Jefferson Morley's Unbearable Lightness of Being

[Jon Banks]

The CIA has finally vindicated Morley's research into George Joannides so now the cope from LN'ers is that its a "nothingburger".

Love to see it...

[Jon Banks]

This is both disappointing and simply wrong. I don't understand how you can make these statements given the information in the released files.

For decades, the CIA, along with WC apologists, insisted, swore up and down, that the CIA had no interest whatsoever in Oswald before the assassination. Now we know that the CIA had a very intense interest in Oswald, and that the CIA was even reading Oswald's mail in the weeks before the assassination. This is a sea-state change in our knowledge of the case and is hardly a "nothing burger."

We also now know that Joannides brazenly misled the HSCA and did all he could to sabotage the HSCA's investigation into Oswald, the CIA, and the anti-Castro Cubans. How you can describe this as a "nothing burger" is hard to understand.

Through CIA officer Barry Harrelson's memo, the CIA disavowed any knowledge of a CIA agent in Miami in 1963 who used the alias Howard. The CIA memo asserted that “knowledgeable sources” at the CIA concluded Howard was not a real person.

Morley knew this was false. He filed a Freedom of Information Act request, which turned into a lawsuit covered by the New York Times and Fox News, and which went on for 15 years until Brett Kavanaugh killed it. All that time, the CIA kept insisting they didn’t know anything about any CIA officer using the alias of Howard in Miami. Your camp uncritically took the CIA's word on that said claimed there was no reason to doubt the CIA's version of the events of 1963.

The release of the Joannides file, however, has exposed the CIA's denial as false. Harrelson now acknowledges that his 1998 memo, sent to a civilian review board tasked with declassifying JFK files, was false. People tell big lies for a reason. Agencies tell big lies for a reason.

The CIA has acknowledged, for the first time in six decades, that Joannides used the alias Howard Gebler and knew of his actions in late 1963, that he ran an illegal operation via his agents in the Cuban Student Directorate (DRE) to confront and denounce Oswald’s chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) in August 1963, and that his agents had contact with Oswald--three months before JFK’s assassination.

This proves that Joannides sanctioned the Directorate’s public efforts in September 1963 to recruit assassins to kill Castro. The Directorate planted an article in a popular men’s magazine sold nationwide that offered a $10 million dollar reward “to person or persons who, with the help of the DRE, will assassinate Fidel Castro.” Joannides submitted an implausible denial for the file and the matter was forgotten, but now we know the truth.

Not only did Joannides run an off-the-books operation illegally targeting U.S. dissidents (the FPCC) for disruption, and not only did his agents have contact with Oswald, but the DRE, which he handled, planted an ad in a national publication to recruit assassins to kill Castro.

This information was unknown until the Joannides records were released earlier this month. It is hard to understand how you can call all of this a "nothing burger."

Awesome summary. Thanks

[W. Tracy Parnell]

From what I can see, all the conspiracy people here need to go back and re-read Fred's article carefully. They are not getting the facts right. Here's one major fact. It is not just Bringuier saying that he had nothing to do with Joannides. None of the DRE people are claiming or have ever claimed that Joannides told Bringuier what to do. Bringuier did what came naturally when he saw a pro-Castro supporter like LHO.

[Jon Banks]

From what I can see, all the conspiracy people here need to go back and re-read Fred's article carefully. They are not getting the facts right. Here's one major fact. It is not just Bringuier saying that he had nothing to do with Joannides. None of the DRE people are claiming or have ever claimed that Joannides told Bringuier what to do. Bringuier did what came naturally when he saw a pro-Castro supporter like LHO.

That's not the point.

The point is, the DRE reported to a CIA officer named "Howard" who we now can confirm was Joannides.

Which means, Joannides knew about Oswald before the assassination and advised the DRE on what to do with the information they had on Oswald after the assassination.

You guys act as if LN'ers didn't spend years accepting the CIA's denials that "Howard" existed. The CIA's rep for the ARRB has more integrity than you all because at least he admits that he was wrong.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

That's not the point.

The point is, the DRE reported to a CIA officer named "Howard" who we now can confirm was Joannides.

Which means, Joannides knew about Oswald before the assassination and advised the DRE on what to do with the information they had on Oswald after the assassination.

You guys act as if LN'ers didn't spend years accepting the CIA's denials that "Howard" existed. The CIA's rep for the ARRB has more integrity than you all because at least he admits that he was wrong.

We don't have proof that Joannides knew about Oswald before the assassination-only after. One or two of the members said they told Joannides about Oswald. That is all the evidence we have on that. But even if they told him before, there is no evidence that he thought much about it or did anything about it. And nobody says that he did. That is why it is a nothingburger.

[Jon Banks]

We don't have proof that Joannides knew about Oswald before the assassination-only after.

Given that Oswald's confrontation with Bringuier made the local news (plus Oswald requested to speak to the FBI while in police custody) and they also had a radio show appearance together, the odds that Joannides had no knowledge of Oswald prior to 11/22/63 are very low.

Bringuer also noted that he reported everything that happened with Oswald to the DRE leaders in Miami who reported to "Howard".

Unless Joannides was bad at his job, we can assume he read Bringuer's reports and had heard of LHO before 11/22/63 via other information sources.

One or two of the members said they told Joannides about Oswald. That is all the evidence we have on that. But even if they told him before, there is no evidence that he thought much about it or did anything about it. And nobody says that he did. That is why it is a nothingburger.

We can agree that none of this information directly connects Joannides to JFK's assassination if that's what you mean. Even if LHO was wittingly or unwittingly part of the CIA's campaign against the "Fair Play for Cuba" organization, it doesn't prove the CIA was complicit in JFK's murder.

I'm fully aware of that and am not arguing that this is some sort of "Smoking Gun". I don't think Jeff Morley is suggesting that either.

But it does however raise questions about what else the CIA has lied about in the official records.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

From what I can see, all the conspiracy people here need to go back and re-read Fred's article carefully. They are not getting the facts right. Here's one major fact. It is not just Bringuier saying that he had nothing to do with Joannides. None of the DRE people are claiming or have ever claimed that Joannides told Bringuier what to do. Bringuier did what came naturally when he saw a pro-Castro supporter like LHO.

We have to add the actions of Stuckey - who was almost as critical to any supposed operation as Bringuier - to the mix. It was Stuckey who met Oswald, was impressed enough to interview him on TV and then invite him to a debate. If Stuckey meets Oswald and thinks, "This is a nut, no thanks" then the whole matter fades away.

Multiple people involved here, directly or indirectly, with no evidence, from them or elsewhere, of being controlled or directed by Joannides. And it sure as heck isn't in the Joannides file.

Stuckey's testimony is here: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/stuckey.htm