The Holy Grail of the JFK Story

[Douglas Caddy]

The Holy Grail of the JFK Story
By Jefferson Morley
Salon.com
Nov. 22, 2011

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/22/the_holy_grail_of_the_jfk_story/

[Jon G. Tidd]

Jeff Morley is a journalist who believes in conspiracy lite. As a journalist, he seeks corroborated facts, which is good IMO. But as a Yale-trained journalist who's a Wa-Po alum, he values overly other journalists' work. Such as Philip Shenon's work.

What is conspiracy lite? It's a belief there was a conspiracy, but that the conspiracy was well defined and contained and discoverable.

This is a too-limited view IMO. It stops at the door of the CIA. Which is the dead-end for many JFK conspiracy theories.

FWIW, I believe there was a complex conspiracy involving just a few masters, maybe only one; a few agents; some decoys; and a few important pawns.

Does such a model fit the assassination of a U.S. president? You betcha.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

Jeff Morley is a journalist who believes in conspiracy lite. As a journalist, he seeks corroborated facts, which is good IMO. But as a Yale-trained journalist who's a Wa-Po alum, he values overly other journalists' work. Such as Philip Shenon's work.

Jon: I have worked with Jeff for a while, in translations, audio, video editing, etc. I was involved in cleaning up the recording from Gaeton Fonzi's cassette recorder for Jeff's interview on CNN (Thanks again, Marie!!!).

But I digress...

Jeff has held polls to HUMILIATE Shenon. Interviewed him in order to sweep the floor with Shenon's crêpe (*).

For a small sample of the Blitzkrieg from JFKFacts to Shenon:

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/phil-shenons-cruel-shocking-misinterpreation/

A JFK Facts debate about the CIA: Shenon v. Morrow

Whose argument do you find more credible?

Vote in the JFK Facts poll on the next page

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/a-jfk-facts-debate-about-the-cia-shenon-v-morrow/

-RFH

(*) Pardon my French.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Ramon F. Herrera

[Paul Brancato]

I think Morley's article is very cogent. John - the question Morley essentially asks is whether certain CIA were at the center of the conspiracy, not whether all the conspirators were CIA. His arguments make a lot of sense. I keep remarking on various threads why some of us feel so secure in drawing hard and fast lines between paid insiders in the national security state, such as Angleton Helms Phillips Dulles Hoover, and non-governmental assets. They shared a common hatred, something that can easily be proved. We all seem to agree, whatever our differences, that Shenon has is wrong, and that the killing was arranged and carried out by extremists on the right. The aforementioned paid insiders were able to cloak their extreme right wing views to some extent under the guise of government service, and had to by necessity. But guys like Angleton and Dulles were extremists. In similarity to the southern racists who tried to hide their racist agenda with fervent anti-Communism, these CIA masters hid their fascist beliefs. Same for Hoover, who went after the Communist party like it was about to foment a revolution, and pretty much left the JBS and the Mafia to their own devices as if they weren't a threat, which of course they were.

So please, can't we stop drawing lines that don't exist?

[Brian Schmidt]

I think Morley's article is very cogent. John - the question Morley essentially asks is whether certain CIA were at the center of the conspiracy, not whether all the conspirators were CIA. His arguments make a lot of sense. I keep remarking on various threads why some of us feel so secure in drawing hard and fast lines between paid insiders in the national security state, such as Angleton Helms Phillips Dulles Hoover, and non-governmental assets. They shared a common hatred, something that can easily be proved. We all seem to agree, whatever our differences, that Shenon has is wrong, and that the killing was arranged and carried out by extremists on the right. The aforementioned paid insiders were able to cloak their extreme right wing views to some extent under the guise of government service, and had to by necessity. But guys like Angleton and Dulles were extremists. In similarity to the southern racists who tried to hide their racist agenda with fervent anti-Communism, these CIA masters hid their fascist beliefs. Same for Hoover, who went after the Communist party like it was about to foment a revolution, and pretty much left the JBS and the Mafia to their own devices as if they weren't a threat, which of course they were.

So please, can't we stop drawing lines that don't exist?

Great post, Paul.

Besides, knowing what we know about CIA assassination plots, they always used surrogates to carry out the ground operations for deniability purposes. Thinking you are going to find a some smoking gun evidence pointing directly at the CIA, like a CIA agent assassin with Helms' name listed in his phone book is naive.

[James DiEugenio]

Nice way to open up a debate on solving the case. Which neither the WC nor the Blakey HSCA had any intention of doing.

IMO, the best short treatment of this subject was a wonderfully cogent letter by Jim Garrison to Jon Blackmer back in 1977.

Blackmer was an HSCA lawyer who was presiding over the New Orleans aspect of the case. This had been reopened by Bob Tanenbaum after Sprague had been sent packing and Bob was the interim chief. Bob then appointed Blackmer as the region chief lawyer in New Orleans.

After meeting with Garrison, Garrison wrote him a 3-4 page letter telling him how best to approach the JFK case.

He said, the worst thing to try and do is to approach it as a normal crime. He said, you cannot rely on the normal crime detection procedures like fingerprints and ballistics evidence. They will lead you up a cul de sac. Because this crime was not a normal homicide. It was a complex, multi layered, clandestine operation, one planned and done by professionals. Therefore, they had factored in all these circumstances and found ways to obfuscate them and lead the investigation down the primrose path.

He then said, the way you solve something like the JFK case is not in a regular inductive way. At least not at the start. In this case, you had to find a paradigm from the outside which fit the parameters of the crime. And then you had to keep on refining that paradigm until you had all the bizarre tangents touched upon or covered.

I think one thing he was talking about was this:

Oswald=CIA

Jack Ruby= Mafia, CIA, DPD

Which is why the WC had to cover up who these two really were and Willens brought in two recent law school graduates to write their biographies.

Edited October 14, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

Nice way to open up a debate on solving the case. Which neither the WC nor the Blakey HSCA had any intention of doing.

IMO, the best short treatment of this subject was a wonderfully cogent letter by Jim Garrison to Jon Blackmer back in 1977.

Blackmer was an HSCA lawyer who was presiding over the New Orleans aspect of the case. This had been reopened by Bob Tanenbaum after Sprague had been sent packing and Bob was the interim chief. Bob then appointed Blackmer as the region chief lawyer in New Orleans.

After meeting with Garrison, Garrison wrote him a 3-4 page letter telling him how best to approach the JFK case.

He said, the worst thing to try and do is to approach it as a normal crime. He said, you cannot rely on the normal crime detection procedures like fingerprints and ballistics evidence.

In 1977 Garrison wasn't privy to the consultations between the autopsists and the FBI men at the autopsy.

It wasn't for another year before FBI SAs James Sibert and Francis O'Neill revealed the doctor's suspicions JFK was struck with a high tech weapon which wouldn't show up on x-ray.

The FBI knew of the existence of such weapons.

If normal investigative procedures had been followed the FBI would have been swarming Ft. Detrick, MD, by dawn.

They would have been studying JFK seizing up paralyzed in the Zapruder film.

They would have been analyzing the neck x-ray and it's suspicious lack of damage.

They will lead you up a cul de sac. Because this crime was not a normal homicide.

Looks like a drug-gang rub-out on an American street.

There are obvious Persons of Interest involved in this lead-- the Staff Support Group within the US Army Special Operations Division at Ft.Detrick.

CIA Technical Services chief Sidney Gottlieb would have been sweating out an intensive interrogation Saturday morning given normal police procedures.

It was a complex, multi layered, clandestine operation, one planned and done by professionals.

You are confusing the murder with the cover-up, again.

Professionals make things as simple as possible.

Therefore, they had factored in all these circumstances and found ways to obfuscate them and lead the investigation down the primrose path.

You are assuming that the Oswald-did-it-alone scenario was pre-planned.

He then said, the way you solve something like the JFK case is not in a regular inductive way. At least not at the start.

Garrison wasn't in full command of the facts in 1977.

And given his age he may not have been "culturally capable" of taking the Autopsists High Tech Scenario seriously.

FBI SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of a high tech weapon which wouldn't show up in an autopsy -- a legitimate investigative move on a legitimate lead.

Garrison missed it.

In this case, you had to find a paradigm from the outside which fit the parameters of the crime. And then you had to keep on refining that paradigm until you had all the bizarre tangents touched upon or covered.

I think one thing he was talking about was this:

Oswald=CIA

Oswald and the Back-Up Patsies!

Think compartmentalization of intelligence operations.

What did the shooters need to know about Oswald?

Nothing.

What did the people who set Oswald up need to know about the shooting other than time and place?

Nothing.

People commonly conflate the murder with the cover-up.

Jack Ruby= Mafia, CIA, DPD

Which is why the WC had to cover up who these two really were and Willens brought in two recent law school graduates to write their biographies.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Cliff Varnell