Morley Revelant Story

[Michael Griffith]

14 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

Michael Griffith, it is wonderful to see you posting again!

A while back you told me that Gen. Edward Lansdale 1) was an admirer of John Kennedy and 2) Lansdale mourned the death of John Kennedy. Could you provide me (us, Education Forum) with any documentation for those claims that you proffered as if knew these two things to be facts?

I, on the other hand, know Gen. Edward Lansdale was enraged over the JFK-approved CIA facilitated coup that removed Diem and I know of no such incident of Gen. Edward Lansdale, who later went to work for LBJ, "mourning" the death of John Kennedy. I happen to think Gen. Edward Lansdale was involved up to his bloody eyeballs in the murder of JFK.

Would you, could you offer some "receipts" aka "documentation" on what you said about Lansdale? Or are you just going to slither away like you did last time when asked to provide documentation/proof of your claims?

Sincerely,

Robert Morrow

Read either of the two major biographies of Lansdale for info on the fact that he admired JFK and was saddened by his death. Yes, Lansdale was furious over the murder of Diem, but that does not mean he was furious with JFK over the matter. He was experienced and smart enough to guess right away that JFK did not intend for Diem to be murdered. 

The idea that Lansdale was involved in JFK's assassination is ludicrous and embarrassing, and lacks a shred of credible evidence. It is one of the nutjob claims that Fletcher Prouty peddled. This is the kind of stuff that gives all WC critics a bad name. 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Tracy could you clear up one point?

In your article you write “Other missteps by Morley. ‘The CIA was reading Oswald’s mail for two years.’ “

You cite that as a misstatement by Morley and give a link to support that claim of a Morley misstatement.

But in the link you give, to another article of your own, it reads, “Morley claim. ‘The CIA was reading Oswald’s mail.’ True, but…”

If Morley’s claim was true, is it fair to call it a misstatement? 

They were reading his mail but Ruben Efron was not reading it for two years. According to Fred's piece it was just one time for Efron. I'll see if I can clarify it.

Edited Thursday at 05:42 PM by W. Tracy Parnell
typo

[Robert Morrow]

21 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Read either of the two major biographies of Lansdale for info on the fact that he admired JFK and was saddened by his death. Yes, Lansdale was furious over the murder of Diem, but that does not mean he was furious with JFK over the matter. He was experienced and smart enough to guess right away that JFK did not intend for Diem to be murdered. 

The idea that Lansdale was involved in JFK's assassination is ludicrous and embarrassing, and lacks a shred of credible evidence. It is one of the nutjob claims that Fletcher Prouty peddled. This is the kind of stuff that gives all WC critics a bad name. 

No, I asked you to provide me proof that Gen. Edward Lansdale admired JFK. On exactly what page of the two Lansdale biographies does it say this? As opposed to you saying this without documentation. C'mon, give me a page number. I read Max Boot's book and it is totally not in there.

What is there is a lot of Lansdale anger and resentment at Robert Kennedy who Lansdale worked under in Operation Mongoose.

On what page of the two Lansdale biographies (or anywhere else) does it say Lansdale was SADDENED by the death of John Kennedy and MOURNED the death of JFK. C'mon, give me a page number.

Give me the receipts on this. The precise page in a book or a credible web linked that documents A) that Lansdale admired JFK and B] that Lansdale MOURNED JFK's death as you have stated before.

I NOTE THAT SO FAR YOU HAVE NOT DONE THIS!!

And as a sidenote, what job have you had the majority of your life? Are you in the military? Are/were you intelligence? Who were you working for when you were in SCIFs all those many, many times. Just curious.

 

Edited Friday at 02:07 PM by Robert Morrow

[Robert Morrow]

21 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Read either of the two major biographies of Lansdale for info on the fact that he admired JFK and was saddened by his death. Yes, Lansdale was furious over the murder of Diem, but that does not mean he was furious with JFK over the matter. He was experienced and smart enough to guess right away that JFK did not intend for Diem to be murdered. 

The idea that Lansdale was involved in JFK's assassination is ludicrous and embarrassing, and lacks a shred of credible evidence. It is one of the nutjob claims that Fletcher Prouty peddled. This is the kind of stuff that gives all WC critics a bad name. 

Michael Griffith: "He was experienced and smart enough to guess right away that JFK did not intend for Diem to be murdered."

Document this. Lansdale was in such a rage over Diem's death that he made Lucien Conein apologize to him and Conein was in tears. I believe this is in Max Boot's book on Lansdale.

Lansdale absolutely knew that JFK had authorized a coup against his good friend Diem and he was absolutely ENRAGED over the murder of Diem. Lansdale certainly would have blamed JFK for Diem's murder.

Edited Friday at 02:06 PM by Robert Morrow

[Greg Doudna]

28 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

They were reading his mail but Ruben Efron was not reading it for not for two years. According to Fred's piece it was just one time for Efron. I'll see if I can clarify it.

Ok clarified I see your point as to where you believe the misstep was. However just to further clarify, is this a significant point? His issue was discovery of identity of a named reader of Oswald’s mail, and isn’t that his main point? I agree it should be worded accurately. If he phrased it, “Ruben Efron and possibly others were reading Oswald’s mail for two years” instead of “Efron was reading Oswald’s mail for two years”, would that have been accurate in your view? Anyway thanks for clarifying.

Edited Thursday at 05:45 PM by Greg Doudna

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 minute ago, Greg Doudna said:

Ok clarified I see your point as to where you believe the misstep was. However just to further clarify, is this a significant point? His issue was discovery of identity of a named reader of Oswald’s mail, and isn’t that his main point? I agree it should be worded accurately. If he phrased it, “Ruben Efren and possibly others were reading Oswald’s mail for two years” instead of “Efron was reading Oswald’s mail for two years”, would that have been accurate in your view? Anyway thanks for clarifying.

My point was that Morley used his article partly as a vehicle to rehash old issues-some of which (IMO) have been debunked or at least had errors pointed out. Is this a significant point? One could certainly argue it is not.

I have changed my wording to "Ruben Efron was reading Oswald's mail for two years." Actually, I see Morley has increased the time period from when Fred wrote about this from twenty months to two years. Fred's point was that the document Morley cited only shows Efron read one document.

[Michael Griffith]

The more I read Morley's article about the alleged whistleblower, the more surprised I am that Morley fell for this person's story. I would have thought that Morley had been around enough and had read enough to spot the red flags in the person's tale. Does Morley not have any contacts in the intel community? Anyone who has worked in SCIFs could have told him that the story does not reflect how SCIFs operate.

The biggest, most glaring red flag in the story is the unbelievable claim that the whistleblower later, by an amazing coincidence, stumbled upon more CIA documents about the JFK assassination. Just try to imagine a plausible scenario where such documents would have been floating around to be stumbled upon by anyone with a security clearance, regardless of their program or access. Anyone with experience in the intel community can tell you that this part of the whistleblower's story is fairy tale material. 

[Robert Morrow]

20 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

The more I read Morley's article about the alleged whistleblower, the more surprised I am that Morley fell for this person's story. I would have thought that Morley had been around enough and had read enough to spot the red flags in the person's tale. Does Morley not have any contacts in the intel community? Anyone who has worked in SCIFs could have told him that the story does not reflect how SCIFs operate.

The biggest, most glaring red flag in the story is the unbelievable claim that the whistleblower later, by an amazing coincidence, stumbled upon more CIA documents about the JFK assassination. Just try to imagine a plausible scenario where such documents would have been floating around to be stumbled upon by anyone with a security clearance, regardless of their program or access. Anyone with experience in the intel community can tell you that this part of the whistleblower's story is fairy tale material. 

Tell us about your job in the "intel community." What positions and jobs have you held. I am sure your job titles are not classified. Are you in the military? What is your rank? Do you work for an intelligence agency; if so in what capacity? Do you work for the State Dept.?

I have no idea what you do; I am merely asking. I just know you hang out in SCIFs a lot.

Edited Friday at 02:19 PM by Robert Morrow

[James DiEugenio]

How is it possible from that one release to show that Efron only read one document?

And to use Litwin?  Who has been known to change the wording on CIA documents?

 

Here is a link to it:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2023/104-10418-10302.pdf

Edited Friday at 09:46 PM by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

To any objective person, which eliminates LItwin, a very important aspect of Efron's writing is that he is funneling this to Egerter. That is really revealing.

As John Newman has shown, she was Angleton's girl friday on the Oswald file.  She was so hot that the HSCA disguised her name on interviews.

And Efron knew this.

 

That Parnell and Litwin leave this out tells you all you need to know about their work.

Edited Saturday at 02:31 AM by James DiEugenio

[Mark Ulrik]

46 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

How is it possible from that one release to show that Efron only read one document?

And to use Litwin?  Who has been known to change the wording on CIA documents?

Are you accusing him of forgery? Please tell more.

Edited Friday at 10:34 PM by Mark Ulrik

[James DiEugenio]

Fred  Litwin changed the spelling of a word written by a CIA official in a historical research review.

That document, discovered by Joan Mellen, exposed Shaw as a  valuable and well paid contract agent of the CIA.

Litwin changed the phrase "contract agent" to "contact agent".

Besides the fact that this was an oxymoron on its own terms, we are to believe that somehow the CIA officer, with the paper in front of him, did not know the difference between the two classifications?   But somehow a generation or more later, Litwin, without the paper in front of him, somehow, some way, through supernatural powers of divination, did know?

Hogwash.

 

Edited Saturday at 01:25 AM by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

For the record, I made a mistake about the person who Morley and Newman questioned above, it was Jane Roman and not Egerter.

it is corrected.

 

[Fred Litwin]

Gee, I know I am good, but to have the ability to change CIA records.  Who would believe that?

Here is the article in question, please read it for yourself.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/was-clay-shaw-a-contract-agent-for-the-cia

Of course, Mr. DiEugenio used a fake flyer in his documentary series, and refuses to address the issue:

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-destiny-betrayed-misleads-viewers-on-oswald-s-hands-off-cuba-handbills

An analysis of the handbill used in Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK: Destiny Betrayed.

 

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-destiny-betrayed-misleads-viewers-on-oswald-s-hands-off-cuba-handbills-part-two

An examination of where the fake handbill came from.

 

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-destiny-betrayed-misleads-viewers-on-oswald-s-hands-off-cuba-handbills-part-three

A look at James DiEugenio's use of the fake handbill.

 

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-destiny-betrayed-misleads-viewers-on-oswald-s-hands-off-cuba-handbills-part-four

Jefferson Morley is the latest researcher to use a fake Oswald handbill.

[Robert Morrow]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

For the record, I made a mistake about the person who Morley and Newman questioned above, it was Jane Roman and not Egerter.

it is corrected.

 

1994: CIA’s Jane Roman said the CIA’s interest in Oswald: “Well, to me, it’s indicative of a keen interest in Oswald, held very closely on the need-to-know basis.”

INTERVIEW WITH JANE ROMAN, SIDE A (history-matters.com)

INTERVIEW WITH JANE ROMAN

DATE:  2 November 1994

Participants: Jane Roman, John Newman, Jefferson Morley.

Transcribed by Mary Bose of the Washington Post on 7 November 1994. Corrected by Jefferson Morley in June 1999.  Editors’ notes by Jefferson Morley.