The JFK Facts podcast: Talking to CIA officers and Ronald Reagan’s JFK theory

Our fourth podcast (now downloadable!) about all things JFK in which we talk about:

— CIA Director John Brennan’s claim that the declassification of the missing 28 pages of the 9/11 report will exonerate Saudi Arabia in the attacks;

— Ronald Reagan’s radio broadcast in the late 1970s about his JFK conspiracy theory;

–Four CIA officers (William Hood, Anne Goodpasture, Sam Halpern, and Nestor Sanchez) with whom Jeff Morley spoke while researching his new ebook, JFK & CIA.

–Mexico City intrigue as revealed in the pages of Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA.

To download the podcast as an MP3: Click HERE; Place cursor on file; RIGHT click and select “Save Audio As.”

Got a question or a comment? Contact us at and we’ll talk about it on the show.


Jefferson Morley’s new ebook, CIA and JFK: The Secret Assassination Files, available on Amazon, provides the fullest account yet of the JFK records that the CIA is still concealing in 2016 and why they should be made public in October 2017.


11 thoughts on “The JFK Facts podcast: Talking to CIA officers and Ronald Reagan’s JFK theory”

  1. Ramon F Herrera


    “Got a question or a comment? Contact us […] and we’ll talk about it on the show.”


    What I would like to hear and learn about is a topic that I have found extremely important and has not been subjected to the coverage it deserves (maybe for lack of in-depth info?): The Roselli-Anderson exchange.

    What exactly did the mobster tell the award winning journalist? Was it recorded? Any books? Somebody should do an analysis based on:

    (a) The things that Roselli said (*)
    (b) The things that Roselli did NOT say (*)

    (*) and were later verified/uncovered.

    Based on that, his intentions can be surmised.

    If “Handsome Johnny” was such an informed wise guy, he must have known all about Jack Ruby being under orders. Did he say anything about this, one of the most crucial topics?

    What was the nature of the Roselli-William Harvey relationship? Were they trying to perform a 2-man recoup operation during HSCA? Or were they under orders? Was WKH even mentioned?

    Roselli was hacked to pieces within weeks of the death (heart attack?) of his benefactor William King. Other than -almost casually- mentioning that heinous murder and the one of Sam Giancana, the MSM did nothing. They sat on their hands.


    1. I’ve never bought Roselli’s story about the assassins being turned around by Castro. There are just too many holes in it. I just wonder what his motivation was besides the obvious, that he was trying to deflect. Anderson seemed to lap it up, although I wonder if he might have embellished it a bit after Roselli’s death.

      Roselli’s lawyers said he “snowed” the Church Committee. They said when it came to matters directly involving Mafia members, he was extremely tight-lipped and minimized their involvement. Roselli testified that he had assumed the major role in the plots against Castro and Santo Trafficante was just an interpreter but privately he told his lawyers a different story and that Trafficante controlled the anti-Castro operatives.

      It’s understandable that he would try and protect Trafficante as he originally had to involve Sam Giancana because he didn’t have the stature to deal with Trafficante. Roselli might have done work for the CIA but I think his allegiance was always with the Mafia.

      The CIA memo’s in the lead up to Bill Harvey retiring are worth reading. There was an awful lot of suspicion about his relationship with Roselli and not a lot of trust. The Director of Security said straight out,he didn’t trust Harvey.

      The head of Executive Action for the CIA and the Mafia gangster certainly developed a close and lasting friendship, I wonder what bound then together.

      1. Ramon F Herrera


        “I’ve never bought Roselli’s story about the assassins being turned around by Castro. There are just too many holes in it.”


        Indeed, Peter. The following version would have been more credible:

        (1) Castro decides to retaliate and sends ANOTHER team, ideologically and nationally/patriotically loyal to La Revolución Cubana.

        The Anderson version is equivalent to torturing some world-class athletes before forcing them to participate in the Olympic Games. Heck! A broken trigger finger can heal quickly! No biggie.

        (2a) Next, Castro recruits the best voodoo, Santería witchcraft cigar smokers in the island and has them 50+ years performing their magic, blocking the mind of US presidents and all authorities, to make sure that they participate in the coverup.

        (2b) Oh, I know! The Cuban ladies are very sexy. Castro every year brings a secret plane loaded with the most powerful people in America (politics and media) and regales them with liquor, sex, food, etc. Obama was the first whose flight was not clandestine.

        Please forgive me: I can’t help but to become sarcastic to the extreme when I read stupidities such as:

        “They just tortured the shooters and the influence lasted remote-controlled from Havana to Dallas”.

          1. Ramon F Herrera


            In the last year or so, dog whistle tones have been legitimized.

            They can be quoted and everything.

          2. Ah, so you are quoting dog whistle tones aye Herrera?
            Well I can’t hear that high. Are you a human canine hybrid then? Is that your claim?

            Or are you just a wise-ass as it appears that you are?

          3. Ramon F Herrera

            I was referring to the following, Willie:

            “Trump has dropped the Obama birther shtick he peddled in 2012 in favor of a rhetorical dog whistle the size of a tuba that attacks far more vulnerable populations like Mexican immigrants”



            Therefore, I am afraid that the appropriate forum to continue this discussion is Politico, not JFK Facts.

            If the leader of a major party and potential president of this great country can issue messages in dog whistle tones, I can take another, issued by Johnny Roselli and put a couple of quotes around it.

            The retaliation of Politico and the Washington Post was nothing short of genial:

            (1) An article entitled “Daddy’s Girl”
            (2) Another entitled “It’s Complicated”


            (3) The Washington Post declared: “Donald Trump insinuates that Obama supports the terrorists”. The press credentials of the most respected newspaper were immediately revoked.

            The first two articles were insinuations, about incestuous inclinations, declared to Playboy by Mr. Trump himself.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top