JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jon Banks on December 05, 2022, 06:35:46 PM
-
Major Break Coming in the JFK Assassination Story
Many Americans wonder why the CIA is still concealing records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which happened nearly 60 years ago.
We now have the answer. The CIA is hiding something terribly embarrassing, if not incriminating, about its role the JFK story. In mid-1963, senior Agency officials approved a covert operation that used Lee Harvey Oswald for intelligence purposes, three months before Oswald allegedly shot and killed the president in Dallas on November 22, 1963. The CIA hid this operation from the Warren Commission in 1964, from the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978, and from the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in 1998. The explosive story is told in 44 JFK records that the CIA has “denied in full” to the public.
In an Oct. 2021 memo President Biden set December 15 for federal agencies to disclose all records related to the assassination. Whether the CIA will release records related to the undisclosed Oswald operation is a test of Biden’s order and the 1992 JFK Records Act, which mandates release of all assassination-related information in the government’s possession
I will explain what we know—and do not know—about the undisclosed Oswald operation at a press conference at the National Press Club tomorrow, Tuesday December 6.
The event, sponsored by the Mary Ferrell Foundation, puts this major development in the Dallas tragedy into legal, political, and historical context.
Foundation president Rex Bradford will speak about what has been learned about JFK’s assassination in the past 25 years and what remains to be done.
Attorney Larry Schnapf will speak about the foundation’s lawsuit against Biden and the National Archives for failure to enforce the JFK Records Act.
Judge John Tunheim, former chair of the ARRB, will speak about the board’s work and about how the CIA misled the review board on the still-secret records.
Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, former CIA officer, will comment on the evidence of the undisclosed Oswald operation.
Fernand Amandi, pollster and MSNBC analyst, will present the results of a nationwide poll on Americans’ attitudes toward JFK’s assassination and President Biden order on JFK files.
Watch the livestream on YouTube on Dec. 6 at 9:30am EST
Thoughts?
-
Major Break Coming in the JFK Assassination Storyhttps://youtu.be/To5UEvb5jQU
Thoughts?
I'll guess it's related to his Joannides theory. That is Oswald was an unwitting participant in some counter intelligence operation intended to embarrass the FPCC. Or maybe AMSPELL, the CIA/DRE relationship. Hes' been pushing this story for years.
As to its significance: I'll be skeptical, very much so, since he has a history, for me, of exaggerating things. Particularly since he said this, "The CIA is hiding something terribly embarrassing if not incriminating..." Is hiding something? Not was? He knows this? Is it incriminating or just embarrassing?
-
I'll guess it's related to his Joannides theory. That is Oswald was an unwitting participant in some counter intelligence operation intended to embarrass the FPCC. Or maybe AMSPELL, the CIA/DRE relationship. Hes' been pushing this story for years.
As to its significance I'll just be skeptical since he has a history, for me, of exaggerating things. Particularly since he said this, "The CIA is hiding something terribly embarassing..." Is hiding something? He knows this?
Given the way Morley is hyping tomorrow's event, I hope it's as significant as he is advertising.
I agree that it's probably related to the FPCC and/or Mexico City.
And if it's true that the CIA had a relationship with Oswald prior to the Kennedy assassination, that's something that would help explain their continued secrecy around the 1963 files of agents like Joannides who died decades ago.
However, it may fall short of a Smoking Gun proving that JFK's murder was an Inside Job. But that may not matter because if it's confirmed that Oswald had a relationship with the CIA or FBI or both agencies, that would only increase the speculation that it was an Inside Job.
-
Given the way Morley is hyping tomorrow's event, I hope it's as significant as he is advertising.
I agree that it's probably related to the FPCC and/or Mexico City.
And if it's true that the CIA had a relationship with Oswald prior to the Kennedy assassination, that's something that would help explain their continued secrecy around the 1963 files of agents like Joannides who died decades ago.
However, it may fall short of a Smoking Gun proving that JFK's murder was an Inside Job. But that may not matter because if it's confirmed that Oswald had a relationship with the CIA or FBI or both agencies, that would only increase the speculation that it was an Inside Job.
Was the relationship witting or unwitting? Huge difference between him being a willing and knowing asset with the CIA versus being used by them without his knowledge. So Joannides/Angleton heard about him through his fight with Bringuier and the DRE then tried to encourage/use him? Helped promote him w/out his knowledge in an attempt to embarrass the FPCC and Castro? As in, "We've got this nut over here. Let's get him to embarrass Castro. Get him on radio and TV."
I can imagine the latter but absolutely not the first, i.e., witting, unless everything we know about him was an act, part of his Legend. And I would argue that there would have been lots of evidence for the latter; evidence that isn't there.
-
Was the relationship witting or unwitting? Huge difference between him being a willing and knowing asset with the CIA versus being used by them without his knowledge. So Joannides/Angleton heard about him through his fight with Bringuier and the DRE then tried to encourage/use him? Helped promote him w/out his knowledge in an attempt to embarrass the FPCC and Castro? As in, "We've got this nut over here. Let's get him to embarrass Castro. Get him on radio and TV."
I can imagine the latter but absolutely not the first, i.e., witting, unless everything we know about him was an act, part of his Legend. And I would argue that there would have been lots of evidence for the latter; evidence that isn't there.
I have no idea what Morley will add that we don't already know. We'll have to wait til tomorrow night.
But I have speculated for years that Oswald's fake FPCC chapter and the strange Mexico City trip that followed was potentially an intelligence operation. If that's proven to be true, whether Oswald was aware of who he was working for or with is the next unanswered question.
-
Not much new information shared at Morley's press conference.
It mostly seems like an attempt to generate interest in President Biden's decision on the JFK files that is due to be announced next week.
-
Not much new information shared at Morley's press conference.
It mostly seems like an attempt to generate interest in President Biden's decision on the JFK files that is due to be announced next week.
You are right. Here is my report:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/12/morleys-bombshell-dud.html
-
I appreciate Morley's attempts to get the news media to cover the JFK files issue but yeah, I think he over sold the event that was held today.
Until the files on Joannides and others are declassified, we can only speculate on his theory that LHO was an intelligence asset.
-
I appreciate Morley's attempts to get the news media to cover the JFK files issue but yeah, I think he over sold the event that was held today.
Until the files on Joannides and others are declassified, we can only speculate on his theory that LHO was an intelligence asset.
As Tracy points out in his story linked above, the personnel files* on Joannides were reviewed/read and they show nothing about a "Oswald Operation" or anything related to the assassination. Sure, release them but the evidence for me is that Morley is completely and wildly speculating about this. He's trying to jam the assassination into his "the CIA and Angleton were an American Gestapo" view.
* These files may have been just Joannides' "personnel" files and not other "operational" ones. So maybe Morley is referring to something else. It's very confusing as to what files people are referring to: the redacted/withheld files that the ARRB saw or others.
For me any explanation as to what happened begins with Oswald as a willing participant. He was not some innocent bystander framed for this. One cannot explain his actions before, during and after and reasonably argue that he was just some poor guy in a dead end job who decided to leave work for the heck of it. Almost all of the country was fixated on the shooting. And this very political person decides to go see a movie? He's not interested in what happened? Sure there are some people who don't care about events like this. But he was not one of types.
Does it end with him? Did he have help? Was he manipulated? At this point I don't think we'll ever know for certainty. But I don't think Morley has anything other than wild tabloid type speculation. He's a former journalist for the Post. He knows how to package a story, what phrases and words to use. This was another attempt at it. But he's running on fumes at this point; his conspiracy gas tank is empty.
-
Here is a classic, perfect example of the disingenuous of Morley. He wrote this in his e-book "Morley vs. CIA: My Unfinished JFK Assassination". AMSPELL was the code term/name for the CIA's funding/work with the anti-Castro group DRE. He's repeated it several times elsewhere too.
"The effectiveness of the AMSPELL apparatus in spreading the story of Oswald's pro-Castro activities cannot be underestimated."
Then later: "Thanks to Joannides, the AMSPELL program had delivered a message that many Americans believe to this day: Kennedy was killed by a Castro supporter."
Well, that is just malarkey. The "AMSPELL apparatus" did no such thing and he's got no evidence for it. It was members of the DRE, Bringuier and others, who ON THEIR OWN were telling the media about Oswald's pro-Castro activities. Which, of course, were true. There's no evidence - and Morley will admit this elsewhere - that Joannides or CI or the CIA had any role in promoting this. This was done by DRE members on their own volition. His reasoning is that the CIA funded DRE, DRE promoted this story about Oswald's pro-Castro work, therefore the CIA/Joannides were behind this.
This is really tabloid journalism at its finest. Or worst.
-
As Tracy points out in his story linked above, the files on Joannides were reviewed/read and they show nothing about a "Oswald Operation" or anything related to the assassination. Sure, release them but the evidence for me is that Morley is completely and wildly speculating about this. He's trying to jam the assassination into his "the CIA and Angleton were an American Gestapo" view.
Given that the CIA lied (by omission) to the HSCA about Joannides, why should we be satisfied with those answers before we see his files for ourselves? And he’s not looking for evidence that Joannides was involved with the Kennedy assassination so the ARRB’s statement about his files not mentioning “Kennedy” isn’t really relevant. What’s relevant is that Joannides had a residence in New Orleans in 1963 (which suggests that he spent time there around the same time as Oswald) and most likely was aware of Oswald. It’s certainly worthy of further investigation.
I’m not sure if there’s a “smoking gun” in the classified files but it seems probable that the CIA and maybe the FBI have some embarrassing secrets hidden in the files of intelligence agents who are already dead. Files that they’re violating the law to keep secret.
And it’s reasonable to speculate that Oswald did some sort of intelligence work based on what is known already.
I don’t see Morley’s theory as baseless or without merit for further investigation.
Joannides has been dead for a long time. If there’s nothing to hide or no incriminating stuff in the files, they should all be declassified.
-
The evidence of domestic CIA operations is overwhelming. They’re involved in almost everything from Hollywood, to the news media, and academia.
Because it’s illegal, the CIA seems very secretive about their domestic intelligence operations. And that may be part of their continued fight to keep JFK-related files secret. They don’t want to confirm suspicions about the extent of their domestic spying even if the stuff happened decades ago.
It’s not far-fetched at all to speculate that the CIA was very interested in Oswald prior to 11/22/63 and knew far more about him than they let on initially.
Whether he was merely a domestic surveillance interest for them, or an intelligence asset, are questions that the remaining classified files may answer…
-
My newest article addresses confusion after the Morley presser:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/12/morley-disinfo-leads-to-misleading.html
-
The evidence of domestic CIA operations is overwhelming. They’re involved in almost everything from Hollywood, to the news media, and academia.
Because it’s illegal, the CIA seems very secretive about their domestic intelligence operations. And that may be part of their continued fight to keep JFK-related files secret. They don’t want to confirm suspicions about the extent of their domestic spying even if the stuff happened decades ago.
It’s not far-fetched at all to speculate that the CIA was very interested in Oswald prior to 11/22/63 and knew far more about him than they let on initially.
Whether he was merely a domestic surveillance interest for them, or an intelligence asset, are questions that the remaining classified files may answer…
Give us the evidence for this "very interested" surveillance of Oswald. Or that he was an asset. Why would they be "very interested" in this oddball, this unemployable unstable person with no connections to anything? You're presenting Oswald as some sort of valuable commodity, as someone useful for the CIA. And there's nothing there for me to indicate it. He's agitating for Castro for the FPCC in the South, in areas where there was almost no pro-Castro support. Why be interested in this nothing?
You yourself argue that he wasn't a Marxist because he didn't associate with any Marxists, didn't attend any meetings, didn't have any relationship with Marxist or pro-Castro groups. So what's the benefit of using Oswald? For what? He's a loner, a nobody, an erratic unstable person that is worthless.
-
My newest article addresses confusion after the Morley presser:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/12/morley-disinfo-leads-to-misleading.html
That "Newsweek" story was stenography not reporting. There are zero challenges to Morley's allegations, no understanding of the background of the claims he made, or of the history of the documents he's referring to. It's as if all of these past investigations, the release of the documents, the evidence found doesn't exist. It's like JFK was murdered in 2013 not 1963 and we're only learning this stuff recently.
Was Oswald an "asset"? Or was he unknowingly used? Morley can't tell us what Oswald actually was or was doing. Morley suggests that his pro-Castro beliefs were fake, a "legend", a cover and only began in the Summer of '63 in New Orleans. Really? As you pointed out Oswald held pro-Castro beliefs back when he was in the Marines in 1958 and 1959. And when he was in the Soviet Union. Marina said he wanted to name their first born "Fidel" and that he sang pro-Castro songs. I'm sure Morley knows this.
Tracy, one question: Where did Morley come up with this "Oswald Operation" phrase? That's new isn't it? New from him. Is this from the Wilcott allegations about hearing people discuss an "Oswald Operation"? Would the CIA use the actual name of a asset/agent? Give it the name "Oswald Operation"?
Morley's an ex-reporter for the Post. He knows how to sell a story, how to feed the media, how to give them the "sexy" stuff. This is an example of it.
-
Major Break Coming in the JFK Assassination Story
Thoughts?
I refuse to believe any major announcements on the JFK assassination made by Benny Hill.
-
I refuse to believe any major announcements on the JFK assassination made by Benny Hill.
Good one
-
That "Newsweek" story was stenography not reporting. There are zero challenges to Morley's allegations, no understanding of the background of the claims he made, or of the history of the documents he's referring to. It's as if all of these past investigations, the release of the documents, the evidence found doesn't exist. It's like JFK was murdered in 2013 not 1963 and we're only learning this stuff recently.
Was Oswald an "asset"? Or was he unknowingly used? Morley can't tell us what Oswald actually was or was doing. Morley suggests that his pro-Castro beliefs were fake, a "legend", a cover and only began in the Summer of '63 in New Orleans. Really? As you pointed out Oswald held pro-Castro beliefs back when he was in the Marines in 1958 and 1959. And when he was in the Soviet Union. Marina said he wanted to name their first born "Fidel" and that he sang pro-Castro songs. I'm sure Morley knows this.
Tracy, one question: Where did Morley come up with this "Oswald Operation" phrase? That's new isn't it? New from him. Is this from the Wilcott allegations about hearing people discuss an "Oswald Operation"? Would the CIA use the actual name of a asset/agent? Give it the name "Oswald Operation"?
Morley's an ex-reporter for the Post. He knows how to sell a story, how to feed the media, how to give them the "sexy" stuff. This is an example of it.
Yes, this is new from Morley. The "Oswald Operation" is just his new buzz phrase for the activities of the DRE as they related to LHO from August through the assassination. I say through the assassination because Morley puts great weight on the "Trenches" story that they did right after JFK was killed.
I am starting to realize that this whole thing is bigger than I thought. This really is a hoax. And evidently no one in the media thought to ask the simple question "how can you know that there is 'smoking gun' proof of an 'Oswald Operation' in files that you have not seen?"
-
Yes, this is new from Morley. The "Oswald Operation" is just his new buzz phrase for the activities of the DRE as they related to LHO from August through the assassination. I say through the assassination because Morley puts great weight on the "Trenches" story that they did right after JFK was killed.
I am starting to realize that this whole thing is bigger than I thought. This really is a hoax. And evidently no one in the media thought to ask the simple question "how can you know that there is 'smoking gun' proof of an 'Oswald Operation' in files that you have not seen?"
Thanks. I was curious as to whether he is now using the Wilcott claims.
Yeah, he threw in the "Operation Northwoods" reference. That is, the post-assassination actions by DRE et al. were an attempt to blame Castro on the assassination to justify an invasion. But as you know the CIA - Scott in Mexico City most specifically - went to great lengths to knock down rumors of Cuban involvement. One of the complaints by people down there (Shenon has this in his book) is that the CIA and government failed to investigate any Castro connection. So they wanted to frame Castro for the assassination and then had investigations culminating in the WC that exonerated Castro? Why?
Re Newsweek: Seems the media are sending out reporters who have zero knowledge about this matter. All of the older reporters who have covered this - George Lardner et al. - are either retired or dead.
One more: Morley is after the operational files on Joannides, correct? Not just the general personnel file on him? The one read by the ARRB? Isn't that the issue? The operational files NOT the personnel files?
-
Give us the evidence for this "very interested" surveillance of Oswald. Or that he was an asset. Why would they be "very interested" in this oddball, this unemployable unstable person with no connections to anything?
At the peak of the Cold War, a US Marine who moved to Russia after working at the U2 spy plane base in Japan wouldn't be of interest to the US intelligence community? Come on.
We know the CIA opened counterintel files on Oswald in 1959. Do you think they lost interest in him when he moved back to the US?
It's obvious why they would be interested in him and at a minimum, justifies domestic surveillance when he returned to the US. Maybe part of the surveillance included domestic spies.
You're presenting Oswald as some sort of valuable commodity, as someone useful for the CIA.
A US Marine who spoke Russian in the 1950's would've been as valuable to US intelligence as Americans who spoke Arabic after the 9/11 attacks.
He's agitating for Castro for the FPCC in the South, in areas where there was almost no pro-Castro support. Why be interested in this nothing?
I challenge you to do some research on COINTELPRO.
In some cases, they used agent provocateurs to embarrass political organizations like the FPCC that were targeted by COINTELPRO. Maybe the intention of making sure the Press was aware of Oswald's activities in New Orleans was to embarrass the FPCC or make them look like "pro-Castro puppets."
It can't be ruled out.
You yourself argue that he wasn't a Marxist because he didn't associate with any Marxists, didn't attend any meetings, didn't have any relationship with Marxist or pro-Castro groups. So what's the benefit of using Oswald? For what? He's a loner, a nobody, an erratic unstable person that is worthless.
If Oswald was able to seek out and find anti-Castro Cubans (there weren't a lot of Cubans across the south in 1963 outside of Florida), he could seek out and find likeminded Marxists in Dallas or New Orleans.
Given that he didn't associate with likeminded people, I don't believe he was a communist or a die-hard Marxist. Not to mention the fact that he ridiculed the American Communist party on more than one occasion.
-
Thanks. I was curious as to whether he is now using the Wilcott claims.
Yeah, he threw in the "Operation Northwoods" reference. That is, the post-assassination actions by DRE et al. were an attempt to blame Castro on the assassination to justify an invasion. But as you know the CIA - Scott in Mexico City most specifically - went to great lengths to knock down rumors of Cuban involvement. One of the complaints by people down there (Shenon has this in his book) is that the CIA and government failed to investigate any Castro connection. So they wanted to frame Castro for the assassination and then had investigations culminating in the WC that exonerated Castro? Why?
Re Newsweek: Seems the media are sending out reporters who have zero knowledge about this matter. All of the older reporters who have covered this - George Lardner et al. - are either retired or dead.
One more: Morley is after the operational files on Joannides, correct? Not just the general personnel file on him? The one read by the ARRB? Isn't that the issue? The operational files NOT the personnel files?
No, he is not using the Wilcott stuff.
I am not clear on the distinction between Joannides' operational files and his personal files or if there is one. He wants everything that is left regardless which is 44 pages which includes the mostly redacted doc that he is trumpeting. To my knowledge, ARRB (Tunheim, Combs) saw everything there was. I am still working to confirm that. One important thing-Tunheim said at the PC there were "no bombshells" in the unreleased files. So, he really doesn't believe Morley has a "smoking gun" and just is acting to have the docs released.
-
No, he is not using the Wilcott stuff.
I am not clear on the distinction between Joannides' operational files and his personal files or if there is one. He wants everything that is left regardless which is 44 pages which includes the mostly redacted doc that he is trumpeting. To my knowledge, ARRB (Tunheim, Combs) saw everything there was. I am still working to confirm that. One important thing-Tunheim said at the PC there were "no bombshells" in the unreleased files. So, he really doesn't believe Morley has a "smoking gun" and just is acting to have the docs released.
After everything we've seen the last few years with the news media's handling of the Trump-Russia investigations and the Durham investigations, the definition of "Bombshell" or "Smoking Gun" seems to be very subject to the political biases of the person who is reporting on the information.
But if all the files show is that Oswald had a relationship with US intelligence or played some role in a secret intelligence operation, that wouldn't be a 'Smoking Gun' in the sense of proving that JFK's assassination was a conspiracy. It would only prove that some government agencies lied to the Warren Commission and HSCA about their knowledge of and involvement with Oswald prior to 11/22/63. We have pretty much confirmed that there were coverups and obstructions to the investigations. We just don't yet know the reasons why they lied or obstructed.
If you oppose the declassification of these files, can you elaborate on why?
-
Question: I am utterly confused as to which files Morley is referring to. Are these the redacted and/or withheld files that the ARRB reviewed and told by the FBI and CIA not to release? And ones that Biden is deciding on releasing? Or are they other files? Or both?
On Joannides in particular: Does Morley want the unredacted files above that the ARRB reviewed? Or is there another set of operational files on Joannides that are separate from the above ones?
-
After everything we've seen the last few years with the news media's handling of the Trump-Russia investigations and the Durham investigations, the definition of "Bombshell" or "Smoking Gun" seems to be very subject to the political biases of the person who is reporting on the information.
But if all the files show is that Oswald had a relationship with US intelligence or played some role in a secret intelligence operation, that wouldn't be a 'Smoking Gun' in the sense of proving that JFK's assassination was a conspiracy. It would only prove that some government agencies lied to the Warren Commission and HSCA about their knowledge of and involvement with Oswald prior to 11/22/63. We have pretty much confirmed that there were coverups and obstructions to the investigations. We just don't yet know the reasons why they lied or obstructed.
If you oppose the declassification of these files, can you elaborate on why?
I don't oppose the declassification as long as it won't harm national security. I assume it wouldn't. What I oppose is Morley saying there is a "smoking gun" in documents he hasn't seen.
-
Question: I am utterly confused as to which files Morley is referring to. Are these the redacted and/or withheld files that the ARRB reviewed and told by the FBI and CIA not to release? And ones that Biden is deciding on releasing? Or are they other files? Or both?
On Joannides in particular: Does Morley want the unredacted files above that the ARRB reviewed? Or is there another set of operational files on Joannides that are separate from the above ones?
The ARRB reviewed the Joannides files. Morley says it was not the full file, I think it was but there is some ambiguity there. Anyway, the ARRB declared the Joannides files not relevant to the assassination. So, they were not included in the JFK Collection. Morley then sued the CIA under FOIA and after years of back and forth lost. He now wants those 44 files declared part of the JFK Collection and released. He says there is a mechanism in place to do this but Biden would have to be the one to declare them JFK records and order their release.
Tunheim has written to Biden asking for the release of all the records and the Joannides files in particular:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_TunheimLetterToBiden.html
-
The ARRB reviewed the Joannides files. Morley says it was not the full file, I think it was but there is some ambiguity there. Anyway, the ARRB declared the Joannides files not relevant to the assassination. So, they were not included in the JFK Collection. Morley then sued the CIA under FOIA and after years of back and forth lost. He now wants those 44 files declared part of the JFK Collection and released. He says there is a mechanism in place to do this but Biden would have to be the one to declare them JFK records and order their release.
Tunheim has written to Biden asking for the release of all the records and the Joannides files in particular:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_TunheimLetterToBiden.html
Thanks for clearing it up; well, at least making it clear what the dispute seems to be about.
-
Morley meets Glen Beck!
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/12/morley-meets-glen-beck.html
-
Morley meets Glen Beck!
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/12/morley-meets-glen-beck.html
It seems there are two people: one is Jefferson Morley who makes reckless and unsubstantiated claims and a second is Morley Jefferson who, as he did on the Beck show, is more cautious and careful. With a tip of the hat to John Armstrong.
The "COINTELPRO-was-a-joint-CIA/FBI operation" is another new claim. Seems that both figures can't resist making that one. I suppose the CiA received intelligence from FBI operations - the suspicion that I've read somewhere was that FPCC was funded/directed by Havana - but sharing intelligence is not, for me, a joint operation. I guess Morley/Jefferson thinks differently.
One last one: the JFK assassination, particularly the Nosenko matter, tore the Counter Intelligence division apart. The later revelations by the media and Congress about the CIA's abuses (the "Family Jewels") ended the careers of many people particularly Angleton (so much for the idea that the CIA controlled the media). Why on Earth would all of this happen if Angleton et al. were behind the assassination? The Nosenko matter could be easily dismissed, it wouldn't tear the CI apart since the idea that Oswald killed JFK on behalf of the Soviets was false, i.e., the CIA did it. But they destroyed themselves over something they knew was false?
-
Jefferson Morley makes reckless and unsubstantiated claims? If anything Morley is the opposite and backs up with what he writes. IMO Morley doesn't go far enough.
-
It seems there are two people: one is Jefferson Morley who makes reckless and unsubstantiated claims and a second is Morley Jefferson who, as he did on the Beck show, is more cautious and careful. With a tip of the hat to John Armstrong.
The "COINTELPRO-was-a-joint-CIA/FBI operation" is another new claim. Seems that both figures can't resist making that one. I suppose the CiA received intelligence from FBI operations - the suspicion that I've read somewhere was that FPCC was funded/directed by Havana - but sharing intelligence is not, for me, a joint operation. I guess Morley/Jefferson thinks differently.
I don’t know if it’s accurate to say COINTELPRO was a “joint FBI-CIA operation” but the two agencies did collaborate on some COINTELPRO operations.
Both agencies had an interest in the Fair Play for Cuba organization and may have collaborated on a psychological operation targeting the group. Lee Harvey Oswald may have wittingly or unwittingly been used in one of their psy-ops. A mountain of circumstantial evidence supports Morley and John Newman’s theory.
Author David Kaiser on the COINTELPRO-FPCC operation:
“I wrote in The Road to Dallas that Oswald’s whole FPCC operation was evidently part of the COINTELPRO operation the FBI was running against that organization. I also said, though, that that did not mean he was working directly for the FBI, which frequently subcontracted COINTELPRO to right wing groups.
“Oswald’s operation, it seems to me, had two goals: 1) to identify pro-Castro activists in New Orleans (this was a failure, he never smoked out anyone), and 2) to discredit the FPCC as a Communist front (which is what the radio debate did.)
“I do think that the New Orleans’ FBI reaction to Oswald’s arrest, etc., showed that they knew the whole FPCC chapter was fake. They made no real attempt to run it down–whereas that very same summer, when a chapter of SANE, I believe, a ban-the-bomb group, was formed in New Orleans, they were all over it. What is even more interesting, to me, is that none of the reports that the FBI did file on Oswald and the FPCC actually said, ‘there wasn’t any chapter. He was acting on his own, period’.”
https://jfkfacts.org/oswald-fair-play-cuba-committee/
-
I don’t know if it’s accurate to say COINTELPRO was a “joint FBI-CIA operation” but the two agencies did collaborate on some COINTELPRO operations.
Both agencies had an interest in the Fair Play for Cuba organization and may have collaborated on a psychological operation targeting the group. Lee Harvey Oswald may have wittingly or unwittingly been used in one of their psy-ops. A mountain of circumstantial evidence supports Morley and John Newman’s theory.
Author David Kaiser on the COINTELPRO-FPCC operation:
“I wrote in The Road to Dallas that Oswald’s whole FPCC operation was evidently part of the COINTELPRO operation the FBI was running against that organization. I also said, though, that that did not mean he was working directly for the FBI, which frequently subcontracted COINTELPRO to right wing groups.
“Oswald’s operation, it seems to me, had two goals: 1) to identify pro-Castro activists in New Orleans (this was a failure, he never smoked out anyone), and 2) to discredit the FPCC as a Communist front (which is what the radio debate did.)
“I do think that the New Orleans’ FBI reaction to Oswald’s arrest, etc., showed that they knew the whole FPCC chapter was fake. They made no real attempt to run it down–whereas that very same summer, when a chapter of SANE, I believe, a ban-the-bomb group, was formed in New Orleans, they were all over it. What is even more interesting, to me, is that none of the reports that the FBI did file on Oswald and the FPCC actually said, ‘there wasn’t any chapter. He was acting on his own, period’.”
https://jfkfacts.org/oswald-fair-play-cuba-committee/
Kaiser: "I do think" and "it seems to me" and "was evidently part of". That's pretty weak stuff, don't you think? It's okay for a blog post but in a published book?
He also believes that Oswald was pulling a Herbert Philbrick and pretending to be a leftist; in reality he was a gung-ho patriotic American working with the FBI (but not the CIA apparently) who was protecting us from Marxism. Everything up is really down.
Anyway, why in the heck would the FBI need a person like Oswald (not exactly Prince Charming) to infiltrate and discredit a non-existent FPCC movement in New Orleans? There's nothing to infiltrate.
-
Morley admits on some occasions (as with Beck) that he is guessing and speculating about Joannides and whether Oswald was used in a covert operation but on other occasions makes unqualified absolute claims on the same matter. He says he/we need access to the files on Joannides to be sure.
Here's an example (from his book Morley v. CIA): "I saw that George Joannides played a significant but secondary role in the story of the killing of JFK."
He doesn't have the slightest idea as to what role Joannides played in the killing much less a significant one. This is why he is asking for the files; to see if he did have any role. There's lot more of these types of unproven claims involving Angleton and others.
That's most emphatically not someone who is being cautious about making unproven claims. Does he know what Joannides/CI did or doesn't he? He can be one or the other but not both.
-
Morley admits on some occasions (as with Beck) that he is guessing and speculating about Joannides and whether Oswald was used in a covert operation but on other occasions makes unqualified absolute claims on the same matter. He says he/we need access to the files on Joannides to be sure.
Here's an example (from his book Morley v. CIA): "I saw that George Joannides played a significant but secondary role in the story of the killing of JFK."
He doesn't have the slightest idea as to what role Joannides played in the killing much less a significant one. This is why he is asking for the files; to see if he did have any role. There's lot more of these types of unproven claims involving Angleton and others.
That's most emphatically not someone who is being cautious about making unproven claims. Does he know what Joannides/CI did or doesn't he? He can be one or the other but not both.
100 percent right.
-
He also believes that Oswald was pulling a Herbert Philbrick and pretending to be a leftist; in reality he was a gung-ho patriotic American working with the FBI (but not the CIA apparently) who was protecting us from Marxism. Everything up is really down.
None of us can know for certain what Oswald really believed.
What we do know is:
- He had many rightwing or anti-communist associates, but no Leftist associates.
- He portrayed himself publicly as supporting both the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party. The problem with that is that the groups were bitter rivals in Oswald's time. So it makes little sense that someone would support both. It would be like supporting the Libertarian Party and the Republican Party. And maybe Oswald revealed his true feelings about the Communist Party when he ridiculed them in the Summer of 1963. With his contradictory statements about Communism, Socialism, and Marxism, it's legit to ask questions about what he really believed.
Anyway, why in the heck would the FBI need a person like Oswald (not exactly Prince Charming) to infiltrate and discredit a non-existent FPCC movement in New Orleans? There's nothing to infiltrate.
The FPCC was a national movement with supporters everywhere. While there may not have been a Chapter in New Orleans, it's possible that there were supporters of the FPCC movement in New Orleans. Or maybe they were baiting Communists? Both groups were targeted by the FBI's COINTELPRO operations.
And the FBI uses weird individuals and criminals all the time as informants or assets.
One of the founders of the FPCC, Richard Gibson, was outed as a CIA asset:
CIA Reveals Name of Former Spy in JFK Files—And He's Still Alive
In a strange twist, on April 26, when the National Archives released thousands of documents pertaining to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, they included three fat CIA files on Gibson. According to these documents, he had served U.S. intelligence from 1965 until at least 1977. This was well after Wright wrote his book, and it's not clear if Gibson had engaged in espionage before that period. But his files revealed his CIA code name, QRPHONE-1; his salary (as much as $900 a month); and his various missions, as well as his attitude ("energetic") and performance ("a self-starter").
https://www.newsweek.com/richard-gibson-cia-spies-james-baldwin-amiri-baraka-richard-wright-cuba-926428
Gibson was alive at the time when that Newsweek article was published. It was indeed odd that the CIA published the name of an asset while the person is still alive.
-
Morley admits on some occasions (as with Beck) that he is guessing and speculating about Joannides and whether Oswald was used in a covert operation but on other occasions makes unqualified absolute claims on the same matter. He says he/we need access to the files on Joannides to be sure.
Here's an example (from his book Morley v. CIA): "I saw that George Joannides played a significant but secondary role in the story of the killing of JFK."
He doesn't have the slightest idea as to what role Joannides played in the killing much less a significant one. This is why he is asking for the files; to see if he did have any role. There's lot more of these types of unproven claims involving Angleton and others.
That's most emphatically not someone who is being cautious about making unproven claims. Does he know what Joannides/CI did or doesn't he? He can be one or the other but not both.
How long has Morley been researching Joannides? How long was he in the courts trying to get his file? Morley has been researching Joannies for quite a while so if he's speculating he sure isn't pulling it from his ass.
-
New files can be viewed here
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/release2022
-
Fayid file, for sake of comparison,
With redactions,
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=37068#relPageId=3&search=fayid
Today's release,
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/104-10166-10278.pdf
-
The files that Morley and others want declassified still haven't been declassified
"They Released All the Records We Needed to See--Except the Records We Needed to See"
https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/they-released-all-the-records-we?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=auto_share&r=l459
Miami Herald - Did the CIA use Cuban exiles in plot involving Oswald? Questions remain as Biden withholds JFK records
https://apple.news/Ama_VnmFaRRigosToO00a7Q
Some Cuban exiles who were part of this history were also hoping a full disclosure of Joannides’ record would help them understand what role, if any, they played in this alleged conspiracy.
Jose Antonio Lanuza, 83, a former member of the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil, or Revolutionary Student Directorate, a Cuban exile anti-Castro organization active in the 1960s, told the Herald he was hoping the remaining documents would confirm a long-held suspicion that he, and other Directorate members, were used by Joannides, the organization’s case handler in Miami, to create and later spread the fake narrative that Oswald was a pro-Castro sympathizer, providing a handy motive for the assassination.
“I think [the CIA] built this legend,” Lanuza said. “Why? Because when it became known that he had killed Kennedy, an idiot named José Antonio Lanuza, that’s me, suddenly his memory would tell him, hey, I know this guy, this is Castro sympathizer.”
Lanuza, who was based in Miami at the time, said he gathered all the evidence he had about Oswald that Bringuier had forwarded to him (a Navy manual Oswald handed as proof of his credentials, the radio show recording and a handwritten letter by Oswald offering his services, which is now lost) to make the case to Luis Fernandez Rocha, the Directorate top secretary, that Oswald was an agent for Castro.
Rocha, who is now deceased, contacted the organization’s CIA handler, a man named “Howard” whom researchers later identified as Joannides. The CIA agent had one instruction: “Don’t give the press anything; wait an hour.”
“I did not wait for the hour. At exactly 50 minutes, I was sitting with two phones calling journalists,” Lanuza recalled. “I left them a message saying: President John Kennedy was assassinated by a pro-Castro agent in the United States, a member of Fair Play for Cuba. And I spent more than two hours on the phone.”
Other members of the Directorate repeated that message publicly at the time.