Luna's Ridiculous Hearing

[Steve M. Galbraith]

It's obvious to me that Tunheim is not that well versed on some issues or he believes too many conspiracy writers.

No one on the committee was able to challenge him. Or wanted to. Can't expect them to know the details of this but that's why they have staffers. Or why the hearings should have someone on the panel like Fred or Max Holland, Posner et al. to challenge claims. This is all one-sided. And why they allowed Dr. Curtis to give his second (third? fourth?) hand account of the shooting is another problem. Maybe worse than Tunheim's testimony. Curtis wasn't saying anything about the shooting that he knew firsthand; it seemed to be entirely from things he read or heard from others.

Things like this remind me of Liebeler's complaint about debating Mark Lane: "Lane will talk for 15 minutes and it takes you four hours to correct his claims." That's always been the problem with conspiracists of any variety but especially JFK assassination types. You are always having to chase after them.

[Tim Nickerson]

Don Curtis: Then he (Specter) got the committee together, and nobody I'd ever seen before sitting behind the table, and put me on a high stool uncomfortably...And then started asking me questions.
=====================

The testimony of Dr. Don Teel Curtis was taken at 9:25 a.m., on March 24, 1964, at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Arlen Specter, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Mr. SPECTER - Let the record show that present are Dr. Don Curtis and the court reporter, in connection with the deposition proceeding being conducted by the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, which is inquiring into all facets of the assassination, including the medical treatment performed for President Kennedy.

[Tom Graves]

In a court filing, Nelson of the CIA said Joannides was "serving undercover" during his HSCA tenure. Was he really or was it her interpretation of something she read? I don't know.

Nelson who?

[Royell Storing]

   The Luna Hearing made it obvious that age has caught up with Oliver Stone. He's now incapable of maintaining coherent thought for better than 4 continuous minutes. I watched Tink Thompson interviewed for roughly 50 minutes on NewsNation several months ago. The same is Now true with him. I hope that both Stone and Thompson have maintained detailed journals. Both have acquired a lot of knowledge in addition to physical evidence regarding the JFK Assassination. Detectives and Cops keep records of the cases they are involved with over the course of their career. Yet, we have guys like SA Clint Hill pass and we do Not hear anything about a personal journal? Why is this? Same goes for Gary Mack. He should have had a 3 Car Garage full of Badge Man Material, McKinnon ID Issue, the Dictabelt, etc. Yet we get squadoosh. What is going on here?

[Tom Graves]

Detectives and Cops keep records of the cases they are involved with over the course of their career. Yet, we have guys like SA Clint Hill pass and we do Not hear anything about a personal journal? Why is this? Same goes for Gary Mack. He should have had a 3 Car Garage full of Badge Man Material, McKinnon ID Issue, the Dictabelt, etc. Yet we get squadoosh. What is going on here?

Comrade Storing,

As you've been brainwashed into believing, it's all part-and-parcel of THE DEEP STATE CONSPIRACY.

Keep up the good work in spreading the disfo, Comrade!

Your buddy,

-- Vladimir Putin

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Nelson who?

Delores Nelson of the CIA's Public Information Programs Division. She was responding to Morley's lawsuit against the CIA. That is when she made the statement about Joannides that I referenced.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Delores Nelson of the CIA's Public Information Programs Division. She was responding to Morley's lawsuit against the CIA. That is when she made the statement about Joannides that I referenced.

One doesn't have to be Jim Garrison to have legitimate questions about what exactly Joannides was doing with the HSCA. Why Joannides? Who chose him? As I understand it, he was simply the liaison or go-between between the HSCA and the CIA, correct? He had no role outside of being essentially a messenger between the two. So what harm could he have done? Still, it's a curious choice to use.

Hardway says that the CIA was very cooperative until they started asking about Mexico City. Not New Orleans or the DRE. It was then that that, according to him, the CIA clamped down. Hardway comes across to me as a very honest guy but he really does see the assassination through his "CIA was behind it all" perspective, e.g., Oswald had no agency, didn't act on his own; he was being directed/controlled by outside forces and figures such as Philips.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

One doesn't have to be Jim Garrison to have legitimate questions about what exactly Joannides was doing with the HSCA. Why Joannides? Who chose him? As I understand it, he was simply the liaison or go-between between the HSCA and the CIA, correct? He had no role outside of being essentially a messenger between the two. So what harm could he have done? Still, it's a curious choice to use.

Hardway says that the CIA was very cooperative until they started asking about Mexico City. Not New Orleans or the DRE. It was then that that, according to him, the CIA clamped down. Hardway comes across to me as a very honest guy but he really does see the assassination through his "CIA was behind it all" perspective, e.g., Oswald had no agency, didn't act on his own; he was being directed/controlled by outside forces and figures such as Philips.

My take on Joannides is that he was given his position as a liaison to the HSCA by Breckinridge because he was an experienced man. Once he was on the job, Joannides, who was likely an old school CIA hardliner, considered it his duty to give out as little information as possible. This was simply to keep the secrets on methods and sources and almost certainly not to cover-up any "Oswald Operation" as Morley suspects. After all, the DRE guys Morley talked to never said there was any operation or that Bringuier's interactions with Oswald were scripted by the agency. Some of them did believe in conspiracy theories (apparently) like millions of others. But they never said the DRE was involved in those, only that they were "used" somehow by the CIA.

Did Joannides delete files? Sure, it is possible, heck anything is possible. But again, if you could somehow prove he did, it would not prove an "Oswald Operation." It is likely that Joannides gave his word to sources and/or assets that their efforts would remain forever secret. So, when he was in a position to get rid of files he COULD have. But I would say it is just as likely that the operational files on the DRE from the period Joannides was case officer (which Morley is so concerned about)  are lost or never existed or were routinely destroyed. After all, many files are lost-Mary Ferrell has a report on that somewhere.