Jefferson Morley's Unbearable Lightness of Being

[W. Tracy Parnell]

I disagree. Read what Jose Lanuza told the Miami Herald in 2019:

Joannides would NOT have been approved to be the CIA’s liaison for the HSCA had Congress known his background at that time.

So, Lanuza believes some conspiracy stuff-fine. But notice he did not say "The DRE was running an Oswald Operation at the behest of GJ."

And GJ would not have been approved-so what? No evidence that he covered up anything, only that he didn't tell about his own operations likely because he didn't want to be interviewed by the committee. Also, the evidence that the HSCA was that interested in what the DRE and their 1963 case officer were doing is very slim. My article has already addressed Blakey and most everything said by Hardway is based off of him.

[Jon Banks]

the evidence that the HSCA was that interested in what the DRE and their 1963 case officer were doing is very slim.

Only if you ignore what Robert Blakey and Dan Hardway have said about Joannides:

"According to Blakey, if he had known about Joannides's connection to the DRE, Joannides would have been called as a witness to be interrogated under oath, rather than serving as the liaison."

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/5-decades-later-some-jfk-probe-files-still-sealed/1922978/


Staff members for the committee have said they were making progress on unearthing documents from the CIA in 1978 until a new agency liaison was installed: Joannides, whom they had no idea was at the center of what they were trying to uncover.

“Joannides began to change the way file access was handled,” committee staff member Dan Hardway testified before Luna’s task force in May. “The obstruction of our efforts by Joannides escalated over the summer [of 1978]. … It was clear that CIA had begun to carefully review files before delivering them to us for review.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/07/14/cia-oswald-jfk-assassination-joannides/


Morley is over the target and you folks are either useful idiots or paid shills.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Only if you ignore what Robert Blakey and Dan Hardway have said about Joannides:

"According to Blakey, if he had known about Joannides's connection to the DRE, Joannides would have been called as a witness to be interrogated under oath, rather than serving as the liaison."

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/5-decades-later-some-jfk-probe-files-still-sealed/1922978/


Staff members for the committee have said they were making progress on unearthing documents from the CIA in 1978 until a new agency liaison was installed: Joannides, whom they had no idea was at the center of what they were trying to uncover.

“Joannides began to change the way file access was handled,” committee staff member Dan Hardway testified before Luna’s task force in May. “The obstruction of our efforts by Joannides escalated over the summer [of 1978]. … It was clear that CIA had begun to carefully review files before delivering them to us for review.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/07/14/cia-oswald-jfk-assassination-joannides/


Morley is over the target and you folks are either useful idiots or paid shills.

I wrote a rather lengthy piece of Blakey. As I said, Hardway's comments are based on Blakey. Some of Blakey's comments are based on Fonzi of all people.

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2025/06/jfk-file-expert-skeptical-of-blakeys.html

When Morley can prove GJ was running an Oswald Operation of some type, he will have something. The problem is, Bringuier doesn't support it and the actual DRE guys in Miami don't support it even if they support CTs. In fact, nothing supports it. End of story.

[Jon Banks]

I wrote a rather lengthy piece of Blakey. As I said, Hardway's comments are based on Blakey. Some of Blakey's comments are based on Fonzi of all people.

Don't try to get clicks for your blog. Defend the CIA here if that's your intention. Why can't you just give innocent explanations for the CIA's conduct here on this forum?

The CIA and Joannides should've disclosed their relationship with the DRE to the HSCA, period.

I haven't seen any good excuses for why that didn't happen but I'm all ears if you want to try to explain on this thread.

To a lay person like me it looks deceptive and looks like obstruction of the HSCA's investigation. 

When Morley can prove GJ was running an Oswald Operation of some type, he will have something. The problem is, Bringuier doesn't support it and the actual DRE guys in Miami don't support it even if they support CTs. In fact, nothing supports it. End of story.

Again, you're being dishonest or intentionally misleading.

Morley, to my knowledge, hasn't argued that Oswald was 'the subject' of Joannides' or Bringuier's work with the DRE.

Morley has even speculated that the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, not Oswald, was the subject of the CIA/Joannides' interest in 1963.

At worst, Morley has argued that the CIA lied about how much they knew about LHO prior to 11/22/63. And the documents which have been declassified since the ARRB 30 years ago have validated his thesis.

There's now a mountain of evidence confirming that the CIA knew plenty about LHO before the assassination.

I'm not going to play your game of building strawman arguments.

[Tom Graves]

Don't try to get clicks for your blog.

Righty-Lefty Banksky,

Have you read Tracy's article?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Righty-Lefty Banksky,

Have you read Tracy's article?

It is obvious he has not read the relevant articles. No point in continuing.

[Jon Banks]

Righty-Lefty Banksky,

Have you read Tracy's article?

Why should I when the guy posts on this forum and responds to my posts?

If Michael T Griffith is gracious enough to answer questions here, so too should other writers who participate on the forum.

Posting here only to try to direct people to their blogs seems like a sleezy form of marketing to me.

Engage in debate and answer some questions, THEN I may check out your blogs 

I have no problem with engaging with people who have other points of view. I always encourage spirited debate.

[Tom Graves]

Why should I?

That's right.

Remain ignorant.