The JFK Files: Rhetoric vs. Truth

[W. Tracy Parnell]

I'm not sure if that's the exact quote. Do you have a link to it?

Directly from the Kindle version of his book (p. 58):

Perhaps now, observant people can understand how JFK’s enemies pulled off the “greatest magic trick under the sun,” how they made Oswald a patsy for their crime. They did it with covert psychological warfare schemes, like the AMSPELL program, whose workings are still protected by state secrecy.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Who knows? James Angleton's paranoia (post the Philby incident) is well documented.

If he had any involvement with JFK's assassination (even indirectly), it was in his interest to point the finger at the Soviets.

Any luck finding that Morley quote that you referenced earlier?


Somewhat off-topic but still on the topic of conspiracies, the Trump-Russia collusion theory is a recent conspiracy that many people on the Left in the US have speculated about. I too initially thought the theory had legs but over time, the more I learned about the Trump-Russia investigations, the less I believed it to be probable that there was any sort of agreement or conspiracy between Trump and Putin.

The Kennedy assassination for me has been the opposite. The more I've learned, the more I've leaned towards the conclusion that there probably was a conspiracy.

The Angleton reaction, to me, undercuts Morley's claim of his involvement in the assassination. It doesn't disprove it; but it doesn't make much sense that he would go through all of that if he knew Oswald wasn't the assassin but his own people were.

As to Trump and the collusion story: One interesting aspect to me was Trump's reluctance to condemn Putin or Russian intelligence for spreading the stories. The original claim was that Russian agents or ex-agents gave Steele that information. Trump was angry at the media but didn't condemn Putin or Russia. Very odd.

It now appears that all of Steele's allegations were based on rumors that, in part, were disseminated by Democratic operatives. That's pretty stunning to think that the country was put through all of this and it was, perhaps - perhaps- some sort of sting by Democratic party people. The media - those outlets that pushed it - have some explaining to do.

[Jon Banks]

Directly from the Kindle version of his book (p. 58):

Perhaps now, observant people can understand how JFK’s enemies pulled off the “greatest magic trick under the sun,” how they made Oswald a patsy for their crime. They did it with covert psychological warfare schemes, like the AMSPELL program, whose workings are still protected by state secrecy.

Which book? I have Morley's book on James Angleton open to page 58 and it's a chapter about Frank Olson.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Which book? I have Morley's book on James Angleton open to page 58 and it's a chapter about Frank Olson.

Morley v. CIA: My Unfinished JFK Investigation.

[Jon Banks]

Morley v. CIA: My Unfinished JFK Investigation.

I haven't read that book yet so I'll have to take your word for it.

The reason I pushed back is because Morley typically focuses on the Intelligence Community's knowledge of Oswald prior to the assassination. Rarely does he weigh in on "who did it" or Oswald's role in the assassination.

I'll go back to what I said earlier: speculating about historic events doesn't make one a "conspiracy theorist". Proposing a theory of "what happened" does.

Morley, whether you agree or disagree with his opinions, is a good journalist and JFK assassination researcher.

[Jon Banks]

The Angleton reaction, to me, undercuts Morley's claim of his involvement in the assassination. It doesn't disprove it; but it doesn't make much sense that he would go through all of that if he knew Oswald wasn't the assassin but his own people were.

This gets back to my earlier point about "different interpretations of factual information".

My interpretation is that someone with a guilty-conscious might want to direct scrutiny and suspicions towards a different target. Some CIA officers are experts at deception and that kind of deception would fit Angleton's skillset.

But I'm also aware that our own personal biases affect our interpretation of facts like that. All I'm trying to get across is that there are other ways to interpret his behavior. There's no wrong answer on this point.

It should also be noted that even today, many former CIA officials like James Woolsey for example, have publicly stated their suspicion that Castro or the Soviets were involved. The Nosenko incident didn't end speculation within the CIA.

Former CIA agent, Robert Baer has gone as far as speculating that Cuban spies posing as anti-Castro Cuban exiles conspired with Oswald. Which is possible I guess but may also be intended to take the heat off of the Cuban exiles that were working for the CIA (whom RFK initially suspected played a role in his brother's murder).

Lastly, concluding that there was a conspiracy doesn't exonerate Oswald. Not sure why you seem to imply that "conspiracy = Oswald's innocence". I've followed Morley's blog for a few years and never got the impression that he believes Oswald was innocent.

As to Trump and the collusion story: One interesting aspect to me was Trump's reluctance to condemn Putin or Russian intelligence for spreading the stories. The original claim was that Russian agents or ex-agents gave Steele that information. Trump was angry at the media but didn't condemn Putin or Russia. Very odd.

Trump seems to have some sort of admiration or affinity for authoritarian leaders. It's not just Putin but also the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and the President of Turkey that Trump had good relations with. In fact, there's more evidence of Trump benefiting financially from his relationships with Middle Eastern leaders than with Putin. So while there could be something there, it may ultimately be about Trump being a fanboy of authoritarian "strongmen".

It now appears that all of Steele's allegations were based on rumors that, in part, were disseminated by Democratic operatives. That's pretty stunning to think that the country was put through all of this and it was, perhaps - perhaps- some sort of sting by Democratic party people. The media - those outlets that pushed it - have some explaining to do.

I agree. Like I said, I initially bought into the collusion narrative but as we got more evidence and context, it seems far less probable now.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Here's a snapshot of page 58 in Morley's book (it's only 90 pages including footnotes and the Appeals Court ruling denying him compensation for his expenses accrued for his FOIA requests)  where he claims Oswald was a patsy.

But he doesn't say, as I mistakenly did, that AMSPELL was the "scheme" that did it. He says the "scheme" used to make Oswald a patsy for "their crime" was "like" AMSPELL. But he doesn't say what that was.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Good article by Robert Reynolds on the upcoming document releases. He writes:

"... it is also understandable that people might think there are still important documents left unreleased. A closer look at NARA’s latest data on the ARC, however, reveals just how unlikely this is."

Reynolds also discusses Morley.

https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2021/12/reynolds.html