Paul Brancato

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I've haven't read The Soong Dynasty, but I'd bet good money that it does not claim that Soong "controlled" Chiang. I'd also bet good money that it does not claim that Soong was the wealthiest man in the world.  

I haven't read The Soong Dynasty, but I've read many books and many articles on the Sino-Japanese War, Chiang Kai-shek, and the Pacific Theater in WW II, and not one of them makes the false claim that Soong controlled Chiang. Again, for about the tenth time, Soong resigned in disgust from Chiang's government in 1933 and did not return for nine years because he could not persuade Chiang to be as tough against the Japanese as Soong thought he should be. 

Prouty's errors about Soong and Chiang, as bad as they are, are not nearly as egregious as his bizarre claims that FDR and Stalin reached an agreement at the Tehran Conference about Mao standing down in China, that Chiang and his delegation attended the Tehran Conference, that Elliott Roosevelt saw the Chinese delegation at Habanaya Airport in Iraq on the way to Tehran, that Elliott Roosevelt knew the Chinese delegation was at the Tehran Conference, that Churchill was delayed at a Russian checkpoint in Tehran because he had no ID on him, and that while Churchill and his delegation were allegedly delayed at the checkpoint the Chinese delegation stood up in their cars and openly laughed and pointed at the British delegation.   

All first hand accounts. Are your sources first hand accounts? 

Michael - do you really want to get to the truth about the assassination? 

If Prouty’s claims about JFK plans to leave VN were only his statements that would be one thing. But the NS memoranda are real, and the ‘liberal’ journalists who deny this are in fact revisionists. Why would I or anyone care what these ‘liberal’ say? Our media has perpetuated the myth that JFK was killed by a lone nut with no political objectives. Is that what you believe Michael? A simple yes or no would be appreciated.

What is the source for your rebuttal? 

The 1994 interview is so prescient - incredible. 
He mentions Report From Iron Mountain, widely considered to be a farce. Might I ask what any of you think of this? 

Michael - the Prouty interview is available. What is your source for your rebuttal? 

To be clear, if my assumption is correct, the memo is from Clyde Tolson, and he claims that Katzenbach, then Deputy AG, told him that the man in custody in Dallas was to be blamed for the murder. I would read that as coming from Hoover, who had already told Katzenbach’s boss the same thing. 
Sandy - refresh my memory - who in the CIA was communicating with Hoover prior to his phone call to RFK? 
It sure seems like the FBI and Justice department were at loggerheads with the CIA and Military from the get go. This seems like a good reason for LBJ to be sitting on the crapper on AF 1 freaking out. If the planners were in communication with AF 1, and they were prepared beforehand with a designated patsy who they had linked in any way they could to Soviets and Cubans, it must have been painfully obvious to LBJ what came next. So in this case Hoover and LBJ decided to clamp down on this purposeful conspiracy and enforce the lone gunman theory immediately. It might also suggest that RFK knew enough to side with Hoover and LBJ on this immediately, through Katzenbach. 

I too noticed the attempt to normalize the mocking of anyone that believes Operation Mockingbird was real and is ongoing. 
It would have been nice if the journalist had confronted RFK Jr on the spot instead of pointing out the fallacies afterwards regarding the effectiveness of Covid vaccines. As RFK Jr pointed out, the journalist was unprepared. He was there to do a hit piece disguised as ‘I came there in good faith to be fair but just didn’t like your manner or your theories’. 

On 9/27/2023 at 4:55 AM, David Whelan said:

I strongly advise you all not to engage with Michael Griffith. He is a patronising pest. Don't give him what he wants, IE, attention. 

Thank you for saying it.

On 7/18/2023 at 3:18 PM, W. Niederhut said:

I'm re-posting Greg Burnham's biographical outline of Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's career.

As Jeff Carter has pointed out today, Fletcher Prouty was teaching at Yale from 1946-49.

Operation Bloodstone was established in 1948, according to Robert Montenegro's files.

Unless the Bloodstone op was based wholly or partly in New Haven, it seems doubtful that Prouty was involved-- even as a USAF pilot assisting the CIA.

In Prouty’s own words, he certainly knew about Operation Bloodstone. I don’t know 

for a fact that he spent 3-4 years at Yale and did nothing else, no special assignments or travel. How can we know that? 

The wilderness of mirrors, such an apt expression. Question - if you were JJ Angleton and William Harvey proved to you that Kim Philby was working for the Soviets, which he did, what would you do? I always thought that Angleton was either a fool, or he was a traitor. I never considered a third possibility, which is that he parlayed that knowledge in some way. What sense does it make that William Harvey and others would identify Philby as part of what later became known as the Cambridge 5, and then watch CIA, Angleton and presumably others as well, squelch their true identification? The ONLY thing that makes sense is that Philby was left in place as long as possible in order to use him. 
I put this on the current thread because I don’t think that travel records on McCord and Solie are enough to convict them of disloyalty. Angleton may have been running them, while the Soviets believed otherwise. 
Newman says he doesn’t care if Oswald was a shooter at Dealey Plaza or not. But if he is going to go on record as saying McCord was working for the Soviets AND running Oswald he needs to follow these ‘facts’ to their conclusions. 

It’s not enough to put Michael on ignore. He should not be allowed to post here. 

1 hour ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Ben,

Well, assassination may not be the "first choice" of the Deep State, but I wouldn't rule that tactic out as a last resort for the Deep State.

The bizarre and still unexplained death in 2018 of President Trump's Health and Human Services Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Drug Pricing Reform, Daniel Best, was quickly ruled a "suicide."

Daniel Best, a former drug company executive, "was in the nation’s capital leading the U.S. Health and Human Services Department’s efforts to reduce prescription drug prices".

 

Best’s violent death came one week after President Donald Trump announced a new drug pricing initiative which would allow Medicare to determine how much it pays for drugs based on what those pharmaceuticals sell for other countries, according to Cleveland.com.

“At long last, the drug companies and foreign countries will be held accountable for how they rigged the system against American consumers,” President Trump said.

Trump Announces Plan to Lower 'Unfair' Prescription Drug Prices | RealClearPolitics

Huh.

So just as the president announced a policy that would have reduced the profits of American pharmaceutical companies by billions of dollars, his point man somehow jumped out a 16th story window at 5 in the morning of a major apartment building in Washington.

Why?

Well, don't married 49-year-old husbands and fathers of three kids (with no known history of depression or anxiety or anything else) always fall victim to the "sads", and just throw themselves out of windows in Washington? Happens all the time, right?

But what is truly mind-blowing is that Best's death received exactly zero, as in none, as in "nothing at all to say or see here, folks" coverage from the following mainstream organizations:

The Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, Fox News, CNN and the New York Times.

A complete blackout on the suspicious, violent death of a major Trump official in Washington, D.C. by the entire MSM!

That is the surest sign that this man was assassinated by some very powerful Deep State forces.

 

 

 

 

 

My oh my. I googled this and found zero mainstream coverage of the death or the suicide ruling. Snopes commented, saying rumors of anything but suicide were false. But reading their analysis just left me dumbfounded. They didn’t do any due diligence. 

No way. I mean - yes, a lot of wasted space on the internet. But disputing the back wound? 

Fwiw, I had just turned 14, and was visiting my grandmother in New Haven, the one and only time I did so, when the news of her death broke on tv. She was crying, and so I started to cry as well. The several days I spent with her stayed with me my whole life. She taught me to make sauce, and to love Liberace. And to appreciate Marilyn Monroe. 

Michael Griffith - you weigh the words of LA detectives, biographers of Hollywood stars, what have you, against the word of two entire families vacationing in Gilroy, including RFK’s own family. I’ve read your material, and also McGovern’s. There is no comparison. The only conclusion one can draw is that Rothmiller and the rest of them are lying. You can’t possibly believe any of the Kennedy bashing you do here regularly. In my view what you’ve said regarding Jim D is far worse than name calling. Yet you persist, and the moderators allow it. 

“I suspect your promised ‘decimating review’ will be as misleading, pitiful, ideologically driven, and amateurish as your ridiculous ‘review’ of Selverstone’s book The Kennedy Withdrawal.” 
Michael - that’s pretty inflammatory language. 

17 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Cory, please:

Anyone who reads the IG Report, which was declassified in 1995, would know that the CIA plots to kill Castro were never approved by any president.  (See pgs. 132-33)

And RFK only found out about them because of Maheu helping Giancana bug McGuire's room in Vegas.  

When the CIA fessed up to why Maheu had done this, they had to tell RFK about the plots.  But CIA lawyer Larry Huston told him they were over.

This was a deliberate lie.  They were continuing, with Harvey and Rosselli and they knew that when they told him the opposite.

I mean this has been out there for 30 years and some people still do not know it?

Apperently they don’t know it. I keep reading it in one form or another, always presented as gospel truth with apologies to RFK admirers. And Cory, if memory serves, has what he considers to be inside info on Marilyn’s death as well. Please correct me Cory if I’m confusing something. 

3 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Lawford made this admission to Rothmiller. Listen to the segment in the interview--the segment starts at about 17:15 and runs for about 10 minutes.

I know it is very sad to learn this about RFK. Very sad. I almost don't want to talk about it, but it is important and sheds light on what was going on behind the scenes that could have contributed to JFK's death.

That is not a confession. That is Rothmiller saying that Lawford confessed to him personally. So this is all about the credibility of Rothmiller. 

Please tell us where in the link Peter Lawford confesses

40 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Joe, my comment was intended to convey how gun focused politics has become all over the country, I didn't say it made sense or was legal but it certainly reflects a level of paranoia over rights and a level of anti-government phobia that I've never seen in some 70 years of living even in deeply conservative regions where I heard conversations about burying guns to keep them away fromt he government when Eisenhower was president for heavens sake.

Yes, but Joe is right. As Jim D said the other night, no one shows up in California armed.

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Yawn ... he went bankrupt and believes in alien conspiracies? Why are you in such a rush to connect this person with an "assassination attempt" ?

Duh - shows up to a campaign event uninvited and fully armed

Quote

Shades of Taxi Driver 

Thanks - inciteful.  It’s interesting that at a dinner party tonight with some of my oldest friends this subject came up, whereas it would not ever have done so without the Landis news story and the msm coverage of it. So why now? Possibly other ‘bombshells’ are on the horizon, designed to keep the mystery intact while appearing to be a search for truth. One possible scenario is a new official revelation that Oswald was actually a CIA asset, but admitting that at the time would have led to public speculation about the CIA’s role on Nov 22, hence the 60 year coverup which can now be revealed, along with the new idea that their ‘rogue’ asset had an accomplice. 

Joe -That’s a good story that makes sense and could have been a meaningful avenue for research.