Morley Revelation or Nothingburger

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Morley claimed to have a major story-the most important of his career. But did he?

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2024/10/morley-revelation-or-nothingburger.html

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Morley claimed to have a major story-the most important of his career. But did he?

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2024/10/morley-revelation-or-nothingburger.html

Tracy: What are your thoughts/views on that Win Scott manuscript ("It Came To Little" and "A Foul Foe") that was found after his death where he mentions that the CIA in Mexico City "closely monitored" Oswald when he was there and that they took numerous photos of him going in and out of the Cuban and Soviet Embassies (nothing about a video)? Frankly, I think Scott was blowing smoke and exaggerating matters. After all his personal assistant reports officer Anne Goodpasture testified that she saw no photos, that she sent that photo of the "mystery man" to Dallas (I would think that if they had photos of the real Oswald they wouldn't have sent that later photo of someone who is *clearly* not him?). It seems to me that if everything, i.e., the photos, essentially went through her to Scott - at least matters regarding surveillance of "walk ins" to the Soviet and Cuban facilities - she would have know about them? But again, she said that while she didn't know all of the coverage of the facilities she saw no such photos of Oswald. So how would Scott see them but not her?

As to Morley: at this point his credibility is gone. He's now reduced to engaging in serial exaggeration and hyperbole. All sizzle and not only no steak, no hamburger either.

The section in question written by Scott can be read here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=79946#relPageId=3

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Steve,

I believe you have covered it perfectly. I think the manuscript, rather than an "autobiography" as it is often described, was a vehicle for Scott to spout off without having to be 100 percent adherent to facts although there are undoubtedly elements of truth there. I don't believe there ever were any photos and the CIA bureaucrats simply messed up. Of course, CTs believe the agency is all powerful and infallible so they had to have photos. Yes, Morley has fallen a long way from his glory days in the late nineties. A real shame.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Steve,

I believe you have covered it perfectly. I think the manuscript, rather than an "autobiography" as it is often described, was a vehicle for Scott to spout off without having to be 100 percent adherent to facts although there are undoubtedly elements of truth there. I don't believe there ever were any photos and the CIA bureaucrats simply messed up. Of course, CTs believe the agency is all powerful and infallible so they had to have photos. Yes, Morley has fallen a long way from his glory days in the late nineties. A real shame.

Morley says any suggestion that Scott made up the Oswald photos account in his manuscript is "unsupported". That's true if, among other things, you ignore the statements by Anne Goodpasture and Phillips, both of whom testified that they saw no photos. They would most certainly, it seems to me given their jobs, to have seen any such photos. Goodpasture testified that she was in charge of routing the photos; that is the photos went through her. And if you read the other parts you'll see that Scott is simply making things up, making claims about what he knew about Oswald before the assassination that were only learned later and after it.

Anyway, if Morley wants to be a conspiracy advocate - to pore over this material and plunk pluck out those pieces that support his "the CIA did it view" and ignore any contradictory evidence - then fine; but he's simply not, at this point, a neutral assassination researcher by any measure.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2024/10/fact-checking-morley-press-conference.html

[Steve M. Galbraith]

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2024/10/fact-checking-morley-press-conference.html

Thanks for the review. He's really flailing here.

And, quelle surprise, Morley repeats the Win Scott claims made in his (Scott's) manuscript.

Right after the assassination, Scott's top aide/routing officer Anne Goodpasture pored over the photos taken of people entering the Soviet Embassy and selected one she thought possibly may have been Oswald (since he had phoned the Soviet Embassy that day, Tuesday, October 1). The CIA station, e.g., Goodpasture, didn't know what Oswald looked like. As she later said, that was a mistake to do since it was obviously not Oswald. But again, she didn't know at that early stage what Oswald looked like.

If they were "closely monitoring" Oswald as Scott claimed and had taken numerous photos of him then why would Goodpasture send a photo that's clearly not Oswald to Dallas? Why not send the supposed photos that Scott said they made? But as she said, at that time she didn't know what Oswald looked like. The same Oswald that Scott claimed to have been "closely monitored" while in Mexico City?

Shorter: Scott was making it up.