convinced and convincing.

I thought it was maybe Frank Sturgis. In any case, even re listening to part of the presentation did not clear this up for me. He mentions at one point that there will be a tape of his talk with the slides he kept referring to. Maybe the answer is in the slides which were not shown during his talk. Was this from the C-Span program last Sunday?

Adams claims that FBI investigation into Milteer was compromised from the top down beginning with Hoover. Not aurprised.

Such an interesting presentation. Of course I completely forgot to record span 3 on Sunday. Were there more presentations, and are they available? I might have lost concentration listening to this, and missed something. Did Newman reveal Tony Sforza's birth name?

Agree with that Kathy.

And pleSe answer my lone question - is there anything in Walker's papers dated before the assassination that mentions LHO?

Without going into any further depth of your last complaint, just taking your first objection to Scott's revelations regarding Duran's interrogation, ordered by (refresh my memory - was it Helms) how can any person who considers himself a serious researcher or student dismiss that as immaterial? Come on. You are deliberately pushing buttons just to see what comes out of the woodwork. Reading further into your dismissal of Steven's post is kinda making me nauseous. You've got some nerve thinking you know something we, or Scott, doesn't, or that your logical brain is somehow superior, because you are the only one here that is smart enough to dismiss useless info and instead focus on what matters. Your true colors are shining through your posts now, without any restraint. I think you should write a book and get a publisher so you can get this stuff off your chest once and for all, and stop posting here. Let the larger public react to your superior 'theory' and stop thinking that anyone here needs to listen to you get your intellectually superior rocks off. Sorry administrators - I am at my wits end with this claptrap.

John - just so I understand, Philby was sacked from MI6 in 1951 because the CIA director believed Harvey and not Angleton?