Matt Cloud Posted April 23 Share Posted April 23 5 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said: Let me suggest a broader perspective of understanding. If sending out information on Oswald -- who would go on to be the alleged assassin -- among various persons and departments circa 1963 protected The Mole because it could then be said that Oswald was the mole and you missed him. does sending out information on The Mole circa today -- among various persons (Morley being but one example) and departments undue that protection because it could now be said that the recipients did not act on it? Are you following? Consider the counterintelligence truism that it takes a mole to catch a mole. Has a process of reverse-disclosure been occurring, now trapping those who proclaim to want to solve the Kennedy assassination on the one hand, but cannot because doing so will reveal a bigger secret? Something to chew-on. Small elaboration: "The article you linked by Morley indicates he wasn’t about to climb on the Tennent Bagley train." THAT'S RIGHT. That's why it couldn't come from Morley -- any validation of the mole-hunt story; he had to out-source it to someone else, to Newman (or so I ... speculate). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted April 23 Share Posted April 23 12 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said: Let me suggest a broader perspective of understanding. If sending out information on Oswald -- who would go on to be the alleged assassin -- among various persons and departments circa 1963 protected The Mole because it could then be said that Oswald was the mole and you missed him. does sending out information on The Mole circa today -- among various persons (Morley being but one example) and departments undue that protection because it could now be said that the recipients did not act on it? Are you following? Consider the counterintelligence truism that it takes a mole to catch a mole. Has a process of reverse-disclosure been occurring, now trapping those who proclaim to want to solve the Kennedy assassination on the one hand, but cannot because doing so will reveal a bigger secret? Something to chew-on. In other words, having been given information that reveals the mole -- a la Bill Simpich's "marked-cards" -- have I now tainted the recipients in further protecting the mole's identity, if they do not follow-through? Neat trick, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now