JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Fred Litwin on July 15, 2025, 12:15:40 PM
-
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jefferson-morley-s-unbearable-lightness-of-being (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.
-
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.
8) 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" :D
-
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, 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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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 :)
-
I simply don't accept Bringuier's word as proof that Joannides wasn't involved.
The burden is on you to prove that he was.
-
The burden is on you to prove that he was.
See the newly declassified documents. The CIA has confirmed that Joannides was the handler for the DRE.
It has been all over the mainstream news media. Where have you been?
-
Fred: Trying to prove a negative here: Ross Crozier preceded Joannides as control agent/mediator between the CIA and DRE. In fact, he helped create the group when they were in Cuba under Batista and then later when they fled to the US. I believe Joannides replaced him at the beginning of 1963.
I would assume that if Bringuier had been cooperating with the CIA, had some sort of relationship, that if would have preceded Joannide's time and that somewhere in the Crozier files (which were quite detailed) there would be mention of him? Bringuier says he never had any contact with the CIA, never received money or instructions. That would include Crozier too.
I was wondering if the Crozier files on the DRE would tell us anything about a Bringuier/CIA relationship. The Mary Ferrell site has hundreds of pages on him but I found nothing about Bringuier.
BTW, someone needs to write a book or make a movie about Crozier. Talk about an amazing life.
-
See the newly declassified documents. The CIA has confirmed that Joannides was the handler for the DRE.
It has been all over the mainstream news media. Where have you been?
Sorry, but that just won't do. You're asking me to substantiate your claim.
As Steve Galbraith has pointed out, Bringuier has repeatedly stated that he acted on his own and that he had no guidance from anyone. He says that he never met Joannides. So, where in the documents that you refer to does it say that Joannides had a guiding hand in the operation of DRE in New Orleans?
-
Sorry, but that just won't do. You're asking me to substantiate your claim.
As Steve Galbraith has pointed out, Bringuier has repeatedly stated that he acted on his own and that he had no guidance from anyone. He says that he never met Joannides. So, where in the documents that you refer to does it say that Joannides had a guiding hand in the operation of DRE in New Orleans?
From the Washington Post:
“Howard” dealt only with the DRE’s leader, Luis Fernandez Rocha, and Rocha would pass on direction from “Howard.”
Joannides was "Howard"
It doesn't matter if Bringuier never met the DRE's CIA handler because Bringuier was not the person who called the shots in the organization. Rocha passed information about Oswald to Joannides.
-
From the Washington Post:
“Howard” dealt only with the DRE’s leader, Luis Fernandez Rocha, and Rocha would pass on direction from “Howard.”
Joannides was "Howard"
It doesn't matter if Bringuier never met the DRE's CIA handler because Bringuier was not the person who called the shots in the organization. Rocha passed information about Oswald to Joannides.
Where does the Washington Post get that Rocha would pass on direction from "Howard"?
Where do you get that Rocha passed information about Oswald to Joannides?
-
Where does the Washington Post get that Rocha would pass on direction from "Howard"?
Where do you get that Rocha passed information about Oswald to Joannides?
In the summer of 63' Carlos Bringuier notified the group's leaders in Miami about his confrontations with LHO. Rocha, the DRE's leader, reported to Howard/Joannides.
In the immediate aftermath of 11/22/63, Howard/Joannides approved the DRE's efforts to go to the Press with details about Oswald's pro-Castro activism in New Orleans:
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.
Morley has also advanced a version of this theory, but he told reporters last week that he believes Joannides may have used Oswald to undermine the work of Fair Play for Cuba. But whatever the nature of the CIA’s “operational interest in Oswald,” Morley said Thursday, “we don’t know. That’s why we need the documents.”
Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article270075417.html#storylink=cpy
-
In the summer of 63' Carlos Bringuier notified the group's leaders in Miami about his confrontations with LHO. Rocha, the DRE's leader, reported to Howard/Joannides.
In the immediate aftermath of 11/22/63, Howard/Joannides approved the DRE's efforts to go to the Press with details about Oswald's pro-Castro activism in New Orleans:
Your claim that Joannides approved the DRE's efforts to go to the press is lacking any real support. Where does the claim about Rocha receiving instruction from Joannides come from? Lanuza? Doubtful. The writer of the piece seemed to be adding his own spin on things. He has Joannides as being DRE's CIA handler and giving the instruction to Roche.
-
Your claim that Joannides approved the DRE's efforts to go to the press is lacking any real support.
Where does the claim about Rocha receiving instruction from Joannides come from? Lanuza? Doubtful. The writer of the piece seemed to be adding his own spin on things. He has Joannides as being DRE's CIA handler and giving the instruction to Roche.
From the Washington Post:
...when the news hit that Oswald had been arrested three months later, Lanuza and Rocha called Howard. Lanuza said Howard told them to call the FBI and provide the letter, and then alert the media to Oswald’s pro-Cuba leanings. The FBI came and took Oswald’s letter with a promise to return it, Lanuza said, but never did.
Lanuza then phoned his contacts in the news media, who promptly added Oswald’s political leanings to their coverage. The Fair Play for Cuba Committee soon imploded from its association with Oswald, a massive victory for the CIA — and for Howard.
Morley and other researchers always suspected Howard was Joannides, who died in 1990, but it wasn’t confirmed until the driver’s license documents were released July 3.
“Why couldn’t they say that [before 2025]?” Morley asked. “I think the only reason is there’s something nefarious going on. If it’s something innocent, just say this is what happened.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/07/14/cia-oswald-jfk-assassination-joannides/
Lanuza, the press officer for the DRE at the time, is the source of the claim that "Howard" approved of their going to the Press with information about their run-ins with Oswald in New Orleans. He has been telling that story for years.
The newly declassified files on Joannides confirm that "Howard Gebler" was his alias.
During the ARRB, the CIA denied that "Howard" existed. We now know that "Howard" did in fact exist and he was Joannides.
This stuff isn't as complicated as you're making it seem.
-
From the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/07/14/cia-oswald-jfk-assassination-joannides/
Lanuza, the press officer for the DRE at the time, is the source of the claim that "Howard" approved of their going to the Press with information about their run-ins with Oswald in New Orleans. He has been telling that story for years.
The newly declassified files on Joannides confirm that "Howard Gebler" was his alias.
During the ARRB, the CIA denied that "Howard" existed. We now know that "Howard" did in fact exist and he was Joannides.
This stuff isn't as complicated as you're making it seem.
The problem that I'm having is with the assertion that Roche and Lanuza needed the approval of Howard (Joannides) before going to the Press with information about DREs run-ins with Oswald in New Orleans. I can't access the Post article. What is the real support for that assertion?