Paul Brancato

Thank you Larry. It is a tough task you are attempting. I too hope Bill Simpich joins in. I read his book and did not come away with black and white interpretations of the mole hunt or with the role of various upper level CIA operatives.

Morales and Phillips were top operational, not likely rogues at all. Simpich did great work, but you are quoting him as if his word on this subject is irrefutable. I'd love to have him here joining this, because from my reading of his book it's not nearly as black and white as you make it.

Of course the CIA was divided in itself. It still is. That doesn't prove that the division was between the top of the chain of command and some rogues who had joined with a cast of characters from all over the hate map. It's so illogical.

I could not find written material by Morningstar, just videos. It seems sensationalist. If you have links to anything other that audio and Video I would like to dig in a little.

You have been shown ample reason to look elsewhere but are wedded to your theory. My main objection is not that the hate groups didn't have ample reasons to want JFK dead, it's that it cannot explain the coverup no matter how you spin it, and that the actions of the Johnson administration are the best clue as to who was behind the assassination and why. I remember the anti -communist fervor very well thank you. My family experienced it personally. I also know that JFK, Eisenhower, Johnson, etc were not Communists, and no one with any intellect believed that. It's too simplistic Paul. Peter Dale Scott has pointed the way for decades to understanding what lies behind US policies. Is there anyone reading this, besides yourself, that agrees with you on this? Doubt it.

Paul - if I misremembered something you said, or attributed something I read here on this forum to you when it was someone else, I am sorry, I could have sworn that I read something you wrote that indicated support for Romney. I cannot find it now.

Paul - your whole tone has changed. Now you are absolutely sure of things. But your definitions are so black and white. Think about it - only the agents and rogues that thought JFkK was a Communist, like the JBS did, participated in his murder. I have never taken the JBS line seriously. After all, to them nearly everyone in the government was a Communist. But Paul, so many higher ups knew better, but they may have considered him a traitor nonetheless. I don't think there were lines in the sand between all the hate groups and their beliefs. They overlapped. Words are just words. One man's Communist is another man's traitor, or hero for that matter. Shades of gray, not black and white, is what distinguishes these groups. Dulles, Angleton, Helms, knew better than to call JFK a Communist. You have to be pretty stupid to think he was. (As John Cleese said recently, the problem with stupid people is that they are too stupid to realize how stupid they are). There is no doubt that they strongly disagreed with his world view, his actions, his missives, his speeches. I am sure they considered him dangerous from an establishment point of view. The notion that the the conspiracy was made up of a group of individuals whose common theme was that JFK was a Communist is ludicrous on its face. You take the JBS rhetoric far too seriously.

And now you want us all to know how you really feel about Peter Dale Scott, a great researcher to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude for his unflinching courage. What is this board to you? It seems like you consider it your own bully pulpit where you can repeat your theories ad infinitum so posterity will know what a genius you were, in total disrespect for the good researchers and citizens who try to engage in meaningful exchanges here. And you admit it, straight out. You repeat yourself over and over just in case some stray reader chances upon this board in need of some Trejo wisdom. Sorry folks - I just can't stand the veneer of politeness that Trejo uses to hide his agenda. There is nothing humble about Mr Trejo. His voice is the only one that matters. If I have violated the terms of use on this board so be it.

Phillips and Morales worked within the chain of command. Until you provide proof that they did not, rather than conjecture, that is the only reasonable conclusion. You are constitutionally incapable of ever suspecting that the CIA could be culpable. Before Bill Simpich came along with his great research you posted on this board that if Morales was shown to be part of the conspiracy it would surely indicate CIA upper level involvement in the murder of our beloved president. Now you are sure that he was involved because of Simpich, but equally sure he was rogue. Need I say more? It is your bias, not Simpich's work, that explains that bit of intellectual sophistry. But hey, you supported Romney for president, so I am not really surprised.

I agree. Rejection of her testimony means little. Disappearing documents are suspicious. Whatever they contained, they are missing.

Which makes those files significant.

What's more likely - that the CIA started a 'mole hunt' after Oswald's impersonation in MC because they genuinely did not know what happened, or that Morales and Phillips were working for the chain of command? The mole hunt does not prove what Paul T keeps saying it does. After all, if Morales et al were working within the chain of command it makes perfect sense to put something on the record that distanced Helms, Dulles, Angleton et al from the new escalation in Oswald's role, transforming him from a dangle to a patsy.

I studied UFO phenomenon for years and came to the same conclusion about MJ 12. It's a minefield of disinformation, crackpots, etc. but I also concluded that the phenomena were real, and that our government has contributed to that minefield purposefully. So I have to consider the possibility that the MJ 12 document was planted in order for investigators to discover that they were false, sowing seeds of confusion and obscuring the truth, whatever that is. As for Congressional investigations, the pattern I see is that government secrecy is gradually winning the battle over democratic attempts to uncover truths. There are good people who participate, but they are increasingly stymied. Some Democrats can be trusted to keep the secrets, some can't. Seriously, Lee Hamilton serving on the 9/11 committee is a good example of the former. So is Kerry. Florida Governor Graham was so frustrated that he published a work of fiction in order to clear his conscience. What is the relationship between the Saudi ruling family and our government? Why were Saudi nationals allowed to leave the US while all other air traffic was grounded after 9/11? Why were most of the pages in the report dealing with Saudi Arabia redacted? The Church Committee was in my view the strongest. I do see your main point that the culprits are not the good elected officials that serve and attempt to wrest the truth out of the national security establishment. It's their relative ineffectiveness that troubles me. Investigators like yourself have the time and skill to dig out relevant information, and without you we would have next to nothing, because the official reports are weak. Sheehan got a lot closer to the truth in his investigation of Iran Contra than Congress did. Congress is supposed to have subpoena power, and they rarely if ever use it. They make deals with lawyers, close hearings, redact reports, and treat perpetrators of crimes with kid gloves. They are no doubt worried about their personal safety.

Good stuff Steven. The files discovered at a Ruth Paine's house reveal something important. I see no reason to disbelieve the initial report that they were found. So either Oswald was keeping records, or the Paines. Someone was spying for someone. I used to think they were Oswald's, but agree that Ruth Paine is more likely. Once we accept that the shots that killed JfK came from somewhere other than the TSBD, and the bullets from a gun other than the MC, the Paines actions before and after become suspect. Mary Bancroft's close connections to both the Paines and Alan Dulles, Ruth's files, and Michael Paine's connections to Volkmar Schmidt and George DeMohrenschildt makes it likely, at least to me, that the Paines were CIA assets.

Larry - to be clear do you not consider Congressional investigations of the past 30 years become exercises in damage control rather than exposes of covert operations? I sure do. I would not equate Sheehan with sensationalist news. Practially no one is listening to him. I am all for hard journalism such as yours, and have read one of your books and have another on my queue. I don't seek out sensationalism because I don't like facts. In fact I don't call the conspiracy books I read and admire sensationalist at all. Facts only lead so far, because investigators are only allowed to see part, not all, of the story. It's up to us to fill in the blanks. I have met both Sheehan and Kerry (twice) and find Sheehan genuine and Kerry a fraud. That is only my opinion of course, but I don't mind sharing it here. That doesn't mean that Sheehan is a totally reliable source, and it doesn't make Kerry entirely useless either.

In my opinion posting links to articles that use Liberty Lobby as a source does not inspire confidence in the information therein or in the poster.

It's a very scary story that Sheehan weaves herein, full of personal stories that ring true. His take on John Kerry explains a lot. Well, Kerry is Skull and Bones, and he surely plays ball when he has to. His Iran Contra hearings were a joke.

And what was in the boxes of documents delivered by Lorenz to the HSCA?

Paul - constant repetition of your thesis is really unnecessary. I bumped a thread on Michael Paine which you should look at. Malcolm Ward asserts that Michael Paine was living in the same house as Schmidt.

Larry - do you dismiss the Lorenz/Sturgis material or just view it with healthy skepticism?

Malcolm - thank you.

I am bumping this thread in order to ask whatever poster claimed Michael Paine lived with Volkmar Schmidt to explain and verify. I cannot find anything to support this. I also want Paul T to look at these posts so he can see that last year he posited that Morales was not involved, and that if it turned that he was, it would perforce lead to assumptions of high level CIA involvement in the plot. Today Paul has been convinced that Morales was a plotter, but a rogue nonetheless, and that his involvement does not implicate upper CIA. We are of course entitled to change our views when new info surfaces. But this is more than that. It is simply adding Morales while denying the implications thereof, implications which are quite obvious.

Of course it does not answer my question. Why provide the link?

Thanks for the link. Does it answer my question? I will watch it.

Was Michael Paine living with Volkmar Schmidt?