Jump to content
The Education Forum
Cory Santos

Delay in release of records.

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Paul, I go into that meeting in considerable detail including the research - much by Noel Twyman - that demonstrated Harvey was meeting with Roselli in SWHT.  There is more beyond his work that confirmed it as well.  As far as 1963 is concerned, Harvey had taken the Exec Action program that was conceptualized by Helms and then placed it under ZR RIFLE, applying it to Castro when he was assigned to Mongoose - which is when he recontacted Roselli.   Looking at mission reports, its clear that the infiltrations and ongoing attempts on Castro would have been supported by JM/WAVE, compartmentalized under Morales who was operations officer for the station and most likely directly by Robertson who was running boat missions.  I go into all this in more depth in NEXUS but my speculation is that the third party would have been Morales, the only individual  at the station who would have to have been read in on the assassination project  - remember, Mongoose utilized JM/WAVE station asset but operated independently out of headquarters in DC.

As to QJ/WIN there is no need for a theory, we have the documents on that crypt including when the individual tagged under that crypt (a Belgian crime figure/drug connection) was recruited (1958 as I recall) by the Belgian station, how he was utilized later and how he was recommended to Harvey for further work to support Harvey's Staff D recruiting effort.  Bill Simpich and I will be presenting on all that at the Dallas conference next month.

 

Larry, it's been 6-7 years since I read Someone Would Have Talked, revised 2010 edition and about 4 since Nexus.  I couldn't remember reference to a third important party on the Harvey - Roselli Florida fishing expedition in the spring of 63.  I didn't read every cross reference tonight of them but their was one of "an unknown individual" from Chiacgo flying in to join them on page 93 of SWHT.  No index in Nexus...  If You, based on your research over 30-40 (?) plus (?) years, in conjunction with other serious and knowledgeable researchers think Morales may have been on that boat then That is significant potentially History revised/expanded, told truthfulluy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ty Carpenter said:

He doesn't mention when, but I would anticipate soon. Thank you President Trump! 

Edit: Tweet was sent 24 minutes ago.

Screenshot_20171027-203000.png

 

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this article seems to confirm some of my prior comments about the situation in Washington as to what actually happened.

Then again, if we dont want to play in facts land, for those who think President Clinton would have released all of these records this week, had she won, please explain, why did President Bill not do something more in the 1990's about JFK when lots of relevant people were still alive and could have given testimony?   Or, why in he powerful position did she not push President Obama to release the records?    Certainly there were other legal avenues available to them to do so under the power of the President and a Democrat controlled congress.

Well?

. . .

Crickets.

Ok, so there was a great deal of internal infighting Thursday I was told.  This was not some easy situation in Washington.  Read this article and realize President Trump made a very strong move on the chess board. To suggest anything else shows a lack of understanding into what is really happening.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/26/politics/trump-unhappy-with-government-redactions-to-jfk-files/index.html

Edited by Cory Santos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron,  rather than disrupt this thread,  lets talk about Harvey and the meeting in Florida directly...just drop me a note at larryjoe@westok.net   I need to look up a couple of things to refresh my own memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Talbot wrote on Facebook today:

What recourse do we have when the U.S. national security state brazenly defies the law and the democratic process, as these security officials did this week by blocking the release of the JFK papers? Julian Assange offers one possible response to this official illegality, announcing that WikiLeaks is offering $100,000 for the withheld documents. I would hope that there are honorable officials within our security agencies and the National Archives that would do the right thing... WITHOUT being paid. There are many such decent people in these government institutions -- dedicated public servants who know that our country can never move forward unless we honestly confront our past. This country is in desperate need of a "truth and reconciliation" process.

Why did the CIA and FBI block the release of the Kennedy documents? It was a desperate move that has only further fueled suspicion that these agencies were involved in the crime and coverup.

Assange suggested several possible explanations: A. “Show power over Trump,” B. “Ruin Trump’s PR move,” C. “Serious incompetence” or D. “Conceal activities.”

I think the answer is obvious: D.

The chiefs of our security agencies violated the law this week. But there are hundreds of government employees in a position to obey it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest from AP.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jfk-files-release-is-trumps-latest-clash-with-spy-agencies/ar-AAu9j6F?li=BBnbcA1

"late last week Trump received his first official briefing on the release"  That's about ridiculous.  It's not a subject one can absorb or properly review in less than a week.  He probably had no idea who Phillips, Harvey, Joannadies or Morales were.  Or what a JMWAVE or Operation Northwoods were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Newman posted this on Facebook today:

OK--new thread. Japanese film crew left. I'm ready to roll out the DCI 5/5/72 injunction against ever asking defectors any questions about Oswald AND the fact that the 10/26/17 release is missing a rather provocative third page that we were discussing about 2 hours ago. The new release even has a different RIF from the previously released version that I found on MFF. There are several interesting angles (as mentioned in the missing p. 3) about all of this:

Image may contain: text
Image may contain: text
Image may contain: text

 

Edited by Douglas Caddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Ron,  rather than disrupt this thread,  lets talk about Harvey and the meeting in Florida directly...just drop me a note at larryjoe@westok.net   I need to look up a couple of things to refresh my own memory.

OkieDokie Sir.  You've piqued my interest, Again.  I'll try for contact in 2-3 days.  Appreciate the response.  Ron. 

Edited by Ron Bulman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Read this one.  First few paragraphs hit the nail on the head and hammer down.

The rest is maybe the best synopsis I've read.  Though I'm no researcher or expert.  

And virtually all of it has and can be disputed.

Edited by Ron Bulman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Read this one.  First few paragraphs hit the nail on the head and hammer down.

Bottom line.  The msm is owned by the less than 1%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×