Paul Brancato

Tommy - don't you find Carle's quoted comment about Cuban disinformation to be more likely CIA disinformation?

Beautiful stuff Steven. I don't know you at all, so I hope there is no 'Jewish Conspiracy' angle to this post. The connections of Bush to the internationalist banker crowd, to the corporations surrounding covert ops like the Watergate break in, to the Bay of Pigs, and especially to the CIA trained assassins of Operation 40 and their incarnations for the next 25+ years seems to me to be the key to the assassination. Garrison was close, but was not allowed to dig further into Permindex, very unfortunate for all of us.

Veciana's recent revelation (finally) that Bishop was David Atlee Phillips should have put to rest any further speculation. But somehow that story died. Does anyone have an update on Veciana? Did he put his statement on tape?

I don't buy the blackmail angle. Morales was no rogue.

You are simply put, incorrigible. You are unable to imagine perfidy at the top of the national security food chain. Every time a CIA official, such as Morales, is obviously implicated in the conspiracy, you assert that the rogue operation goes no higher. Why? Morales is in the middle of this, but the files, and the pictures, prove he was no rogue. Oswald was taking orders, say you? But those that were giving him orders were acting on their own? no Shackley, no Operation 40, no Angleton, no Dulles, no Helms, no Phillips. Just Morales acting on his own. Oswald was just stupid enough to take orders. The others? Smart enough to keep secrets. I haven't read all of Simpich, but I did read the first two chapters. Is he likewise drawing the line at Morales? The whole point of deep politics is plausible deniability. Morales was no loose cannon. He was part of a much larger operation, always, through his entire career. He was part of a team. Sheehan called it the Secret Team. Others would say that team was taking orders from on high, and should not properly be called Secret, since they were governmental, not rogue. Can you find it within yourself to look at the footprints of the CIA all over Oswald and consider that maybe, perhaps, the bleeping CIA was giving the orders?

What is your explanation for why there was no proper investigation? I know your answer - prevent a civil war. You immediately conflated Kostikov with Cuba, which had the effect of stopping me from reading the rest. LBJ is on record as saying he could not risk war with the Soviet Union. Your theory as I understand it is that Oswald was actually trying to get to Cuba. I don't believe that for a second. The problem with your theory on Walker and Bannister and the rest is - for me - the story you weave around it, not the principals themselves. They might have been guilty as charged. Its the rest of your scenario, your attempt to wrap in Dean's story and your theory of who Oswald really was, that makes no sense, and you have to do a lot of over reaching and twisting future history to get there. We never did invade Cuba, but the Cold War money machine continued unabated, and with our new stated enemy -terrorism - continues today. We did fight the Vietnam war. And most importantly, we did cover up the conspiracy. I will never believe that we did it to prevent a confrontation with right wing fanatics. Heck, LBJ and Congress passed the Civil Rights Act.

Newman's point was that Angleton knew that tying Oswald to Kostikov would guarantee a coverup after the fact.

The evidence for Angleton's running Oswald is in the way he divided up Oswald's CIA files. You've read Newman's great study. No one has delved deeper into Oswald and the footprints of intelligence that surround his life, and he concluded, finally, that Angleton was the evil genius who managed to make sure that no one except himself and a few of his counterintelligence staff saw the whole picture. Oswald intersected with CIA operatives, real ones, at every step, and Angleton knew every instance, information which he guarded closely and parsed out carefully. Newman convinced me of this, and it was eye opening. I used to think the operation to kill the president was rogue, but I don't any more, largely as a result of Newman's work. It was Angleton who took possession of Winston Scott's files, who took Mary Pinchot's diary. His background screams fascist. It wasn't hard for me to conclude that Allen Dulles was involved once I realized that Angleton was pulling Oswald's strings. You know, I understand why you think Walker and Bannister were rogues. Official history generally backs up that belief. But I am not so sure. The FBI and CIA have major assets who are not on their payrolls. I thought that one of the major points of disagreement between you and Ernie was that he trusted the files to tell the story, and just couldn't believe that operations could literally be hidden from view. Ernie believes that everything the FBI does is documented as a matter of policy. I don't believe that, and I don't think you do either. So why is it so hard to believe for instance that Bannister might have still been working for elements of the US government after he 'retired'? He was clearly in league with CIA supported anti-Castro groups. You are right - I am predisposed to see evil at the top of the pyramid, especially the part that is hidden from view. The researchers I have come to appreciate the most have reached similar conclusions.The hardest thing for the research community to face, in my opinion, is that forces within the government killed JFK. They are only rogue in so far as they did not do their dirty work with the foreknowledge of elected officials. But, would you agree, looking at our dysfunctional government today, that perhaps in a way it has always been true that the real power is vested in the unelected government. Congress for instance doesn't write the laws they pass. The laws are written by lawyers whose names we generally don't know, for purposes that don't benefit us. In a nutshell, you see the JBS running the show, I see the old boy network best defined by groups like Skull and Bones wielding the real power, and funding groups like JBS and Tea Party to confuse the populace. It's not, as you suggested recently, that I have a problem with wealthy people. I have a problem with the sociopaths that create a world based on permanent war, who worship money and power and don't care about the dreams and desires of the rest of us.

Paul - is Angleton's obvious running of Oswald, ie dividing his CIA file into several components and keeping the full story to himself and a few trusted associates not enough to disabuse you of the notion that only low level CIA functionaries and operatives were possibly involved in JFK's assassination? Is it conceivable to you that Bannister and Walker answered to higher authority when they participated in sheep dipping Oswald? The CIA's fingerprints are all over Oswald, and they hid it from every investigation and continue to hide it now.

Ditto

Hemming loved the attention I am sure. Greg, since you interviewed him at length, did you ever ask him about George Bush? What is your assessment of him? Did he provide useful information? Paul - as I have notes many times, your focus on Walker as a person of interest is appreciated by me. But even you would have to admit you are more wedded to your theory than any of the other posters, and nearly always bring the subject of your posts back to it. But then you say things that are surmises as if they are fact. Seriously, the idea that several plots were in effect, and that various plotters remained confused after the hit as to whether it was the hit team they supported that actually did the deed, is just a guess on your part, designed to fit the notion that all those haters must have sent teams to Dealey plaza that day on a need to know basis. There are much simpler explanations. Maybe there were multiple hit teams, but you are just guessing, and stating it as fact. Could you try to engage in discussion without promoting your theory above all others, without mentioning Walker and Dean and Hall in nearly every post? You tend to start by giving some credence to the post you are responding to, but the ending is nearly always a repetition of your own theory.

Wasn't Rothermel a Us govt agent?

Gene, Thomas, Larry - if it weren't for you three I would ignore this thread. Trejo and Lazar are engaged in a circular dance. I think we should just give them their own thread and rename it. Ernie - thanks for making my case that it was not the Birchers who killed JFK, as he was just another commie simp or worse. They gained nothing from his death. Paul T - likewise, whether you see it or not, you have made the case that getting rid of Castro was not the goal of the plotters, though you manage to rationalize your pov by saying that in the end their goal was thwarted. I prefer straight lines. Thomas Graves - thanks for including the Soviet military machine as being a beneficiary - very inciteful and appropriately cynical. If one does not come away from studying this era with a cynical mind one has not seen deeply enough. Gene - though I find much to agree with you on, one thing I don't agree with is your assessment that the forces at play in the '60's somehow faded into obscurity, other than of course the JBS. But they were always marginal. This is the strategy of tension writ large on the American stage. No Gene, the plotters took power and have never relinquished it. The military industrial congressional media complex is alive and stronger than ever. This way of reading history assumes that two party politics is a charade for the masses. Left, right, left right, we march our armies together in the service of the corporate power. No Paul T - you are wrong - I have no problem with the 1%. Its an artificial construct, another meaningless division. But I do have a problem with those among them who are in on this dirty little secret.

Pulleasse. The best explanation for Hall and Hemming's alternatively believable and not believable statements is disinfo. Garrison's star witnesses like Hall and Perry helped ruin his case. Btw, I love the way you capitalize 'communist'.

Ernie - the answer to your third question is easy enough, and it is a good question to ask, because a plot would only have been worth it if LBJ was preferable to JFK. If Bircher ideology is to be taken at face value, LBJ was not much of an improvement. But for the Pentagon and the CIA there is absolutely no question that LBJ was the man they wanted to see in the White House. And that is also true for the Mafia, and for Hoover.

Believing that one knows which of Hemming's statements are fact and which are fiction is folly. Natural tendency is to believe him when he says something that fits in with ones theory.

Gene - its an interesting observation that Walker was being used. I agree with you on the ground crew. I guess I already made clear my belief that orders came from higher up. Did you mean Rafael Quintero, or is there also a Rolando Quintero? Have you read Joan Mellen's book 'Our Man in Haiti'? Although she presents no direct evidence of this, I suspect that the identity of the still redacted Wubriny 2 is George Bush, and Wubriny 1 is Thomas Devine. One of the problems in nailing this down is that not everyone who worked for the CIA was on the payroll. In the case of George Bush, I think its clear from the infamous Hoover Memo that he worked for the CIA at least as early as 1959, but in the capacity of private citizen, through his family connections. No real proof of his involvement with the BOP and the Cuban exiles being trained to assassinate foreign leaders like Castro, but plenty of circumstantial evidence. A look at his later career is very enlightening. He eventually becomes CIA director, and then Vice President. During the Reagan years it is clear that Bush was the a White House point man for the Iran Contra operations, using many of the same Cubans. Bush family involvement explains a lot of future history, including the continuing redactions and unreleased documents. Loosely, this is 'sources and methods', except in this case revealing a truth like that, i.e. George Bush and the CIA operations involving assassinations and possibly the JFK assassination, would totally shake up our political landscape. Funny thing, I keep coming back to this on the forum, but get very little feedback. Do readers think I am nuts, or are they just afraid to chime in? I know first hand how closely the Bush family watches its backside.

No - don't agree that the Dulles brothers were heroes. They were among the worst villains of the 20th century. They didn't have to see JFK as a Communist. That is so simplistic. They were not that stupid. But he was their enemy, and the enemy of the military industrial complex. The history of the sixties in particular was all about preventing a non-violent revolution from succeeding, about protecting global corporate interests. Dulles and Bush and the rest of them were successful, and the rest is history. As Pope Francis says, uneven distribution of wealth is the biggest problem the world faces today. We can thank those regressive forces for putting the wealthy first and cementing their power. Assassination was and is a major tool of the CIA. They put together an assassination squad - you've read many of the names over the years on various posts - and used it for decades. Did Walker do that? Walker was a hater, an obviously lonely man who needed to see himself as more important than he was. Dulles was beyond important, a man at the center of American power. Can you doubt for one second his hatred of JFK, a man who created enemies with his increasingly humanist view of the world, with his desire to see peace in his lifetime between east and west? The proof is in the pudding. Castro lived, millions of SE Asians and thousands of American boys died - for what? The continuation of a morally decrepit world view.

Paul I agree with the Australian, and think that you miss the forest for the trees. You construct a theory that is too pat when it comes to drawing fine lines between the conservatives and the radical right, as you call them. You are unwilling to see Hoover and Dulles by their real colors, and are wedded to Walker as being the key. You seem to have decided long ago that the conspiracy could not come from the top of the national security state pyramid, because it presumes too much evil from our leaders. I would say that the only difference between Walker and Dulles, for instance, was one of style. Walker was out front, the others were much more careful and subtle. And for sure, when it comes to the raw exercise of power, Dulles, Hoover and others of their ilk had much more than Walker. You are forced to bend and twist to explain why the plotters had the overthrow of Castro as their objective, and Johnson and his administration were forced to adopt the lone nut to avoid possible civil war. A more direct cause and effect exists - that the plotters had much more global aims in mind, and that JFK was threatening those aims. Getting rid of him enabled them to consolidate power and proceed unhindered. Castro was small potatoes, as subsequent events show.

John - thanks for that clarification. I missed that subtlety when I first read your post on Hiss.

Paul - your theory that the coverup involved different forces from the perpetrators, and your proof of that theory, doesn't prove your point. Sure, the totality of the coverup, its extreme broadness, indicates many forces were involved at that stage. But that does not preclude some of the perpetrators were also integral parts of the coverup. Dulles, with his wide connections and his position on the Warren Commission, his firing by JFK after the BOP, suggests he was in on it. He is a most logical choice, once you accept the notion that the conspiracy to kill JFK might have originated from the top of the national security state.

I still wonder what Mr. Simkin means when he says there may be a parallel between the Hiss case and the Oswald case. John, I too appreciate your open mind, and its true that doctrinaire thinking is to be avoided. But are you inferring that you think the Warren Commission got it right, or that further release of FBI files or KGB files might convince you of that in the future?

An interesting post, but I don't think it has any bearing on the JFK case.

Steven - where are you going with this? In simple terms, are you saying that the CFR is a backer of Communist regimes? If so, for what purpose?

I agree with Larry on this one. The plotters eliminated what to them was by far the worse threat - JFK. They used the assassination squad set up for third world operations including Cuba. That does not mean however that they killed our president because he stood in the way of their anti-Castro operations, or that Castro's long term survival disproves this theory. Larry - would you go so far as to say that Operation 40 was the group from which the assassins were drawn?