Important New Jefferson Morley Article

[Michael Hogan]

When I spoke to David Kaiser in Dallas a couple of years ago he told me that he was fairly certain that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman.

Maybe his friend Morley persuaded him to consider other possibilities. In May of 2006 you asked him:

"What is your basic approach to writing about what I would call “secret history”? How do you decide what sources to believe? How do you manage to get hold of documents that prove that illegal behaviour has taken place?"

Kaiser's reply:

"The basic rule is that before-the-fact (in this case, pre-November 1963) documents are more important than after-the-fact ones. There's a hierarchy of evidence. People who come forward years later with stories are suspect, and if they said something different at the time, one has to discount them heavily. Meanwhile, one has to read as many documents as possible to understand the context of a particular event. Almost everything Oswald did looks, actually, like part of something bigger that was happening at the time."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...art=#entry67344

Edited November 24, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[John Simkin]

When I spoke to David Kaiser in Dallas a couple of years ago he told me that he was fairly certain that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman.

Maybe his friend Morley persuaded him to consider other possibilities. In May of 2006 you asked him:

"What is your basic approach to writing about what I would call “secret history”? How do you decide what sources to believe? How do you manage to get hold of documents that prove that illegal behaviour has taken place?"

Kaiser's reply:

"The basic rule is that before-the-fact (in this case, pre-November 1963) documents are more important than after-the-fact ones. There's a hierarchy of evidence. People who come forward years later with stories are suspect, and if they said something different at the time, one has to discount them heavily. Meanwhile, one has to read as many documents as possible to understand the context of a particular event. Almost everything Oswald did looks, actually, like part of something bigger that was happening at the time."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...art=#entry67344

Like the CIA, when they could no longer support the lone-gunman theory, they promoted the "Mafia did it" theory. Maybe, David has followed the same path. When we had the discussion about Oswald he did admit that the CIA had been involved in some sort of cover-up. However, he thought it was not the role of the historian to speculate why the CIA had done this.

[Terry Mauro]

Don't get your hopes up.

It seems that the Scheim/Davis/Blakey-Billings/Waldron-Hartmann disinformation chain/cover-up is set to continue.

From Harvard's website description of the forthcoming Kaiser book:

"The conspiracy to kill JFK took shape in response to Robert Kennedy’s relentless attacks on organized crime—legal vendettas that often went well beyond the normal practices of law enforcement. Pushed to the wall, mob leaders merely had to look to the networks already in place for a solution. They found it in Lee Harvey Oswald—the ideal character to enact their desperate revenge against the Kennedys."

Sad in advance,

Charles

Hopes for what? Can I at least hope I might learn something? A book does not necessarily need to be prejudged based on the author's stated conclusions. I would rather judge it by the quality of research contained therein. Even the books Charles listed provoked discussion and further research by others, and had a certain value or interest.

I've long since given up hope that any book by any author will solve this mystery completely.

David Kaiser is a member of The Education Forum: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...art=#entry67344

His previous book on Kennedy, Johnson and the Vietnam War entitled American Tragedy was generally well-received.

I intend to buy Kaiser's new book when it is published, read it - and listen to the opinions of others. Then, and not until then will I make up my mind whether the author had anything of value to share.

Morley had this to say about his friend's book:

....I know of four tenured academic historians who have written directly on the JFK assassination in the past five years. Three of them (Gerald McKnight of Hood College, David Wrone of the University of Wisconsin-Steven Points, Michael Kurtz of Southeast Louisiana University) came to conspiratorial conclusions, while one (Robert Dallek of UCLA) vouched for the lone gunman theory. A forthcoming book by Naval War College historian David Kaiser on Kennedy's Cuba policy and the assassination, to be published by Harvard University Press next year, is likely to demolish this myth once and for all. (Full disclosure: Kaiser is a friend and the book will cite my JFK reporting.)

***************************************************************

"Hopes for what? Can I at least hope I might learn something? A book does not necessarily need to be prejudged based on the author's stated conclusions. I would rather judge it by the quality of research contained therein. Even the books Charles listed provoked discussion and further research by others, and had a certain value or interest."

You're absolutely 100 percent correct, Mike!

Like my professor of The Sociology of Law, Jeanne Curran, used to say, "How do you expect to remain informed enough to be able to counter your opposition, if you've not bothered to read up on their views, or arguments against your own case?" It's called, "Know thine enemy."

[Charles Drago]

Easy now.

Nowhere did I suggest that the book should be shunned or that it would not serve to help us know more about our common enemy.

I simply pointed out that, based upon its publisher's blurb, the book likely will support the "Mob did it" and "Oswald shot Kennedy" myths.

I too look forward to reading Kaiser.

Charles

[Tim Gratz]

Jack Ruby was framed. That was really E. Howard Hunt who shot LHO, dressed in a masterful disguise created in Langley, VA by the CIA master of surprises. No doubt when Ruby was thrown into jail threats were made against his sister, brother and perhaps even his dogs if he "talked".

Why of course it is a myth that organized crime shot JFK, Charles.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Mike and Terry are absolutely correct. I have learned important things even from books with whose ultimate premise I have disagreed.

________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________

Drago's premise that anyone who disagrees with his view of the assassination is part of a "disinformation campaign" is at best pathetic and at worse pathological.

Edited November 25, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Myra Bronstein]

In my opinion Jeff's article is the most important on the JFK assassination for many years. In the past Jeff has been criticised for being "too moderate" in his approach. However, it is a great advantage if you are working via the mainstream media. A very good summary of where we are in 2007. My only criticism is that I would have liked him to include some of the new information that appeared in the second edition of "Someone Would Have Talked".

Well I haven't been reading articles on this subject for years, but the Playboy article is certainly one of the best I've read since I started researching. Just excellent.

[William Kelly]

The real issue regarding the assassination of President Kennedy is national security.

In his Playboy article [http://www.playboy.com/magazine/features/jfk/jfk-page10.html ], Jeff Morley argues that the assassination of President Kennedy should be viewed as an "intelligence failure," like 9/11, but as Lisa Pease points out, it should be viewed as an "intelligence success."

In either case, what happened at Dealey Plaza was a violation of the national security of the United States, not only the security of the government, but the national security of the country.

As John Chuckman point out in his anniversary commentary (thanks to Mike Hogan for calling our attention to this) [ http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/47672 ],

"We must always remember Bertrand Russell's profound, unanswered question after he had reviewed an advanced copy of the Warren Report: 'If, as we are told, Oswald was the lone assassin, where is the issue of national security?' Russell's question goes to the heart of the matter, as you would expect from one of the greatest mathematical minds of the 20th century. It has never been answered,…"

And now we still must address this question.

The assassination of President Kennedy must be resolved because the national security of the United States is at stake.

BK

Edited November 26, 2007 by William Kelly

[Charles Drago]

In his Playboy article Jeff Morley argues that the assassination of President Kennedy should be viewed as an “intelligence failure,” like 9/11, but as Lisa Pease points out, it should be viewed as an “intelligence success.”

Bill and Ms. Pease drive to the heart of this issue: Do we have the requisite courage, imagination, and intellect to challenge our most deeply held, fiercely defended definitions -- including the ultimate shibboleth of the tribal "us" itself.

The conspiratorial murder of John F. Kennedy was not a blow against the state, but rather by the state.

The state acted in self defense.

The leader of those who would overthrow America did not order the assassination; rather, he was its target.

The corrupted system is self-correcting by nature.

The system corrected itself on November 22, 1963.

Crazy, am I?

Very well. Show me one state organ -- as you accept the definition of "state" -- that honestly endeavored to bring the killers of JFK to justice.

Just one.

Uh-huh.

Absent his embrace of this truth, Morley remains part of the problem.

But don't treat him too harshly.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Charles Drago

[Tim Gratz]

Below an interesting 2003 quote from Joseph Farah, the conservative and articulate man behind "World Net Daily". WND published "Triangle of Death" and while I do not agree with its ultimate premise of S Vietnamese involvement in the assassination, it did have some good new information, including detailed information about Mertz/Souetre.

It is good to see a conservative articulating the same condemnation of the government cover-up and calling for the release of all documents as is being made by Bill Kelly. Mr. Farah could turn out to be a worthwhile ally when the time comes to make a real push to Congress.

Frankly, if we can't answer with some degree of assurance the question of who killed our president 40 years ago, there is very little we can be certain about with regard to our government operations and public policy.

That's why this book ["Triangle of Death"] is important now. That's why this question will never go away. That's why it's still important that we clear the air, open up all the government files and address this issue head on – with no more cover-ups.

There's no question the government was complicit in the cover-up of the facts. The government intentionally withheld information from the public. And it continues to do so.

That is not acceptable. As America holds itself up as a beacon to the rest of the world – as the model for self-government and freedom – we cannot afford to allow the government to hold back secrets from the people any longer.

It's time for some straight talk.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

In his Playboy article Jeff Morley argues that the assassination of President Kennedy should be viewed as an “intelligence failure,” like 9/11, but as Lisa Pease points out, it should be viewed as an “intelligence success.”

Bill and Ms. Pease drive to the heart of this issue: Do we have the requisite courage, imagination, and intellect to challenge our most deeply held, fiercely defended definitions -- including the ultimate shibboleth of the tribal "us" itself.

The conspiratorial murder of John F. Kennedy was not a blow against the state, but rather by the state.

The state acted in self defense.

The leader of those who would overthrow America did not order the assassination; rather, he was its target.

The corrupted system is self-correcting by nature.

The system corrected itself on November 22, 1963.

Crazy, am I?

Very well. Show me one state organ -- as you accept the definition of "state" -- that honestly endeavored to bring the killers of JFK to justice.

Just one.

Uh-huh.

Absent his embrace of this truth, Morley remains part of the problem.

But don't treat him too harshly.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Charles Drago

Charles, I agree with your point about the state's involvement in the cover-up, however, without people like Jeff Morley we just get no debate about the issue at all. In that respect, he is more important than Lisa Pease in the battle for the truth.

[Charles Drago]

In his Playboy article Jeff Morley argues that the assassination of President Kennedy should be viewed as an “intelligence failure,” like 9/11, but as Lisa Pease points out, it should be viewed as an “intelligence success.”

Bill and Ms. Pease drive to the heart of this issue: Do we have the requisite courage, imagination, and intellect to challenge our most deeply held, fiercely defended definitions -- including the ultimate shibboleth of the tribal "us" itself.

The conspiratorial murder of John F. Kennedy was not a blow against the state, but rather by the state.

The state acted in self defense.

The leader of those who would overthrow America did not order the assassination; rather, he was its target.

The corrupted system is self-correcting by nature.

The system corrected itself on November 22, 1963.

Crazy, am I?

Very well. Show me one state organ -- as you accept the definition of "state" -- that honestly endeavored to bring the killers of JFK to justice.

Just one.

Uh-huh.

Absent his embrace of this truth, Morley remains part of the problem.

But don't treat him too harshly.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Charles Drago

Charles, I agree with your point about the state's involvement in the cover-up, however, without people like Jeff Morley we just get no debate about the issue at all. In that respect, he is more important than Lisa Pease in the battle for the truth.

John,

I'm not contesting your take on Mr. Morley and the role he plays, but rather expressing wariness and skepticism developed over too many years of disappointment.

I just don't see him being emotionally capable of summoning the "requisite courage, imagination, and intellect to challenge our most deeply held, fiercely defended definitions -- including the ultimate shibboleth of the tribal 'us' itself."

Here's hoping that I am underestimating a good and bold man.

Charles

[William Kelly]

In his Playboy article Jeff Morley argues that the assassination of President Kennedy should be viewed as an "intelligence failure," like 9/11, but as Lisa Pease points out, it should be viewed as an "intelligence success."

Bill and Ms. Pease drive to the heart of this issue: Do we have the requisite courage, imagination, and intellect to challenge our most deeply held, fiercely defended definitions -- including the ultimate shibboleth of the tribal "us" itself.

The conspiratorial murder of John F. Kennedy was not a blow against the state, but rather by the state.

The state acted in self defense.

The leader of those who would overthrow America did not order the assassination; rather, he was its target.

The corrupted system is self-correcting by nature.

The system corrected itself on November 22, 1963.

Crazy, am I?

Very well. Show me one state organ -- as you accept the definition of "state" -- that honestly endeavored to bring the killers of JFK to justice.

Just one.

Uh-huh.

Absent his embrace of this truth, Morley remains part of the problem.

But don't treat him too harshly.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Charles Drago

Charles, I agree with your point about the state's involvement in the cover-up, however, without people like Jeff Morley we just get no debate about the issue at all. In that respect, he is more important than Lisa Pease in the battle for the truth.

Jeff Morley is certainly a major league player, heavy gun in the Media Wars over the truth about political assassinations, but Lisa is there in the trenches too. - BK

http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/index.htm

http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/

http://technorati.com/blogs/realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com

http://www.ctka.net/home.html

[Cliff Varnell]

http://www.playboy.com/magazine/features/jfk/jfk-page01.html

Great article up to this point, where I stopped cold and must respond:

Jefferson Morley:

Second, the scientific evidence supporting the lone gunman theory has weakened.

There has NEVER been scientific evidence supporting the lone gunman theory.

The bullet holes in JFK's shirt and jacket are 2" to 3" inches below the wound

location required by the SBT.

That is a hard, concrete, measurable, inconvertible fact.

Vincent Salandria pointed this out in 1965. Gaeton Fonzi was the first

to publish a photo of JFK's jacket, and corroborated Salandria's conclusion.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/F...th_Specter.html

In the Summer of 1966 Gaeton Fonzi published the smoking gun in the

Kennedy assassination: a photo of JFK's jacket and the all-too-low bullet

hole in its back.

The claim that JFK's jacket was "bunched up" in Dealey Plaza is trumped by

the films and photos which show the jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.

Author Jim Moore was the first to observe this, back in 1991.

JFK on Main St (left photo):

His shirt collar wasn't visible at the back of his neck on Main St.

See the same thing at the 25-26 second mark of the Jefferies film,

also taken on Main St.

But on Elm St. JFK's shirt collar is clearly visible in the films and photos.

Willis #4:

Here's the Tina Town film taken within a few seconds of the shooting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G98OFY_1Fm0

Note the white band at the base of JFK's neck from the 11 second

mark to 14 -- in between the motorcycle cops.

That white band was JFK's shirt collar gleaming in the sun, indicating

that his jacket collar had fallen to a normal position at the base of his

neck.

Indeed, these frames of the Houston St. segment of the Orville Nix film

show the jacket dropping:

The Death Certificate put the wound at T3, so do the holes in the clothes.

Any arguments to the contrary cannot be intellectually defended.

Salandria got it right -- the JFK research community over-analyzes the

evidence.

We have been deceived. By ourselves.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Jefferson Morley (emphasis added)

Perhaps the single most intriguing story to emerge from the JFK files

concerns a career CIA officer named George Joannides. He died in 1990 at

age 67, taking his JFK secrets to the grave in suburban Washington. His role

in the events leading up to Kennedy's death and its confused investigatory

aftermath goes utterly unmentioned in the vast literature of JFK's assassination.

Vincent Bugliosi's otherwise impressive 1,600 page book debunking every

JFK conspiracy theory known to man mentions him only in an inaccurate

footnote.

Vincent Bugliosi does not address the clothing evidence ANYWHERE in

his book. Deep into the CD accompanying Da Bug Book we find the

following...

Vincent Bugliosi (emphasis added):

A point that conspiracy theorists have raised over and over in their

books is that the entrance holes in the president's coat and shirt were more

than 2 inches lower in the back than the actual entrance wound in his body.

But even if there wasn't an explanation for this, so what?

The physical evidence in the case doesn't fit the lone gunman scenario -- so what?

The Single Bullet Fraud in effect!

Impressive, hardly.

[Charles Drago]

And it gets more insidious.

Those of us who know the truth do NOT claim that, as Bugliosi would have it, "the entrance holes in the president's coat and shirt were more than 2 inches lower in the back than the actual entrance wound in his body."

We KNOW that the entrance holes in the president's coat and shirt line up with the actual T-3 entrance would in JFK's back.

Bugliosi is misrepresenting our position by intentionally playing with semantics. What he does in this and so many other instances ("Why," he asks with gravitas, "would any conspirators choose LHO to do the shooting?" With this question, he implies that we have made such an argument. Which we haven't. And he knows it.) is nothing other than a more sophisticated (and equally sophistic) version of what a Colby does when he knowingly alters the meanings of others' posts by truncating and/or decontextualizing quotes (among other deceiver's tricks).

Charles