Morley: Major Break Coming in the JFK Assassination Story

[Bill Chapman]

I refuse to believe any major announcements on the JFK assassination made by Benny Hill.

Good one

[W. Tracy Parnell]

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?"

[Steve M. Galbraith]

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?

[Jon Banks]

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.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

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.

[Jon Banks]

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?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

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?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

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.