Jefferson Morley's Unbearable Lightness of Being

[Fred Litwin]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jefferson-morley-s-unbearable-lightness-of-being

Jefferson Morley's Unbearable Lightness of Being

Now that the entire personnel file of George Joannides has been released, Jefferson Morley has now published his unified theory of nothingness.

There is nothing there. The only thing we have found out in over twenty years is that Joannides used the alias of Howard Gebler.

[Jon Banks]

From the Solving JFK Podcast on Twitter/X:

Top 10 revelations from todays WaPo story on George Joannides:

1) Domestic spying was illegal in 1963. CIA did it anyway.

2) CIA lied to Warren Commission and HSCA about the existence of Howard Gebler.

3) CIA lied to ARRB about the existence of Howard, saying in a memo that there were no records for Howard Gebler.

4) The Joannides/Howard Gebler file WAS NOT part of the JFK records collection, which means CIA never turned it over to ARRB in the first place.

5) CIA gave Joannides a medal for excellent career service and expressly noted his time overseeing DRE and as HSCA liaison. (No, it’s not the whole point of the medal. But, yes, it is noted.)

6) Big one: Joannides’ progress reports for 17 months when he was at JM Wave working with DRE are missing! This would have valuable operational info. To @FredLitwin’s point, we cannot say Oswald’s name is not in the file if we don’t have all the records!

7) Howard Gebler (Joannides) primarily dealt with Luis Fernandez Rocha, the head of DRE.

35 CIA employees handled records related to Oswald from 1959-1963, including 6 who worked for Angleton and Helms.

9) Rocha sent a tape of Oswald’s radio debate with Carlos Bringuier to Howard Gebler!

10) After 11/22/63, Howard told DRE to call news media contacts to tell them about Oswald’s ties to FPCC.


https://x.com/SolvingJfk/status/1944797398150033505


Whole lotta "nothing" 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

As Fred points out above, the key figure here, the absolutely essential person (after Oswald himself) around this controversy without which none of this happens, is Carlos Bringuier. It was Bringuier who had the fight with Oswald, it was Bringuier who wrote the public letter warning about the danger Oswald posed, it was Bringuier who was critical in helping set up the radio debate and TV appearance with Oswald, e.g., informed Stuckey about Oswald, et cetera. Without Bringuier's actions there is *no* incident. It all goes away.

So what does Bringuier, who is still alive, say? Bringuier has repeatedly stated that he acted on his own, he had no guidance from anyone, and in fact he never met Joannides. Never met him. Period. So where is the guiding hand of Joannides in this matter? There isn't evidence of one. How can this all happen with it all being directed by Joannides but without Bringuier as part of it? It can't.

How does Morley respond to this? By essentially ignoring it, mentioning it, at best, as a afterthought when it's actually essential for his theory to work. It's the conspiracy mindset, a world where people have no agency, don't act on his or her own but are guided by outside forces.

[Jon Banks]

As Fred points out above, the key figure here, the absolutely essential person (after Oswald himself) around this controversy without which none of this happens, is Carlos Bringuier. It was Bringuier who had the fight with Oswald, it was Bringuier who wrote the public letter warning about the danger Oswald posed, it was Bringuier who essentially sent up the radio debate and TV appearance with Oswald. Without Bringuier's actions there is *no* incident. It all goes away.

So what does Bringuier, who is still alive, say? Bringuier has repeatedly stated that he acted on his own, he had no guidance from anyone, and in fact he never met Joannides. Never met him. Period. So where is the guiding hand of Joannides in this matter? There isn't evidence of one. How can this all happen with it all being directed by Joannides but without Bringuier as part of it? It can't.

How does Morley respond to this? By essentially ignoring it. It's the conspiracy mindset, a world where people have no agency, don't act on his or her own but are guided by outside forces.

There are only two possibilities:

A - Bringuier could be 100% honest and credible and still manipulated as part of CIA psychological operations/propaganda ops. We now know as a historical fact that the DRE was being run by the CIA out of Miami in 1963. We also know that Joannides had a residence in New Orleans and likely was aware of Oswald.

B - Bringuier could be lying to protect himself and his CIA handlers. When it comes to the CIA or the Mob, it's better to lie under oath than to tell the truth. Things usually don't end well for intelligence whistleblowers and snitches.


The bottom-line is:

- The CIA lied and obstructed investigations into how much they knew about LHO prior to 11/22/63.

- They specifically went out of their way to cover up Joannides covert activities in 1963.

The remaining question is: "Why?"

Is there an innocent explanation for the CIA's conduct on this matter?

[Fred Litwin]

The CIA gave the Joannaides' personnel file to the ARRB and the ARRB knew that Joannides was the case officer for the DRE and had worked with the HSCA. They released about 12 pages and said the rest was irrelevant. They were right.
There is really nothing here at all. No Oswald Operation. No nothing.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Where's the evidence that Joannides directed or instructed any of his supposed "DRE agents" in this matter? I.e., Oswald in NO and the DRE contact? Who did he order? What did he tell them?

As I argued above, Bringuier would have to be a if not the key "agent" in any Oswald Operation. Without him there's no "operation." Not the one that supposedly took place with Joannides directing people to target Oswald. And he says he acted on his own and had no guidance.

So again, what does Morley say Joannides did here? His reasoning appears to be: "Joannides ran the DRE [but according to the evidence: not really, the DRE were uncontrollable], the CIA lied or covered up about him, he worked as a go-between on the HSCA and CIA and presto, there must be an Oswald Operation behind this all." It can't be incompetence, disarray, confusion, people with their own agency acting on their own; no there must a guiding hand behind it all. For the conspiracy Left it's the CIA. Again, this is textbook conspiracy thinking. Yes, sometimes it's correct but sometimes it's not.

[Jon Banks]

Where's the evidence that Joannides directed or instructed any of his supposed "DRE agents" in this matter? I.e., Oswald in NO and the DRE contact? Who did he order? What did he tell them?

As I argued above, Bringuier would have to be a key "agent" in any Oswald Operation. Without him there's no "operation." Not the one that supposedly took place. And he says he acted on his own and had no guidance.

So again, what did Joannides do here? Morley's reasoning appears to be: "Joannides ran the DRE [but according to the evidence: not really, the DRE were uncontrollable], the CIA lied or covered up about him, he worked as a go-between on the HSCA and CIA and presto, there must be an Oswald Operation behind this all." It can't be incompetence, disarray, confusion, people with their own agency acting on their own; no there must a guiding hand behind it all. Again, this is textbook conspiracy thinking. Yes, sometimes it's correct but sometimes it's not.

Your faith in the integrity of CIA agents is something that I don't have.

I simply don't accept Bringuier's word as proof that Joannides wasn't involved.

The burden is on you and Fred to explain why the CIA went out of their way to lie and obstruct investigations into the matter.