Paul Brancato

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?

What the hell happened with the film that was supposedly put up for sale? I would guess that the story was real, that someone bought the film, and that all present signed a non-disclosure agreement, which btw has become the norm in any dealings that would reveal anything about how power works. From my lowly place as a musician I know this to be a fact on the ground. I had to sign one in order to perform at the proposal of Kanye West to Kim Kardashian!, and had a conversation on that occasion with some freelance musicians in which they told me of similar signings on jobs they had done on yachts where secret deals and meetings were taking place. I think this a more likely explanation for the death of that story than the idea that the film doesn't exist or that the sale never took place. The common denominator in this thread is that there was, as Peter Dale Scott would surmise, a continuity of government operation in play, and that elements of the CIA and other intelligence units were part of that operation. We can guess who was spotted there and whether the presence of one operative or another was logical, but the fact remains that an operation took place that day, and it wasn't 'rogue'. It wasn't one government agency or another, but rather elements of several of them, the common ground being a more hidden group not on the books, not overseen by our elected government in their official capacity but probably including some elements of same. I agree that it was necessary to film their coup in order to protect the operation from future revelations.

I'm glad you posted this Doug. I found the article on Zite, a news app. Peter Dale Scott is always worth reading, and his thinking has influenced me for decades. He is always careful not to jump to conclusions or fly off the handle on some conspirator or other. He has written about Jack Crichton often, a man who gets scant attention from most writers and researchers. But really, when you think about it, Scott's methodology does not focus on the details like the shooting scenario or the autopsy, but rather on the deeper implications of the crime. The reason for this is obvious. Anyone with a brain knows there was a crossfire, and a conspiracy to cover that up. The only questions that matter are who and why, and the how of it is only important in that context. I wish that we here on this board were more interested in the bigger picture. Perhaps we are, but find it uncomfortable to talk about it. In any case, I thought I would post a response in order to keep the thread alive. I would like board members to talk about continuity of government, about the not so hidden threads running through 'deep' events in our history. I've expressed my view often, usually without response here, that there is a power establishment that takes the long view and does whatever it takes to hold onto their power, that certain families have been central to this conspiracy, such as the Dulles and Bush families, and that today's US government disfunction and global morass is part of a long range plan to divide and conquer in order to enrich their coffers in perpetuity.

Steven Gaal makes good points. Oswald never shot at Walker, and evidence was planted by the Paines to incriminate him so that the WC could participate in the greatest hoodwink in US history, run essentially by Allen Dulles. Btw, I had never heard before that Michael Paine was living with Volkmar Schmidt. Is that True? I also tend to see Oswald the way David Andrews does - that his involvement with the NO crowd was not because he was blackmailed, or that he was a co-conspirator, but because he was part of an intelligence operation dangle. I am more and more inclined to see DeM and the Paines as being intelligence operatives who participated in the incrimination of Oswald after the fact, and handled him before the fact. There is just too much coincidence otherwise.

Not surprising, nor is it surprising that in all the coverage on Secret Service problems in history I haven't seen JFK mentioned at all.

Paul - since you have decided to ignore my advice I have decided to stop reading your posts. You imagine that there are a world of readers out there who chance by the forum, and that you are in a unique position to convince them of your theory. How very presumptuous of you, and very boring.