Paul Brancato

Thanks Michael - really interesting stuff.

Well Paul T - I didn't know Crichton personally, but plenty is written about him on the forum website. Head of a local military intelligence unit in Dallas, involved in the motorcade planning, supplied the interpretor for Marina while she was in custody after the assassination of Oswald. According to the castro cubans -Escalante I think - he and George Bush were private funders of Nixon's Operation 40. He had his own oil company on whose board sat Clint Murchison, he was a friend of Sid Richardson, DeMohrenschilt, involved in oil leases with Batista. A very connected and suspicious character, a Republican and right winger, classmate of Earle Cabell, retired a Colonel. Wiki has a good article too. It is unclear to me who would take orders from whom, but in general I think that guys at the head of the CIA like Dulles, or at the had of major oil companies and defense contractors - inotherwords the big money people - are atop the pyramid, and the military's job is to make the world safe for their global operations.

The racist south certainly wanted JFK gone and were glad he died, but their racist agenda was not helped by that death, as LBJ continued his integration policies. LBJ was the Pentagon's senator, and it was the military industrial complex that benefitted from LBJ's ascension to the presidency. Of course I am not sure that looking at the actual winners and losers of the assassination tells us who the planners were, but surely anyone planning to kill the president would have thought LBJ would be an improvement. That does suggest that the Joint Chiefs, the group JFK feared most and was most in conflict with inside his own administration, was the source of the conspiracy. I have no doubts that the top of the food chain is somewhere above the JC. But it was the military chiefs themselves who had the first hand knowledge of the danger JFK posed to their geopolitical plans. The operations in Dallas itself may have involved Walker, and I am just as suspicious of the local military intelligence unit, Jack Crichton, and the intersection between that unit and the Dallas Police. And while I'm at this, I think the most logical explanation of why Ruby killed Oswald is that he was protecting himself. He was the Jew that would be blamed because he was part of the conspiracy on the ground. His close ties with Dallas cops gave him three things - access to the crime scene, the timing of when the prisoner would be moved, and knowledge that Oswald still hadn't talked. Once he was moved all bets were off. None of this lets Walker off the hook, as he was intertwined with both the planners and the ground crew in this scenario.

Paul - thanks for posting these. Interesting that he mentioned LBJ at least twice in his diatribes about commie simps in the government.

David - I read your list of Jim's beliefs and don't think they rise to the level of delusional. At least Jim is not claiming that the moon landing was a hoax or that the Mossad was responsible for the Sandy Hook shooting. Were Jim proven to be wrong about most of his JFK theories that still wouldn't rise to the level of proof necessary to convict Oswald. Oswald might have made the backyard photos, taken a trip to Mexico and visited the embassies, ordered the rifle and handgun, shot at Walker, taken a package to work on Nov 22, etc., and still be entirely innocent. It is not delusional to question just how far someone would go to frame Oswald, both after and before the assassination. I have to say that when someone with as much background as Mack makes an error like he did it is reasonable to question whether he did so on purpose, even if, as David points out, it doesn't make sense that he would do something like that deliberately because he knew some readers and researchers would catch the mistake and force him to retract it later. Maybe he didn't reason it through and just went with his gut. If it wasn't just an honest mistake it was at least arrogant, if not deliberately misleading.

Paul T You have done good research on Walker, and cudos for digging up the films. I won't sign in to your website now after the warning posted by Greg Parker. I hope you are able to find more, and look forward to viewing what you have uncovered when I am reassured that your site is safe. You know that I think Walker is a very strong suspect. But I also think you are a bit too wedded to your theory. Specifically, when you say you don't see enough hard evidence to link LBJ to the conspiracy I think you are using a different yardstick to measure his possible involvement than you do with Walker. Likewise with Phillips or Hunt. There is no hard evidence to link any of them to the assassination, but no doubt about their calumny. I think that all of us seekers of truth should be a bit humble about our personal theories because that is what they are - theories.

I think it looks a lot more like Oswald than Lovelady

Jim - i don't have any refutations for your arguments. Someday it might be worth arguing, especially if we could compare some of the so called original copies of the Z film to each other, the merits of your case. The eyewitness accounts that you note do differ from the film as we have it. But eyewitnesses are so often unreliable. The main point I made I stand by - that regardless of the possible merits of your case against the authenticity of filmed evidence, it does us no good to promulgate them. I think I read that you promote the on the ground detonation conspiracy theory on 9/11. I have a similar reaction to this theory. I think there is a wealth of information that suggests 9/11 was some kind of false flag event, or that certain people knew an attack was coming but deliberately did nothing to stop it. To me, arguments about the third building coming down, or detonations, diverts attention from what to me is the more serious question - were our normal safeguards disabled, allowing the attack to happen? I have the same question about the JFK assassination. I want to know who planned it, and I want to pursue avenues of investigation that might lead to answers. Jim - isn't it more likely that the eyewitnesses and anomalies in the copies of the films can be explained in other ways? I am willing to believe that the conspirators would have done anything to preserve their secrets, even doctoring film. But logistically it is an incredible stretch. If you can't convince the CT community that the films are doctored there is little chance of convincing the wider public. So what good can come out of it? Do you have a unified theory of what happened that day that incorporates your evidence of film fakery?

I am no expert, especially on photography. But I would like to reiterate what several members have previously asked: if the Zapruder film was tampered with, why? After all, anyone who has viewed any version of it comes away believing that the fatal head shot came from the front. Why go to all the trouble to disappear evidence of the limo stopping, or of any other anomalies, and leave the most crucial bit for all to see? And why was it hidden from public view? Isn't it because it shows so clearly evidence of at last one frontal shot? There is only one reasonable conclusion for me to draw. The experts that promote theories of tampering of the Z and other films are either deluded, or deliberately denigrating these crucial proofs of conspiracy so that these films will no longer be seen as accurate portrayals of what happened that day. They are working, consciously or not, to destroy the credibility of the one piece of evidence that provides to nearly everyone who sees it clear evidence of shots from the front, and thus of conspiracy. We didn't need the dictabelt recordings to prove that. We can see it with our own eyes. Its a slippery slope to allow ourselves to be convinced of fakery or tampering, and when we engage in endless arguments about whether the films are faked we make it all too easy for our media and for the public at large to lump all the conspiracy theorists together as a bunch of quacks, which most of us surely are not.

David - what is your response to Jim's assertion that Norman did not mention hearing the shells drop to the FBI on nov 26? Did the WC members account for the ambient noise level that surely was present on Nov 22? If there was a shooter above Norman who took care to build a snipers nest and hide the gun afterwards, why would he leave 3 shells in plain sight? This too convenient evidence has always bothered me, especially in light of the time it took to find and search the nest.

Len - I know you are smart and mean well. You are a good arguer. But its the classic forest and trees thing. As Salandria so eloquently said, we don't need to try to prove anything. We all know in our hearts what happened. The left simply doesn't give JFK his due. Arguing about one particular article or one particular writer doesn't prove or disprove the larger point. At least that's my take. But if you and Nathaniel want to keep this up....

Len - surely you are correct - that was his major point. But in the course of making it he managed to portray JFK as not living up to the expectations of MLK and his movement, using the word 'balked' to characterize JFK's falling short of the mark. He didn't say that LBJ couldn't have gotten the act passed without JFK's death. In any case Heidenheimer is right about the liberal media generally, a point he has been posting about for a while, and he got my attention for sure, though it was Simkin that first opened my eyes to this. And he is also right that the liberals have consistently given LBJ credit for being able to get this important work done, and in the process have marginalized JFK's efforts. Perhaps this article is not the best place to see the insidious unwillingness of the left media to see the assassination as a coup against a liberal president by the right wing military industrial complex. Chomsky and others who deny this reality participate in this rewriting of history, and to the extent that it is the intellectual educated class that is their primary audience it has the effect of dividing the left and making it ineffectual. At this point in our history it seems as if the MIC has abandoned the Republican party to the crazies and is letting them self destruct because they are no longer needed to 'manufacture consent', to use Chomsky's phrase. We have always been the majority, and that is why the control of liberal media has been so effective. The majority is divided, and so busy arguing about social issues that should have been decided decades and centuries ago that they pay less and less attention to the crimes of state.

Len - I did read it before I posted, which is why I said what I did. Its factual - LBJ did get the Civil Rights Act passed, or rather he signed the bill that Congress passed. But I am just as sick as Nathaniel is at the constant reiteration that LBJ got done what JFK could not. Actually he finished what JFK started. I would add that it was MLK who was the real hero. I would have to do a whole lot of research in order to put the article in a complete historical perspective, but he may be right when he says that politics got in JFK's way. A second proclamation would have been great, and its too bad JFK didn't do it.

Len - you either completely miss the point or are just trying to obfuscate it. What are facts? So its a fact that the civil rights act was passed under LBJ. So what? Mr. Morrow's point is well taken - it was shrewd politics by LBJ. Being 'factually' accurate is not the same as being truthful. LBJ didn't issue a second emancipation, he got JFK's bill passed, something JFK would surely have accomplished had he lived, though surely his death made it much easier for LBJ to accomplish what JFK and MLK started. Mr. Heidenheimer has made convincing arguments on several threads that one of the biggest problems we have faced over the decades has been the failure of the so-called left media to take a principled stand on the assassinations. Mr. Simkin has argued similarly. I live in Berkeley and am a long time listener to KPFA. They have the greatest archives, and believe me MLK day here is a real experience. But one subject they will never touch are the assassinations of JFK and RFK. My personal experience with this 'censorship' was that they covered my Iran Contra trading cards but had no interest in my Coup d'etat JFK cards. Of course if this was just based on my personal experience I wouldn't have more than one leg to stand on. Unfortunately its not. And this is self censorship, not Operation Mockingbird in operation. Its the old Noam Chomsky line - paraphrased - 'who gives a rats ass? What difference would it have made to US foreign or domestic policy had JFK lived'? Its pathetic, and has the effect of making all us good citizens feel doubly powerless.

There attitude is so telling. They are lying - every word, and so clearly unmoved and cavalier. Thanks for the reminder.

Bill Moyers? I've often wondered why a journalist like him would have nothing to say about LBJ, a man he worked for for years. But its hard to imagine he had a role in the assassination itself.

I agree with you David. Its very glib and seems designed to convict Oswald in abstentia. So was Oswald spying on or for right wingers? My guess is that M. Paine was trying to say Oswald was spying on them, but Salandria heard him say 'in' and wrote it that way. I might have answered my previous question about Ruth Paine and files found in her home. I thought I had read that they were Oswald's files, but the only story I could find is from Buddy Walthers who apparently claimed that there were several file cabinets at the Paine home, presumably Ruth's, and that the files were on pro-Castro sympathizers. I gather that no such files have ever surfaced?

Salandria quoted Michael Paine as saying that Oswald was a spy in right wing organizations. I just posted this query elsewhere but really would like some answers, so I am also posting it here. Salandria thought Oswald's leftist persona was a cover for an intelligence agent. I believe Michael Paine thought Oswald was a leftist. Am I right so far? So was Oswald spying for or on right wing organizations? The word 'in' is ambiguous to me. A related question is that Ruth Paine claimed Oswald had files on Cuban leftists at her house. Do those files exist, and if so who is in them?

I need some help understanding a statement Salandria made about Michael Paine. According to Salandria, Paine said that Oswald was operating as a spy in right wing wing organizations. I read this as Oswald spying on some right wingers, even thought the word Salandria uses is 'in' not 'on'. Anyone have an opinion on this? I am aware that Salandria considered Oswald a rightist, or at least no leftie. I doubt that Michael Paine would have agreed with that, but am not really sure. On a related topic, I read somewhere on another post that Ruth Paine claimed that Oswald had files at her house on left wing Cubans. Do those files exist? Were they indeed as Paine described? Thanks for any clarification on these points which I consider important to understanding Oswald, and the Paines.

As for Curry and others thinking the shots emanated from the TSBD, if they were standing in front of the building they would have heard the echo of a shot from the grassy knoll bouncing off the building itself. The sound of the shot reaching their ears would be nearly simultaneous with the echo as it bounced off the building.

Jim - the link on your action alert does not being up Chris' personal email, so I sent one to a generic link called 'programming'. Perhaps we could find a direct link that works?

Jim - thanks for directing us to your action alert article. I will send an email to Chris Heinbaugh. If they are planning to use Rose as a pretext for not publishing the transcript we might as well bring that pimple to a head.

Paul T - I am trying to separate the shooting at Walker with the killing of JFK. I agree that LHO was not a loner. But doesn't Volkmar put the blame on Oswald for killing JFK by his psychological assessment of him? I find it very dishonest. If Oswald was who VS said he was he would have let the world know it, and that Oswald did not do, whether in his writings, or afterwards in police custody, or with a note for posterity. Nothing. Yes he believed in the possibility of a new social order and he wanted to play a part in it. But there is no evidence of self aggrandisement, no wish to be famous. He is imo the patsy, not the assassin. He was not part of the plot to kill the president, but was set up by the plotters, who may very well have been Walker and his buddies. Likewise if he was the patsy and not the killer we can look at the Paines as innocent of involvement in the plot to killl the president. Of course I know about all of the links between the Paines and the oligarchy, Dulles, etc, just like all of the connections of DeMohrenschildt. But all of them shared with Oswald a certain independant leftist idealist point of view. They were not imo secret rightists, infiltrators of the left, any more than Oswald was. Paul - I know we have gone back and forth on this. I respect your point of view and the deep thought that went into it. You almost convinced me that Oswald was a phony leftist, a right winger at heart. But I find myself on the other side of this argument now. I think he was spying on them. His phony FPCC branch was part of that effort - a leftist masquerading as a leftist if you will. He tried to kill Walker and paid for it with his life and legacy as the murderer of a president. I might add that I could be totally wrong about all of this.

Bill - I agree your interview with Volkmar Schmidt is important. To me it seems designed to implicate Oswald in the assassination. But since I don't think Oswald shot JFK I don't buy Schmidt's analysis of Oswald. If he put the idea in LHO's head to shoot Walker it could only have worked if LHO was sympathetic to the basic argument that Walker was dangerous, a possible future Fuhrer.. DeMohrenschildt didn't believe LHO was guilty of killing JFK, and like Marina he thought that LHO liked JFK. So I am ready to discount any reports that say that LHO was angry at JFK because he sympathized with Cuban exiles or with Castro.

de Mohrenschildt's book about Oswald pretty much presents him as Oswald presents himself. I think entirely too much is made of De Mohrenschildt's background. If he was part of a set up of LHO surely it wasn't to kill a president or to be a patsy. It just doesn't make sense. These guys did not hate JFK.