Jefferson Morley on A Major Break Coming in the JFK Assassination Story

[Denis Morissette]

21 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Newsweek is wrong. If Morley had such a document, that would be the first thing he would have shown. He speculates that the Joannides documents will prove his theory of an "Oswald Operation." They will do no such thing as they have already been seen by the ARRB who found nothing. If and when the documents are released, he will search through them for a word or phrase he can use to justify his claims and couple that with the witnesses he claims to have (but has not presented yet). He will then have his manufactured "truth" and can continue to write books and articles for years and call himself the "man who solved the assassination." That is my take on what Morley is doing.

Sounds like the act of a fraud. 

[Denis Morissette]

I confronted Newsweek on their FB page. I’m holding my breath for an answer.

[Pat Speer]

Newsweek reported on what was claimed. That's what they do. That's why you call a press conference. So someone will broadcast what you say. 

I've met Jeff and he is not a fraud. When I first met him he'd already been looking into the Joannides angle for a decade or more. And yet he refused to say he thought more than Oswald was involved. He just knew--because the evidence strongly suggested as much--that the CIA was lying and stone-walling and hiding something. 

He has now reached the point where he thinks Oswald was a patsy, I believe. But he doesn't know if he or anyone will be able to prove it. The document he refers to is not a smoking gun regarding the assassination, but is another piece of the puzzle. In fact, to my understanding, it could very well provide the CIA with a plausible excuse for all the lying and stone-walling. Oswald had been part of operation. They didn't want anyone to know. Lie. Stone-wall. 

Not a smoking gun. But a disturbing revelation that adds fuel to the conspiracy fire. 

[Denis Morissette]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Newsweek reported on what was claimed. That's what they do. That's why you call a press conference. So someone will broadcast what you say. 

I've met Jeff and he is not a fraud. When I first met him he'd already been looking into the Joannides angle for a decade or more. And yet he refused to say he thought more than Oswald was involved. He just knew--because the evidence strongly suggested as much--that the CIA was lying and stone-walling and hiding something. 

He has now reached the point where he thinks Oswald was a patsy, I believe. But he doesn't know if he or anyone will be able to prove it. The document he refers to is not a smoking gun regarding the assassination, but is another piece of the puzzle. In fact, to my understanding, it could very well provide the CIA with a plausible excuse for all the lying and stone-walling. Oswald had been part of operation. They didn't want anyone to know. Lie. Stone-wall. 

Not a smoking gun. But a disturbing revelation that adds fuel to the conspiracy fire. 

I will finish with this. Newsweek wrote: "The document, one of several researchers obtained this month as the result of an October lawsuit, is a precursor to a fuller release of documents anticipated by the National Archives this month." It states as a fact that Morley has that document. But did Newsweek see it? Did they even ask to see it? Could not say the "alleged document"? They could have said they could not verify the existence of the document. I think they're just naive.

[S.T. Patrick]

7 hours ago, David Andrews said:

More than 70% of voters in poll want Biden to release secret JFK assassination records (NBC News)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/more-than-70-of-voters-in-poll-want-biden-to-release-jfk-assassination-records/ar-AA14XXad?cvid=8c5bc26e3945491784f6acfcd4da0207

It's amazing to me that that means that 30% don't?!?! No matter what side of the debate you are on, what argument could one have for "No, I don't think the records should be released." ?!?! And 30% believe that? I don't get it. 

[Pat Speer]

13 minutes ago, Denis Morissette said:

I will finish with this. Newsweek wrote: "The document, one of several researchers obtained this month as the result of an October lawsuit, is a precursor to a fuller release of documents anticipated by the National Archives this month." It states as a fact that Morley has that document. But did Newsweek see it? Did they even ask to see it? Could not say the "alleged document"? They could have said they could not verify the existence of the document. I think they're just naive.

That's not how it works. It wasn't an article on the assassination. It was an article on a press conference. For decades and decades the media has been repeating what government sources or "experts" like Lattimer have told them. This was just a CT version of that. You make an appointment at the press club. You call a press conference. And you talk about your recent discovery etc. Someone then reports it. But they do not double-check it. if a former governor called a press conference at the press club and said he'd talked to Bigfoot, that would get reported as well. 

[Pat Speer]

1 minute ago, S.T. Patrick said:

It's amazing to me that that means that 30% don't?!?! No matter what side of the debate you are on, what argument could one have for "No, I don't think the records should be released." ?!?! And 30% believe that? I don't get it. 

The presentation dealt with some recent polling. Apparently half of the 20-somethings interviewed rejected the possibility of conspiracy as some dumb boomer nonsense, and dismissed it out of hand. It follows that they would think any further release a waste of time. 

[James DiEugenio]

Here is another story, this time from Yahoo News.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/video/jfk-assassination-investigator-jarring-claim-155305099.html

[Calvin Ye]

We must be cautious on what to come

[S.T. Patrick]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

The presentation dealt with some recent polling. Apparently half of the 20-somethings interviewed rejected the possibility of conspiracy as some dumb boomer nonsense, and dismissed it out of hand. It follows that they would think any further release a waste of time. 

Further why I believe the only end goal reasonable is to normalize the teaching of conspiracy as an option in schools. Otherwise, we are just writing books and articles to impress one another, which is a problem in every information-based hobby at some point. I guess it's a natural progression of having a hierarchy in information communities. That hierarchy ends up writing and presenting to impress one another more than they write and present to inform anyone from age 16-30, mainly to maintain their standing amongst the others in the hierarchy of said community. Once the hierarchy dies off, we end up in the same place where "foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor" is at today. It's interesting to some but its a small "some," and it's an old, irrelevant issue to most.

Edited December 7, 2022 by S.T. Patrick

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Denis Morissette said:

I will finish with this. Newsweek wrote: "The document, one of several researchers obtained this month as the result of an October lawsuit, is a precursor to a fuller release of documents anticipated by the National Archives this month." It states as a fact that Morley has that document. But did Newsweek see it? Did they even ask to see it? Could not say the "alleged document"? They could have said they could not verify the existence of the document. I think they're just naive.

The document is one that Morley posted in this article:

Yes, There Is a JFK Smoking Gun - by Jefferson Morley (substack.com)

I watched the whole presentation carefully. This has to be the document as nothing was said about a forthcoming document or anything. Morley has said he has witnesses, but you know all about witnesses.

The doc merely says that Joannides was cleared for "special intelligence." Morley's theory stems from this and he says that the 44 Joannides docs will confirm it. All I can say is he must be a medium of some sort to know what is in files he hasn't seen. I am working on an article about this.

[Gerry Down]

I don't know why they would bring in Joannides for wiretapping in Mexico City. The wire tap operation was there and running fine. Why would they need to bring in Joannides?

[Denis Morissette]

16 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The document is one that Morley posted in this article:

Yes, There Is a JFK Smoking Gun - by Jefferson Morley (substack.com)

I watched the whole presentation carefully. This has to be the document as nothing was said about a forthcoming document or anything. Morley has said he has witnesses, but you know all about witnesses.

The doc merely says that Joannides was cleared for "special intelligence." Morley's theory stems from this and he says that the 44 Joannides docs will confirm it. All I can say is he must be a medium of some sort to know what is in files he hasn't seen. I am working on an article about this.

David Talbot wrote 44 pages. Morley says it’s 44 documents. Maybe 44 documents one-page long each? 😂

[Cory Santos]

19 minutes ago, Denis Morissette said:

David Talbot wrote 44 pages. Morley says it’s 44 documents. Maybe 44 documents one-page long each? 😂

Maybe you can see if the National Press Club will allow you to have a counter press conference to release your findings?🤣

[Matt Allison]

Morley has been chasing this angle for decades and it surely must be tiring. Such a pursuit can also raise the possibility of adverse effects on one's perspective and judgement.