Paul Brancato

Doesn't his Tower story tie in with Harry Dean's account of the JBS southern California/General Walker's connection to the assassination?

Vanity Fairs recent issue is mostly about Jackie. I hope that there will be another issue devoted to the assassination and its postscript.

I agree with almost everything said on this thread. I had a conversation with my 57 yr old girlfriend the other night, which ensued when she asked me why I was still reading about the JFK assassination, why it mattered to me. She knows something fishy went on, has always known that. But she doesn't care to know the details. I think I know why she and millions of others feel this way. They don't seem to comprehend that everything going on around them today might have been different had our heroes of the 60's lived. To be quite cynical, I would add that the Kennedy brothers and MLK and others, even John Lennon (my own addition) didn't stand a chance. I might add Jesus to that list too, just to put a deeper historical spin on my point of view. Movements that seek to overthrow despotic or amoral regimes fail because the persons at the privileged top of the pyramid, whether its the ancient Romans or the US military industrial banking complex, use any and all means necessary to hold on to power.

A great disservice was done to our collective consciousness when the Kennedy brothers were maligned post-mortem and painted as just a slightly different brand of cold warriors and privileged elites. They were anything but, and their violent deaths prove that. Had they lived and succeeded in implementing their visions of a more just democracy, one that genuinely cared about the problems engendered by our reckless and selfish foreign and domestic policies, we would not have had the millions of deaths in Vietnam, or the Iraq war.

As long as the banksters control money and thus control our elected government and our courts, we will continue to be at their mercy.

Just my two cents.

John Thomas Masen, an interesting character who may have been in the Dallas jail while Oswald was there.

What specifically do you think Mark Lane did that mislead investigators?

I don't believe I ever saw the history channel episodes on LBJ. Are they available somewhere, or viewable online?

Thanks Robert

Douglas - what is the link on page 2 of Hager's series?

Pamela - as a fellow lover of history I like your openminded approach. I have read as much of Ms. Baker's material as I could. Her presentation is very strong but the material just doesn't ring true, and without documentation it seems more like the rant of a person without much of a life. Bu she deserved a thorough hearing for sure.

Thanks for this post. His points appeal to my conspiracy mind. It makes a lot of sense.

And both blissfully unawares.

I didn't know Carl, but I believe he wrote to my trading card publisher expressing appreciation for the Coup D'Etat cards. I think he had it right in Yankee and Cowboy wars.

Paul - you are hijacking this thread, I am sure inadvertantly.

Like a lot of the Mexico stories reported by Albarelli in his recent book, this seems to me like an attempt to reinforce Oswald's guilt, and his leftist orientation. Its interesting from that point of view, but I wouldn't waste much time on it as evidence of conspiracy.

Maybe Oswald was a Marxist.

In the lead up to the 2008 US presidential election Naomi Wolf spoke to a large crowd in Berkeley. Her theory at that time was that there was a coup in the works, and that Obama would never be allowed to win the election and take over the presidency. As it turns out she was wrong, but she was also wrong in her estimation that Obama was really a threat to the national security state. Unlike JFK, who stood for a real change in US foreign policy and who, in my estimation, was killed because he had the courage of his convictions, Obama has continued the foreign policies of his predecessors. I have read that whistleblowers are suffering as never before. Perhaps Mr. Snowden, realizing this, chose to attempt to keep himself out of the hands of the US government rather than put himself in harms way.

Why would the FBI be sending checks to Oswald?

Very well put Greg.

David Lifton - thanks for claryfying your position re Oswald and MacMillan. I have gone back and forth for years on who Oswald was, and lately I am of a different opinion than yourself and others here. After reading all of Oswald's writings, listening to his radio interview, and reading DeMohrenschildt's book, I came to the conclusion that Oswald was what most people who met him described him as - a non-conformist idealistic leftist. Either that is true, or he was living a complete lie to everyone. In fact, the only person who seemed to see him differently was Volkmar Schmidt, who claimed that Oswald had his sights set on JFK, and that he, Volkmar, put the suggestion in his head that Walker would be a better object of his hate. Let me ask you to clarify your position further: do you think Oswald, in his capacity as a CIA operative, was a right winger masquerading as a leftist? As an old lefty myself I thought his radio interview very nuanced and not party line, and think it would he unusual for a right winger to portray a leftist like that. What do you think he was up to in New Orleans? I read Best Evidence years ago, and don't recall if you laid out an overall theory of the conspiracy.

Agree that Dobson should have something to contribute.

Jim Glover - please tell us what you mean when you say Shadow bus. Just so you know, I find the thread interesting, and was a fan of Phil Ochs, who I saw several times and whose records I listened to. I am not a wise guy. I am genuinely interested in what you have to say.

I wondered why Hughes would hire Otash to bug Marilyn Monroe. Thanks for the info on that. I see your point. I always found her apparent suicide not believable, nor could I imagine RFK or Lawford actually killing her. If I understand it, your proposed theory is that the timing of her death suggests that someone knew about the altercation that day and used it as cover, hoping to send a message to the Kennedys, or even to pin her death on the Kennedy clan. Of course they failed, but, as an aside and in my opinion, so did the plotters who killed JFK, who tried to link that death to Castro. I wonder what the protocol would be for someone like Otash. Would he report to someone in the Hughes clan immediately when the bug picked up something interesting? I imagine he would. Was Maheu in charge of Hughes' operation at the time?

David - what do you make of RFK Jr.'s recent statements regarding his father's private comments about the WC?

All the articles repeat the same info. I guess its inconclusive, other than to say that RFK and Lawford were with Marilyn on the day she died and she was upset. Its hard to imagine one of them suffocating her, and Otash doesn't specifically say that they did. I am curious - what do you think?

Douglas - am I reading this correctly? Did Otash say in these notes that Bobby Kennedy killed Marilyn?

Someone claimed that John values decorum over truth, or something like that. Nonsense. He is not out of bounds at all when he asks that people disagree without resorting to nastiness. What's wrong with that?

I read over the recent exchange with Lifton and DiEugenio and Scully. I don't think this is about whether John is protecting a published writer from criticism on this board. Its about protecting any of us from personal attacks. Lifton's behavior in this wasn't spotless either, but he was responding in kind, and lost his cool a bit. But I don't see where he started the unpleasantness. I would have felt like he did in his place. And btw I think Lifton is a little blind to the extent which the CIA exercises control over the media. But that isn't the point. It is certainly a matter of style not substance.

Were DiEugenio and Scully to accept their fault and write to John expressing regret that they had become nasty about all this that would be enough to reinstate them in my mind. But just pointing out that others have similarly resorted to personal attacks but were not so punished is not enough. John just picked the two whomwere most egregious and made an example of them. I'd like to see those two remain here, but until there is some expression of understanding from them I support John's decision.

Someone else asked several pages ago - sorry I have lost track of who - if I think John should post his displeasure publicly or privately. I would answer privately, but if that didn't work then a public confrontation would be a good idea in my opinion.

Sorry for the rambling. This whole subject is somewhat upsetting because of some personal family history with the disruptive tactics of government agents. When discussions amongst us devolve into one on one attacks it causes me to distrust the motives of both parties, almost as if their argument becomes a show designed to discourage inclusive debate. This has happened previously with several posters, and when it does it causes me to tune out, which I then suspect to be exactly the point.