One of many fascinating features of the debate about the causes of the JFK’s assassination is the evident anxiety of some people who defend the theory that one man alone killed the president for no reason. As the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination, their anxiety is growing.
Exhibit A: Dale Myers and Gus Russo attack me for having the temerity to say that the CIA is obligated to release all of its JFK-related files.
Exhibit B: Professor John McAdams is in a tizzy by my review of the trailer for “Parkland,” the new JFK film produced by Tom Hanks, that will be released on October 4. In my post, I predicted that “Parkland” will not deal with the troubling issue of an October 10, 1963, CIA cable in which five senior CIA operations officers said Lee Harvey Oswald was “maturing.”
This is “buff stuff,” writes McAdams in an email.
Actually, everything I wrote comes from CIA and FBI records and interviews with retired CIA officers. But let’s skip the tedious, ad hominem attacks that bore everybody.
Let’s look at the record.
(Warning to readers: What follows is a discussion of a complex historical issue that cannot boiled down to sound bytes that appeal to talking heads of cable or the trolls of the Internet chat boards. It is merely factual. Those in search of a JFK conspiracy (or anti-conspiracy) are guaranteed disappointment.)
The issue that provokes such worry on Professor McAdams’s part is a cable that senior CIA officials wrote on October 10, 1963, seven weeks before President Kennedy was killed. (For background on this fascinating and important document, read this post, “Did the CIA track Oswald before JFK was killed.”)
McAdams writes that the October 10 cable is “simply a summary of what was in CIA files on Oswald. Nothing at all sinister about it. How in the world [emphasis in the original] does Jeff think it’s sinister? I know. He’s assuming that the CIA knew a lot more about Oswald.”
Actually I’m not assuming anything. The CIA did know more about Oswald, as Jane Roman, one of the CIA’s officers who wrote the cable, told me in an interview. Roman acknowledged that the October 10 cable did not summarize what was in CIA files on Oswald at that time.
Roman, a career counterintelligence officer, was commenting candidly on the CIA’s own records. A CIA routing slip, declassified in 1993, showed that on October 4, 1963, just six days before the cable was written, she had received an FBI report about Oswald’s arrest in New Orleans in August 1963 for fighting with members of the Cuban Student Directorate (DRE), a CIA-funded anti-Castro organization. In the interview, Roman acknowledged reading the FBI report.
That meant that “the latest headquarter infor” on Oswald wasn’t 17 months old, as the cable stated. It was less than a week old.
When this discrepancy was pointed out, Roman said, “Yeh, I’m signing off on something that isn’t true.”
(I reported Roman’s comments in the Washington Post in 1995. Read the article here. The tape of the interview is part of the JFK Collection at the National Archives. Anyone who wants to check my reporting is free to do so.)
So, contrary to Professor McAdams’s claims, the CIA officers who wrote the October 10 cable did know more about Oswald than they shared with Mexico City. They knew Oswald had been publicly promoting the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC), which had led to his fight with the DRE boys and his arrest.
But they didn’t tell their colleagues in Mexico City that. Instead, they chose to pass along the happy notion that the future assassination suspect was “maturing.”
Why did they do that?
Professor McAdams (like Myers and Russo) seem determined not to address, much less answer, this question. I think this is because they — like the rest of us — don’t have any good answer to it. But while some of us try to answer the question — or better yet, force the CIA to answer the question — they prefer to impugn anyone who raises it.
This is an expression of the fear of JFK transparency that still pervades commentary on the assassination story 50 years after the fact.
This fear is unnecessary. Even defenders of the Warren Commission (especially defenders of the Warren Commission!) should want to know why senior undercover CIA officers were telling fibs about Oswald seven weeks before he allegedly killed the president.
In the interview, Roman — a highly credible source in my view — offered her view. She said that the phrasing of the cable indicated a “keen interest” in Oswald, closely held by people in the Special Affairs Staff, i.e, anti-Castro operations.
I think this is the best available explanation. There was something about Oswald’s actions as they related to anti-Castro operations that the most senior officials who signed off on the cable — assistant deputy director Tom Karamessines and Western Hemisphere operations chief Bill Hood — did not want to share with their colleagues in Mexico City.
There are two pieces of evidence that lend credence to Roman’s hunch, both well-explicated by Bill Simpich, a San Francisco attorney and JFK author.
1) The day before the October 10 cable was sent, an FBI supervisor named Marvin Gheesling canceled a FLASH notice on Oswald that had kept him on the FBI’s national watch list of persons of interest. Gheesling’s explanation for why he released the “stop” on October 9, 1963, is contained in an memo to the FBI’s second in command Clyde Tolson: The “stop was placed in event subject returned from Russia under an assumed name and was inadvertently not removed by him on 9/7/62 when case closed.”
2) Two hours before the October 10 cable was sent to Mexico City, the CIA sent a very different message to the FBI, State Department and the Navy about Oswald’s appearance at the Soviet embassy in Mexico City. It was a teletype that described Oswald as “approximately 35 years old, with an athletic build, about six feet tall, with receding hairline…” (Read it here.)
Not only was this description inaccurate. It flatly contradicted the description — written by the same CIA officers! — given to Win Scott on the same day. The October 10, 1963, cable said, more accurately, that “Oswald is five feet ten inches, one hundred sixty five pounds, light brown wavy hair, (and) blue eyes.”
As Simpich has observed, “The description sent to the FBI, the State Department, and the Navy is a deliberate lie.”
Why would senior CIA operations officers deliberately lie about an obscure character named Oswald?
One possible explanation is that, as Jane Roman said, Oswald’s actions were of “keen interest” to certain officers in anti-Castro operations who did not think their colleagues in the Mexico City station or at the FBI had a “need to know” about them.
The evidence begs another question: why didn’t the FBI put Oswald back on the FLASHLIST? He had been taken off, according to Gheesling, because of an inadvertent mistake in September 1962, and nothing in his actions since then seemed to pose a security issue. The next day the the FBI received notice that he has visited the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, and within eight days had received even more disturbing news.
As JFK authors Lisa Pease and Jim DiEugenio have noted, Win Scott reported on October 16 to other U.S. government offices in Mexico City that Oswald had spoken to an Soviet official named Kostikov, whom the CIA station believed to be a KGB assassination specialist. Scott’s report reached FBI headquarters on October 18.
Yet Oswald, whose Soviet contacts now obviously posed big security issues, was not put back on the FLASHLIST.
Thus even when the CIA did share significant and troubling information about Oswald with senior FBI officials in Washington, those officials did not share it with the Bureau’s Dallas office via the FLASHLIST.
Any credible account of Oswald’s role in JFK’s assassination needs to explain these baffling events.
The explanation offered by Professor McAdams, that the CIA shared everything it knew about Oswald, is not supported by the facts.
The CIA doesn’t answer questions on the subject.
JFK conspiracy theorists generally avoid these facts because they hinder their desire to implicate Lyndon Johnson or George H.W. Bush, or the Federal Reserve in JFK’s death.
More careful JFK historians are left to contemplate other scenarios.
One possible explanation is that one or more of these FBI and CIA officials were aware of a U.S. government covert operation targeting the FPCC and that this operation somehow involved Oswald, a supporter of the FPCC.
The explanation is not entirely speculative. Newly discovered records show that both the FBI and the CIA had targeted the FPCC for secret operations in 1963. As historian David Kaiser reported in his 2007 book, “The Road to Dallas,” the FBI was conducting a COINTELPRO operations to disrupt and discredit the FPCC in 1963.
As Simpich has noted, the CIA’s John Tilton (a supervisor of George Joannides) notified the FBI on September 16, 1963, that the agency was launching an operation against the FPCC in a foreign country.
If one or both of these operations involved Oswald, that might (emphasis on the conditional) explain why Jane Roman and her colleagues at CIA headquarters chose not to tell Win Scott about Oswald’s recent arrest. It might also explain why Marvin Gheesling and the FBI decided Oswald’s name should not go on the FLASHLIST — so as not to compromise a secret operation.
I’ve never stated this hypothesis as historical truth. I’ve never written that this proves a conspiratorial explanation of JFK’s death. I’ve just put the facts on the table with two goals in mind: to allow readers to make up their own minds about their implications and to make the case for greater transparency.
This dual agenda disturbs my critics for reasons they can best articulate.
In my personal opinion, their attacks on my reporting are an expression of anxiety about the troubling issues raised by the CIA’s handling of pre-assassination intelligence on Oswald. The easiest way to dispel the anxiety is to impugn me. I can only say I share this anxiety but I am not the cause of it. (I was in kindergarten when these events happened.) The cause is the historical record itself.
And I freely concede there are other possible explanations of these events. I welcome discussion of them. If Professor McAdams (or Myers and Russo) have an different account of the actions of the CIA and FBI in October 1963, they should address the full range of issues raised here. That would be a welcome contribution to the discussion of a difficult issue.
Bill Simpich published his findings about the newest JFK records in Op-Ed News in July. He has a different interpretation of the events of 1963. I don’t necessarily agree with him but no one has better research into the most recently declassified CIA records.
As noted Lisa Pease and Jim DiEugenio have also addressed this issue. Just because I agree they have reported accurately on the facts cited here, does not mean I endorse their JFK conspiracy theories. I do not.
John McAdams, whose website I recommend (much to the chagrin of some JFK researchers) has published my account of my interview with Jane Roman.
30 thoughts on “Fear of JFK transparency provokes another attack”
The usage of the word “buffs” has a negative connotation, and for good reason. Bugliosi and Posner got it right and cleared out the Groden’s and Lifton’s, etc. long ago. Get over it. There was only ONE conspiracy in the death of a U.S.President, and that was Lincoln. Not, Garfield, McKinley or Kennedy. You folks that think there was a conspiracy are reaching for something that doesn’t or never existed.
..and our government does not lie or cover-up today? I worked for the government, they are no different than any other government today. It is to their perceived best interest to hide as many facts of their operations both abroad and domestic.
Photon, I could write tens of pages to present you that there was a conspiracy but you will disagree no matter what i say. Correct me if i am wrong but the US Governments last official verdict is that “the Committee believes that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as the result of conspiracy.” Unless you consider the HSCA members, “conspiracy theorists” as well.
Your argument about Oswald and what it would have happened if he have fired his pistol is non-sensical and makes no difference whether he was shot inside the theatre, inside the TSBD, in Mexico or in Cuba since he was the designated patsy.
Just give me one solid piece of physical evidence proving any individual was a member of a conspiracy.
So why did Oswald try to shoot the cop in the Texas Theater?
if he was a patsy what was he doing there, armed without a ticket?
Tens of pages, but not a single piece of solid, physical evidence.. Why?
Because there isn’t any.
I have to say, Jeff, that while I tend to be an LN, it was your original article “What Jane Roman Said” that got me interested in how people approach assassination evidence since that day 50 years ago when I sat in an 8th grade math class and watched an inexplicable chapter of history unfold.
Your article was excellent reporting, and I greatly respect your commitment to refrain from yelling “FIRE” where there is still only smoke, dust or haze.
1. The existence of the Z-Film is not necessary to help us prove that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Likewise the release of the Johannides files by the CIA is not necessary to prove that there was a conspiracy. I cannot exclude the possibility that they might contribute to that.
2. Just because Rousso and Myers agree that the CIA records should be released does not constitute progress.
3. McAdams site should have never been included in the best JFK sites. I see no justification what so ever.
3. Lisa Pease and James DiEugenio are not “conspiracy theorists” they are researchers and historians. Neither Mark Lane, Peter Dale Scott, Michael Evica, Vince Salandria, John Newman,James Douglass among others and Robert Kennedy Jr. These people are not conspiracy theorists.
That there was a conspiracy is a historical fact not a conspiracy theory.
Well,who was in the conspiracy? The only historic facts that there was a conspiracy are recorded in books written by conspiracy oriented “researchers” who after 50 years still have not come up with a single solitary shred of evidence to confirm their claims . Not one.
Answer me this: around 1 :30 on Nov 22, 1963 Lee Harvey Oswald in front of dozens of witnesses and several police officers attempted to kill a police officer with a pistol that he was carrying. He actually pulled the trigger. Had he been successful there were only two outcomes: #1. He would have been shot down by the other police officers in the theatre. #2. He would have been arrested, charged with capital murder and most likely executed.
Why did he do that? What did he do that left him feeling that death was the only outcome?
Dale Myers cherry picks replies he can deal with and refuses to post those he cannot, however respectful and logically argued. This allows Dale the last word to his critics. That shows a lack of spine, in my opinion.
He did post one of my comments, but not my follow-up nor that of my friend, which is worth posting here, to show the flaws in Dale’s straw men filled argument:
“You belittle Steve for having a “hard time with Greek (syllogism)” by using a classic “straw man” argument.
You are imputing to Steve/Morley a syllogism that they did not make. There is no suggestion that all things hidden “must” be bad. Rather, there is a passionate appeal for total transparency fifty years after the fact. That is all.
If there is any misuse of a Greek syllogism, it is in your reply which basically says, “All things hidden must not be in conflict with what we know/CIA hides things/therefore CIA is okay. Using your word to describe this thinking: “Poppycock”.
In the quest for truth, it is difficult to defend – as you appear to do – the notion that unknown information will have no affect on how we view a set of known facts.”
The “FBI and CIA were targeting FPCC with secret operations in 1963.” There is absolutely nothing “new” about that. That targeting began 2 weeks after the group was founded, years earlier. It’s good to see that Myers and Russo have finally sparked some intelligent debate here. I think they raise some excellent issues and questions in their last two pieces. I don’t see their comments on Jeff Morley’s work as “attacks.” Not all disagreement on issues constitutes an “attack.” The serious lack of intelligent and respectful debate on issues is a major flaw of the so-called “conspiracy community.”
Hi, you write, “It’s good to see that Myers and Russo have finally sparked some intelligent debate here”
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But I feel that intelligent debate has existed here for quite some time, and it is certainly one of the best JFK sites around.
Personally, I feel that the article by Myers and Russo is frustratingly poor, as it seems so reluctant not to confront the issues and questions which arise from the suspicious behaviour of senior CIA operatives.
I share your concern regarding the lack of “respectful” debate, but disagree that this is just a problem for what you call the “conspiracy community”. If you read back through the posts on this site, it is those who believe in the findings of the Warren Commission who appear to be just as rude and disrespectful.
George, I suppose intelligent debate remains in the eye of the beholder. I did not find the Myers/Russo article frustrating in the least. I thought it challenging, that it raised a number of thoughtful, provocative issues, and that it confronted questions head-on. I have no idea what you mean by ‘senior CIA operatives’ and ‘suspicious behavior’. Often, people fail to comprehend the foibles and idiocy of bureaucratic standards and process. I doubt that anyone at today’s CIA has much deep-seated knowledge about anything to do with the assassination. Are there some gems in the withheld documents? Perhaps, but anyone who anticipates real answers or evidence of conspiracy in those files will be, I suspect, sadly disappointed.
Either you believe JFK was killed by more than one person deliberately, you believe he was killed by more than one person by accident, or he was killed by a lone nut. Which is it, Jeff?
No matter what you say, you DO have a theory. You don’t claim to know it’s true, but you HAVE a theory. Don’t pretend you don’t.
I believe Mr Morley has already answered this question on a previous post here.
He said he just doesn’t know, and prefers not to speculate in case he makes a mistake. Also, he would first want to see the contents of the illegally witheld CIA files.
I appreciate that this is a position we might not all agree with, but I do feel it is one we should respect.
(re-transmission. Lightening knocked me off the Internet when I was attempting to send this the 1st time):
I’m expecting at any moment the swinging doors to fly open & Vince Bugliosi will burst into this discussion, fire shot at the ceiling to grab everyone’s attention & say something along the lines of, ‘Look people, get real…NOBODY’s going to use Lee Oswald as an assassin for the biggest terrorist attack against the USA in the entire 20th century. Not no CIA, not no ONI, not no FBI, not no Pentagon, not no LBJ, not no Mafia, not NOBODY. You folks are looking at this all wrong’.
Over in the corner is me in my Angus Young Aussie schoolboy outfit quietly taking all this good information in. I have no more idea today of what the Agency is, how it runs, how it thinks & why it does whatever it does (all without my knowledge & consent, of course) than I did back in 1963 when I first heard that term used following JFK’s ambush and horrific, violent death. I have to rely on the big thinkers posting here to explain to me what it’s all about.
Hats off & salute to Jeff & all those involved in this fascinating flow of ideas & analysis. This is why I enjoy visiting Jeff’s house, I actually learn things about history here.
Jeff, is your theory that Oswald was an operative working for the CIA in an operation against the pro-Castro group? Because I think there is a lot to that idea.
A soldier who defected at the height of the Cold War would have been a marked man by US intelligence, unless there was a good reason to not hound him. The anti-Castro group was a using office space controlled by the pro-Castro crowd, which makes the whole FPCC seem like a setup.
Personally, I think the Bay of Pigs and the anti-Castro crowd were the driving forces behind the assassination, although they couldn’t have planned and executed it without help.
Win Scott had no need-to-know about Oswald’s New Orleans shenanigans. It is what is known as the concept of compartmentalization.
Also, it is really disturbing that you would refer to someone as a “buff” simply because they are pushing for openness and transparency regarding records that the government agencies themselves have previously identified as JFK related.
Your favorite term “buff” is an obvious mischaracterization, and a cheap ad hominem attack.
You insinuate that people doing doing historical research are doing it because they are “fans” of assassination, and not because they are seeking historical truths.
As an academic, you should be ashamed.
Are you a “buff” of government reports and the suppression of information? Are you a “buff” of Lee Harvey Oswald? Are you a “buff” of lone assassins?
See how silly that sounds?
Lose the lame labels. You should be better than that.
It’s time to raise the level of civil discourse, not cheapen it.
I’ll ignore your ad hominem attacks, and address the one substantive point you made.
>>> Win Scott had no need-to-know about Oswald’s New Orleans shenanigans. <<<
Why not? Jeff clearly thinks it's sinister that Win Scott was not told.
The confrontation with the Cubans was in the New Orleans media, for heaven's sake.
Of course Jeff believes it was all a "put up job." He has no evidence of this, of course.
But if so, there was not reason to conceal from *anybody* the confrontation with the Cubans. Even if you *assume* (as Jeff does) that the CIA was pulling the strings behind the scenes in New Orleans, there was no reason to conceal any public information — especially public information that fit the narrative of Oswald as the disgruntled pro-Castro leftist.
What Jeff (and you buffs generally) don't see to recognize is that bureaucracies are not always efficient. They are often clueless. If *somebody* in the organization has a report, that does not mean that everybody does.
Hi Professor McAdams.
You write that “bureaucracies are not always efficient. They are often clueless. If somebody in the organization has a report, that does not mean that everybody does”
However, with respect to the Oct 10 cable we know that this is not the case. Jane Roman, one of the senior CIA operatives who signed off on the Oct 10 cable, had also signed off on the FBI report (dated 23rd Sept) outlining Oswalds arrest.
So, why would she sign off on a cable she must have known was untrue?
If, as you say, Oswalds arrest was in the media and there was no reason to conceal LHO’s confrontation with the Cubans, then why was it omitted?
You state that Mr Morley has no evidence of it being a “put up job”, but there may be evidence in the files that the CIA are illegally witholding. As I understand it, you support the release of these files ( eg-George Joannides).
I don’t think Mr Morley has ever stated he believes it was a “put up job”. I feel that he asks the questions which naturally arise from these documents, and then pursues those answers. I feel this is the right hing to do. This is the murder of an American President, and no question should be left unanswered.
Excellent piece Jeff which, for me , highlights the questions which are just begging to be answered.
We know that the CIA cable of Oct 10 1963 was not “simply a summary of what was in CIA files on Oswald” as Professor McAdams states. We know this is not correct because we know the FBI report detailing Oswalds arrest in New Orleans has been omitted.
So why was this information omitted? Why was the CIA witholding information about LHO from their colleagues in the weeks BEFORE the assassination?
Of course, one possible reason is that LHO was involved in a covert CIA operation which senior CIA operatives wanted to keep off the radar.
Jane Roman herself stated that it is “indicative of a keen interest in LHO held closely on a need to know basis”
In my opinion, the CIA’s behaviour towards the HSCA in putting forward George Joannides as liason, without declaring his role in 1963 with the DRE, arouses these suspicions even further.
Until questions like these are answered none of us can say with any certainty just exactly what the role of LHO was in 1963.
I feel its a real scandal that we are still asking these questions 50 years later, when they should have been looked at and answered in a open and thorough initial investigation back in 63/64.
The CIA should stop illegally witholding JFK assassination related files, like those of George Joannides.
>>> Why did they do that? <<<
Jeff, why do you think the CIA would want to withhold the information about the street scuffle from MEXI?
It would only reinforce the impression that the Mexico City station already had from the surveillance of Oswald: that he was a pro-Castro zealot.
Either that was what Oswald really was, or Evil Minions of some conspiracy wanted him to look that way. Why shouldn't he look that way to Win Scott?
Exactly what surveillance did the Mexico City station have on Oswald?
Even J. Edgar Hoover acknowledges the voice on the tapes was not Oswald’s.
Even Vince Bugliosi acknowledges the CIA has never produced a photo of Oswald entering or leaving either consulate.
Even David Phillips once said that when everything was declassified, there would be “no evidence to show that Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Soviet Embassy.”
And years later, Slawson backed off is claim that whatever it was that Win Scott showed him, it was not definitive. And Jim Angleton swooped down and got whatever it was that Scott had. Have you ever requested the CIA declassify that material? Have you ever requested the CIA turn over the notes that Lopez and Hardway made while writing their report? Have you ever requested the CIA declassify the part of the Mexico City report which was entitled, Was Oswald and Agent of the CIA?
These are facts. What you are talking about, CIA surveillance showing behavior similar to New Orleans, please show us specifically this CIA surveillance and source it.
If you cannot, then what you are talking about is sheer buffery.
I haven’t heard the Lane-Phillips debate tape, nor read a transcript, just the purported Phillips quote you mentioned. It sounds interesting, but not definitive.
Keep in mind that Phillips told numerous tales of Oswald in Mexico City. In his final memoir Secret Wars Diary, he stated that:
“I was an observer of Cuban and Soviet reaction when Oswald contacted their embassies”.
A fair reading of this indicates Phillips may have surveilled Oswald in real time.
Can you be more specific about the Mexico City surveillance?
What Mexico City surveillance that the CIA had on Oswald?
Tapes? Photos? The former were later shown to be not Oswald’s voice. The latter have never been produced.
Whatever it was that WIn Scott had was later scooped up by Angleton after his death.
So please specify what you mean here? The testimony of Duran and Azcue is not CIA surveillance its Cuban consulate surveillance.
McAdams here has pulled another one from his trick bag of terms used to clog real discussion. “Evil Minions.” Following up on Conspiracy Mongers, Tin Foil Hatters, and my favorite: Factoids. (He stole that one from Norman Mailer.)
Great to see Jim here. He’s doing a marvelous job over at CTKA and BlackOp Radio exposing the real agenda behind McAdams, Battey, Von Pein and others: a reactionary, racist, pro-National Security State hatred of the Kennedys and all they stood for. Their campaign has nothing to do with Dallas and everything to do with defaming whatever gets in the way of the rampaging corporate totalitarian war state this country has become.
“JFK conspiracy theorists generally avoid these facts because they hinder their desire to implicate Lyndon Johnson or George H.W. Bush, or the Federal Reserve in JFK’s death.
More careful JFK historians are left to contemplate other scenarios.”
Cheap shot painted with a broad brush, my friend. Very snobbish.
My grandparents aways told me never to engage a Holocaust Denier in a conversation of the Holocaust. That alone is a major victory for them. Russo and McAdams are the “Holocaust deniers” of JFK conspiracy scholarship. To engage them as you continue to do simply to be re-posted on the larger McAdams site is a shanda.
“As noted Lisa Pease and Jim DiEugenio have also addressed this issue. Just because I agree they have reported accurately on the facts cited here, does not mean I endorse their JFK conspiracy theories. I do not.”
The newly released “Destiny Betrayed” is thoroughly researched and brilliantly written. Not sure, what you are referring to here by separating yourself as a “careful JFK historian” and Jim and others as “JFK conspiracy theorists,” while simultaneously engaging with the highly discredited McAdams.
The more I read about this event, the harder it gets for me to leave Lyndon Johnson off the hook. Certainly his assisting in the cover up and his steamroller treatment of Senator Russell and others early in 1964 warrant suspicion in my opinion.
Perhaps with Morley you have a case of the culture of ‘objective journalism’ (which they teach you at University is never purely objective, but strives to be). He’s out to get “Just the facts, ma’am” and doesn’t want speculative theories to get in the way of that. As for me, I speculate away, but try to remember that it’s speculation until I can prove otherwise. I think the term for what I do is “game theory” which is not (I don’t think) a favorite tactic of professional journalists. One of my favorite journalists is Sy Hersh, who gave a very interesting talk about how he located William Calley (sp?) and others involved in the scandal known as the “My Lai Massacre”. He gets the facts all right, but he relies on gut intuition sometimes to dig for new information. A very methodical, skilled journalist who is not afraid to dig for the truth.
Morley, no matter what you dislike about his position can at least be thanked for digging into the Oswald/Mexico City details, and for pushing for CIA to release more information. That’s commendable work so I don’t care what he thinks about the details of the assassination. I just want to see what new facts he can bring forward. I can assemble and interpret them any way I please.
Great job, Mark. The parameter walls of this site are closing in — best gauged by this latest spitball fight among Russo, Myers, and Morley — NOT over the mountains of evidence proving a coup took place, but over TRANSPARENCY. (As if we need these memos released to further prove anything.) It’s the same Three-Card Monty game played by the Obama Reich over Snowden, Assange, Manning and others — fight all you want about what info gets out while we go ahead and plot further aggressive war.
It’s sad how Morley has bought into Russo and Myers’s game. “No, men, of course I’m not one of those CONSPIRACY THEORISTS. I just want to again buy into establishment journalism’s conception of what information and evidence is: official sources with axes to grind.”
While it would be a sincere sensation to see these memos, we surely don’t need them: Dallas was a National Security State hit.
I have a question about Oswald’s ties: How does (or is there enough evidence to show) Guy Bannister’s Camp Street Office indicate possible ties between Oswald and FBI prior to the assassination? Could Oswald have been working in some way with both, or with ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence)? I realize that FBI and CIA fought over turf. I’m just wondering if Oswald somehow fit into something not so clear cut?
Interestingly, the same FBI information about Oswald’s FPCC activities was also withheld from CIA officer John Whitten who was assigned by Richard Helms to investigate the assassination for CIA. Whitten resigned as head of the investigation when he discovered in December 1963 that this information had been withheld from him. Helms then appointed James Angleton to replace Whitten. Thus another instance of withholding this information within CIA, in this case post-assassination.