JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Jefferson Morley's Unbearable Lightness of Being
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:
--- Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on July 15, 2025, 04:32:04 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Steve M. Galbraith:
--- Quote from: Jon Banks on July 15, 2025, 05:04:55 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
Well, you reject the evidence and here we are. How do we disprove this? What would you accept? What did the other DRE people in New Orleans say? It's not just Bringuier. But if they say Joannides gave them no orders then you'd reject that too. You not only have the CIA behind it, you have private individuals involved.
The burden is on the people making a claim, Jon. Whether the claim is Oswald alone shot JFK or there was a conspiracy. It's up to the people making the argument to support it not others to disprove it.
Jon Banks:
--- Quote from: Fred Litwin on July 15, 2025, 04:00:22 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
The CIA's rep for the ARRB admits that he was wrong about Joannides by the way. I can accept that he was misled by others.
From the Washington Post's article about the new docs:
Congress in 1994 created the Assassinations Records Review Board, which again tried to recover key documents from federal agencies, and again probed the CIA. The CIA responded with its memo about “Howard,” saying he didn’t exist.
“My memo was incorrect,” said J. Barry Harrelson, a former CIA official who wrote the memo. “But this wasn’t deliberate.” He said he wasn’t provided Joannides’s personnel file, but that it was provided to the review board. Morley said the review board received the file, but seeing no references to Oswald, didn’t realize its relevance. Harrelson said the release of the D.C. driver’s license notes was “the first time I’d seen it.”
----
Harrelson’s memo also noted that progress reports on Joannides’s Miami operation were missing for the 17 months he was there, which Morley said was another indicator that the anti-Castro program was secret even within the CIA.
The search for Howard began in the 1990s when Morley interviewed members of the Cuban group DRE, short for Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil, or Student Revolutionary Directorate. Among them was Jose Antonio Lanuza, now 86, who told The Post that “Howard” dealt only with the DRE’s leader, Luis Fernandez Rocha, and Rocha would pass on direction from “Howard.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/07/14/cia-oswald-jfk-assassination-joannides/
^The last sentence is for Steve :)
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Jon Banks on July 15, 2025, 05:04:55 PM ---
I simply don't accept Bringuier's word as proof that Joannides wasn't involved.
--- End quote ---
The burden is on you to prove that he was.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version