Morley and MFF press conference

[David Boylan]

I thought everybody did a good job here. Larry, Rex, Fernand, Jeff and Tunheim. All were very effective.

[Bill Fite]

29 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

Morley's presentation was well done and interesting.  And new info about a Oswald-CIA relationship can be the sort of thing that some media will pick up on.  But I'm not sure where it leads.

 

Particularly if you think Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor.  Or, setting that aside, you think that the CIA, with its stable of trained killers from around the world, would never have relied on Oswald to do this most important job.  The idea that Oswald was a shooter, let alone the only one, has a bunch of hurdles to clear before it can viewed as even credible.

 

Pursuit of the idea that Oswald was a patsy set up by the CIA, however, can be enhanced by further exploration of his relationship with the CIA.  After all, they had to know enough about him the choose him as the patsy.

 

But is that all there is to this line of inquiry?    

If Oswald was informing on anti-Castro Cubans training at Lake Pontchartrain & other activities possibly including the warning from 'Lee' in Chicago -- maybe it was just an opportunity to remove 2 people at the same time.  

[David Boylan]

Another report - https://www.rawstory.com/lee-harvey-oswald-cia/

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Morley's Bombshell a Dud ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

[Guest]

Good presentation, nice job. But I did not/do not expect any "smoking guns", I'm afraid those were burned decades ago.  

There could be leads to explain the LHO-Agency connection(s).  From what is known, there must have been such connection(s).  It's about time to give those contacts a definition...  Some things LHO did IMO must have been him carrying out orders.

 

 

[Douglas Caddy]

 

Here is a link to view the press conference.

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

Well...nice presentation, but...it is still debatable whether LHO was a witting or unwitting asset, or whether the CIA just monitored LHO. 

I strongly suspect LHO was a type of witting asset, but of course the record is still hazy, largely due to government secrecy and the murder of LHO (itself highly suspicious). If I had to bet, I would bet LHO was an intel asset (of which there were hundreds and maybe even thousands at the time, due to the Cuba situation (Cuban exiles, mercenaries, Miami Station hangers-on, anti-Castro and anti-communists, and so on). 

I deeply admire Morley and others for pursuing the truth...something the M$M did not do then, nor does now. 

 

[Gerry Down]

The Joannides records are not part of the ARRB releases. Judge Kavanaugh has said the public has no business looking at these files. Therefore it would seem these files could easily still be withheld 50 years from now. 

And so too any secrets that might be within.

[Ron Bulman]

3 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

 

Here is a link to view the press conference.

 

 

Thank you once again Douglas for a link, and often insight.

I enjoyed Jeff's part in particular as someone who pays some attention to these things, primarily through here.  But regarding the rest of it could it have been more concise regarding attracting attention from the general public?

With one exception.  The statistics guy.  I missed his name.  The results were astounding 70% of both parties believe Biden should release the files.  Wow. As pointed out, uncommon agreement.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Ron Bulman

[Cory Santos]

3 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Thank you once again Douglas for a link, and often insight.

I enjoyed Jeff's part in particular as someone who pays some attention to these things, primarily through here.  But regarding the rest of it could it have been more concise regarding attracting attention from the general public?

With one exception.  The statistics guy.  I missed his name.  The results were astounding 70% of both parties believe Biden should release the files.  Wow. As pointed out, uncommon agreement.

Ron, to be fair the other 30% asked somehow were DVP and Tracey.   What a coincidence.   

[Denis Morissette]

19 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Good presentation, nice job. But I did not/do not expect any "smoking guns", I'm afraid those were burned decades ago.  

There could be leads to explain the LHO-Agency connection(s).  From what is known, there must have been such connection(s).  It's about time to give those contacts a definition...  Some things LHO did IMO must have been him carrying out orders.

 

 

There is one smoking gun: A still-classified covert operation approved by senior CIA officials three months before Kennedy's death that suggested the agency used Oswald for intelligence purposes several weeks prior to shooting.

[Guest]

June 1963 would be no coincidence of course.  On 5/26 he contacted the FPFC, on 5/29 receives advice from the FPFC to rent a PO box.  On 6/3  a new PO box was rented.  Somewhere in between all of that (don't remember the exact date) he ordered 1.000 leaflets.

Of course, to those who have not yet read Tom Gram's "Rethinking Oswald's Mail", I highly recommend to do so.  If you Google it you'll find it, it's over 50 pages.

Also available : https://gregrparker.com/rethinking-oswalds-mail/

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Denis Morissette said:

There is one smoking gun: A still-classified covert operation approved by senior CIA officials three months before Kennedy's death that suggested the agency used Oswald for intelligence purposes several weeks prior to shooting.

I’m out of the loop, and already asked this question, but do you have any idea what Morley is referring to here? This statement suggests knowledge of specific withheld CIA operational records from a specific time period with a specific subject: Oswald.

If there are still withheld or heavily redacted CIA op records on Oswald from ‘63 it would indeed be suspicious - but I’m not aware of anything in the ARC or anywhere else that fits that description. I’m not a human catalog though so I really have no idea.

The closest thing I can think of is the Church Committee INS surveillance stuff, but those files are missing from the ARC. According a rough draft of the Committee report they couldn’t find any documentation of a mandate for INS surveillance on Cuban groups - but they didn’t mention if they were able to turn up any record of the surveillance itself and the 12/15/75 testimony of the guy who would have been charge, Art Bero, has never seen the light of day. 

Also thanks Jean Paul. I want to update to that essay at some point but haven’t had time to write anything lately. I have a ton of “new” material that I think would add quite a bit - but it’s already long as hell so I might just do an addendum or something. Harry Holmes’ interview with Larry Sneed in particular is very interesting in context, and I have no idea how I missed it for the essay. I had the damn book too. 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Tom Gram

[Denis Morissette]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

I’m out of the loop, and already asked this question, but do you have any idea what Morley is referring to here? This statement suggests knowledge of specific withheld CIA operational records from a specific time period with a specific subject: Oswald.

If there are still withheld or heavily redacted CIA op records on Oswald from ‘63 it would indeed be suspicious - but I’m not aware of anything in the ARC or anywhere else that fits that description. I’m not a human catalog though so I really have no idea.

The closest thing I can think of is the Church Committee INS surveillance stuff, but those files are missing from the ARC. According a rough draft of the Committee report they couldn’t find any documentation of a mandate for INS surveillance on Cuban groups - but they didn’t mention if they were able to turn up any record of the surveillance itself and the 12/15/75 testimony of the guy who would have been charge, Art Bero, has never seen the light of day. 

Also thanks Jean Paul. I want to update to that essay at some point but haven’t had time to write anything lately. I have a ton of “new” material that I think would add quite a bit - but it’s already long as hell so I might just do an addendum or something. Harry Holmes’ interview with Larry Sneed in particular is very interesting in context, and I have no idea how I missed it for the essay. I had the damn book too. 

There is a member here who knows the answer, but prefered to keep it for himself. So I've begun to go through the video with 1.75 speed. It could be this: 

 

https://ibb.co/Vq5556W

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

I’m out of the loop, and already asked this question, but do you have any idea what Morley is referring to here? This statement suggests knowledge of specific withheld CIA operational records from a specific time period with a specific subject: Oswald.

If there are still withheld or heavily redacted CIA op records on Oswald from ‘63 it would indeed be suspicious - but I’m not aware of anything in the ARC or anywhere else that fits that description. I’m not a human catalog though so I really have no idea.

The closest thing I can think of is the Church Committee INS surveillance stuff, but those files are missing from the ARC. According a rough draft of the Committee report they couldn’t find any documentation of a mandate for INS surveillance on Cuban groups - but they didn’t mention if they were able to turn up any record of the surveillance itself and the 12/15/75 testimony of the guy who would have been charge, Art Bero, has never seen the light of day. 

Also thanks Jean Paul. I want to update to that essay at some point but haven’t had time to write anything lately. I have a ton of “new” material that I think would add quite a bit - but it’s already long as hell so I might just do an addendum or something. Harry Holmes’ interview with Larry Sneed in particular is very interesting in context, and I have no idea how I missed it for the essay. I had the damn book too. 

Holmes was omnipresent, there's on old topic here that touches a lot of that. 

Someone even mentioned :   "So the obvious issue is could they have impacted or interfaced with the “investigation” into mail and post office box use by Lee Oswald Jack Ruby and significant others ?" 😃

It's a long topic, but some of the better information begins on page 6 I believe (I'm a little distracted currently, reading some other interesting things):