"MORLEY Wins Appeal: CIA's JOANNIDES Files"

[sunny]

Sat Dec-08-07 06:49 AMby Don Roberdeau

CIA Loses Case at DC Circuit

The CIA has had a lower court ruling reversed at the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.

The CIA had previously won summary judgment on a case where requester Jefferson Morley sought records on George Joannides, a deceased CIA agent.

The Circuit Court however found that the CIA's search wasn't adequate as it hadn't search usually FOIA exempt operational files because in this case there was an exception that made these files non-exempt from the FOIA in their entirety. The Court remanded the case back to the lower court for the CIA to search its operational files. Further, the CIA was ordered to search JFK act files that it had transferred to NARA, but had admitted to keeping copies of as well as to sent to NARA but that aren't to be released to the public until 2017. Finally, the Court found the CIA's description of its search inadequate and remanded the case for a further explanation of the search.

While the Circuit Court found the CIA Vaughn Index adequate, it found the lower court did not make a segregability finding and remanded the case for it to do so. The Circuit Court also found that the CIA had properly justified its use of Exemptions 1, 3 and 7(E).

However, the Court found a number of deficiencies with other exemptions and remanded those portion of the case for further agency explanation. The Court found that as to Exemption 2, the CIA did not meet its burden in establishing its use of low-2 to withhold certain material and remanded for further explanation. Likewise, the Court found that the CIA's defense of it's glomar response was also inadequate and remanded that portion of the case for further explanation. Next, the Court found that the CIA's justification of Exemption 5 was inadequate, thus on remand the CIA will have to explain that exemption's use further. Finally, the Court also found that the CIA's justification of exemption 6 was inadequate as it never established that any privacy interest in the withheld records existed.

Here is the pdf format link to the judge's ruling....

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/com ... -5382a.pdf


http://tinyurl.com/2gdfep

Excellent Morley article on Joannides and the newer scientific evidence on the assassination:

http://www.playboy.com/magazine/feature ... age01.html

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

http://www.playboy.com/magazine/features/jfk/jfk-page01.html

I'm reading this Jefferson Morley article in Playboy with a gas mask on and the windows open. He's working for the CIA sure as sewage stinks.

All in bold below are longtime CIA venues-

Editor's note: Jefferson Morley, a former editor and staff writer for washingtonpost.com, is the author of the forthcoming book, Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA, published by the University Press of Kansas. He has written about the Kennedy assassination for Reader's Digest, the New York Review of Books, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Salon, Washington Monthly and the Miami New Times.

Bob Woodward, my former colleague at the Washington Post, once warned me in a collegial way that the story of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a journalistic "black hole," and so it is.

Say what about Vincent Bugliosi?

Perhaps the single most intriguing story to emerge from the JFK files concerns a career CIA officer named George Joannides. He died in 1990 at age 67, taking his JFK secrets to the grave in suburban Washington. His role in the events leading up to Kennedy's death and its confused investigatory aftermath goes utterly unmentioned in the vast literature of JFK's assassination. Vincent Bugliosi's otherwise impressive 1,600 page book debunking every JFK conspiracy theory known to man mentions him only in an inaccurate footnote.

Here Morley covers Robert Blakey's lying ass with 'gosh, he was deceived.'
Shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

When the story of the Joannides file emerged, former HSCA chief counsel G. Robert Blakey was stunned by the audacity of Joannides's deception. Blakey, a former federal prosecutor, thought the Agency had cooperated with Congress's effort to look into JFK's murder. Twenty-three years later he learned that the CIA bureaucrat ostensibly assisting his staff was actually a material witness in the investigation. "The Agency set me up," reported the Washington Post.

Blakey, now a law professor at Notre Dame, says Joannides's actions were "little short of outrageous. You could make a prima facie case that it amounted to obstruction of Congress, which is a felony."

Blakey has long argued that organized crime figures orchestrated Kennedy's assassination. The revelation of Joannides's unknown role has given him second thoughts about the CIA's credibility.

"You can't really infer from the Joannides story that they [the CIA] did it," he says. "Maybe he was hiding something that is not complicitous in a plot but merely embarrassing. It certainly undermines everything that they have said about JFK's assassination."

Gee, Oswald really did it?

Bringuier went so far as to issue a press release on Oswald, calling for a congressional investigation of the then-obscure ex-Marine. "Write to your congressman for a full investigation on Mr. Lee H. Oswald, a confessed 'Marxist,'" the DRE spokesman wrote on August 21, 1963.

Did George Joannides of the CIA ignore Bringuier's prescient and potentially life-saving call for investigating Oswald?

Wait, Castro did it.

Whether Oswald ever read this recruiting pitch is unknown. What is certain is that the CIA's campaign of assassination had gotten inside Castro's head. The same week that See hit the newsstands in Miami, the canny Cuban leader pulled aside an Associated Press reporter at a diplomatic reception in Havana. He said that he knew the CIA was plotting to kill him or his brother. "We are prepared to...answer in kind," the Cuban leader said. If American plots continued, he added, "United States leaders would be in danger...they themselves will not be safe."

Oh, and that totally faked story about Oswald going to Mexico? Now it is true again and Morley is rerunning the CIA's fabrications.

In September 1963, a month after confronting Joannides's assets in New Orleans, Oswald went to Mexico City and visited the Cuban consulate, seeking a visa. He passed through a CIA surveillance program code-named LIERODE. He then visited the Soviet Embassy where his voice was picked up by a telephonic wiretapping program known as LIENVOY. (These recordings of Oswald, seized from the home office safe of Mexico City station chief Win Scott, were hidden from investigators and later destroyed.)

Seems the JFK researchers online are just "chat groups" of "furious partisans" when it comes to "new documents." Of course, the authenticity of those "new documents" is extremely suspect.
Say, isn't that negative framing and injection of possible disinfo? I'd say.

This cable, dated October 10, 1963, is no smoking gun. But is one of the key new documents in the JFK paper trail whose significance is not appreciated by the mainstream media or the furious partisans of the JFK chat groups.

Here Morley tells us why the vigilant CIA was paying attention to that 'lone commie, Oswald' and repeats all the cover created for a double agent-suckered-into-patsy as if he was just homegrown trouble up to no good on his own. What blatant falsehood here-

The interest of these senior officials does not necessarily imply anything more sinister than a bureaucracy's natural tendency to cover its ass. The CIA had ample reason to be monitoring Oswald in late 1963. He publicly supported the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, a pro-Castro group, formally classified as a "subversive" organization by U.S. national security agencies. He attempted to travel to Cuba via Mexico, a signal of intent to violate U.S. law. Naturally, the Agency was paying attention.

"Naturally, the Agency was paying attention." Oh, brother.


But wait! Now for some misleading tapdancing around the Zapruder film segueing into...
TA DA - 9/11 DISINFO! WOO HOO!

There have also been interesting developments from the crime scene, perhaps the most important of which may seem like a no-brainer: The famous 26-second Zapruder home movie of JFK's murder contains original undoctored photographic imagery of the assassination. This authentication was deemed necessary by the Assassination Records Review Board, created by Congress to oversee the release of JFK records, because a vocal faction of JFK conspiracy theorists in the 1990s started claiming that the film had been surreptitiously altered to hide evidence of a conspiracy. (Their theory refuted, these conspiracy theorists abandoned the JFK field for greener pastures of 9/11 speculation.)

This is my favorite example of this articles's misdirection.
When it gets around to the medical evidence, one of the most gruesome parts of the cover-up that also points right at the highest levels (like Pentagon/CIA) is that JFK's mostly destroyed brain was first substituted with another less damaged one for autopsy photos and then after it was stored by itself as evidence...it disappeared sometime in 1965 or 1966.

Dr. Gary Aguilar's work is minimized by Morley but here is Aguilar on this-
http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/c010699b.html

So how does Morley 'dispose' of this brain evidence in his disinfo article?
He turns it into a mere figure of speech-

II. CSI Dallas

There have also been interesting developments from the crime scene, perhaps the most important of which may seem like a no-brainer: The famous 26-second Zapruder home movie of JFK's murder contains original undoctored photographic imagery of the assassination.

"...a no-brainer..." Get it? Hunh-hunh? Get it? "...a no-brainer...."
This Morley guy is SUCH A JOKER. Such the funny man, haw-haw.

Now for more gobs of negative framing of JFK researchers here when the dictabelt recording is refuted by a Mr. O'Dell-

O'Dell is an unobtrusively brilliant man who lives with his wife in Fresno, California. By day, he runs the technology department of an insurance company. O'Dell is not one of those people drawn to the assassination by interest in the Kennedys or true crime stories or political conspiracies or the Mafia or anything like that -- and that is a great strength of his work. He does not embody the paranoid style in American politics. He embodies the empirical style sorely lacking in most JFK coverage. His methods are detached, analytical, polite and methodical. His e-mail exchanges with Thomas are civil.

Here's severe minimization of the enormous number of people who heard shots from the grassy knoll and fenceline plus a misleading photo instead of the stunning photos showing a stampede of people and cops towards the grassy knoll-

The HSCA asked two other nationally known acoustic scientists, Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy, to examine Barger's data, focusing on the alleged from the grassy knoll. They found that the pattern of impulses closely matched the pattern from the Dictabelt. They concluded there was a 95 percent probability of a shot from the grassy knoll.

This finding confirmed what a substantial minority of the people at the crime scene thought. The book reviewers don't seem to know it but at the very least a significant minority of eyewitnesses thought at least one gun shot came from in front of JFK's motorcade.

"...a substantial minority...a significant minority..."
That's misleading minimization. I'm still trying to find the stills from Tina Towner's filming of the assassination aftermath with a stampede of people up to the grassy knoll and overpass to find the perps.

Now one disinformationist pays tribute to another as Morley pimps the CIA's lead online JFK liar, John McAdams-

One of the more judicious surveys of statements given by people in the crowd in the vicinity of the motorcade found that 40 out of 103 bystanders said that at least some of the gunfire came from behind a stockade fence atop the knoll. The tally was done by John McAdams, a Marquette University professor who runs a reliable website that debunks JFK conspiracy theories.

Morley is an unmitigated disinformationist, no question about it.

The bleat goes on...la di da di da....

That's enough exposing this article's deceptions and frame-ups for now.
Back to just reading this 'blame it on the dead guy' misdirection...

[MinM]

Jefferson Morley is still fighting the good fight, Hugh.

Dead Spy's JFK Files Pose a Test for Obama's FOIA Order

By Jefferson Morley - May 27, 2009, 12:35PM

In his executive order strengthening the Freedom of Information Act, President Obama declared that the law should "be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails." Many have applauded Obama's intentions but whether his beautiful words can actually reverse extreme claims of secrecy has yet to be determined.

Case in point: my lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency for a batch of records on a decorated undercover officer named George Joannides. In December 2003, I sued the agency under the FOIA for the files of Joannides, a psychological warfare specialist who played not one, but two interesting roles in the story of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in November 22, 1963.

As I explained in this 2007 article for Playboy.com, Joannides was "the man who didn't talk." As chief of the psychological warfare operations in Miami in 1963, he failed to report on a series of heated public encounters between accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald and members of a CIA-sponsored Cuban exile group that he guided and monitored to the tune of $51,000 a month. Within hours of JFK's murder, members of the group shaped first day coverage of the assassination by giving reporters evidence that Kennedy's killer was a communist. The CIA did not disclose Joannides' financial relationship with Oswald's anti-Castro antagonists to the Warren Commission.

In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as the CIA's liaison to the congressional JFK investigators. He said nothing about his undercover mission in 1963, even when asked for records about Oswald's contacts with his intelligence-gathering network. G. Robert Blakey, the Notre Dame law professor and former federal prosecutor who ran the probe, says Joannides' actions constituted obstruction of Congress, a felony. Joannides died in 1990 having never been questioned by JFK investigators. His Washington Post obituary described him only as a "Defense Department lawyer."...

Photo: In July 1981, retired CIA undercover officer George Joannides (left) received the Distinguished Intelligence Medal for "exceptional achievement" from deputy CIA director Bobby Ray Inman. Among Joannides' achievements were concealing from JFK investigatiors his role in guiding and monitoring a Cuban exile group that gathered intelligence and generated propaganda about accused presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald before President Kennedy was killed. (Credit: CIA)
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/20 ... s_foia_or/

[nathan28]

HMWs, that's bonkers. Maybe he just writes untruths that he's come to accept because people wave more dollars at him that way. Unless you're a natural con-man, Conspiracy Inc. is a tough racket.

Anyway, there's no such thing as a "spook" FOIA request if the words "any and all" are there.

[vigilant]

Further, the CIA was ordered to search JFK act files that it had transferred to NARA, but had admitted to keeping copies of as well as to sent to NARA but that aren't to be released to the public until 2017.


Hugh,

Perhaps you can shed light on a question I have always had. From the inception of the new/bogus Constitution of the U.S., and the meeting under the Buttonwood tree that started the NYSE, slavery that began with the Jekyl Island affair, etc...just name em.....this country has been run as a debt slave unit disguised as a Republic.

With the aforementioned in mind, why does the above in blue occur at all?

As powerful as the alphabet people are, why in the hell do we even have the 50 year secrecy rule as it pertains to FOIA? Why don't they just seal the documents and let that be it? Why do they even bother to put a time limit on the sealing of info?

To give the impression that un-redacted info will be released in the future maybe? This always puzzled me a bit.

[H_C_E]

Jeez,

don't confuse the Manatee with the facts, he knows what's going on...

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

H.C.E. Since you have no relevant facts, stop trolling.

Researcher extraordinaire, Jim DiEugenio, does an autopsy of Jefferson Morley's book, 'Our Man In Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA.'
He finds that, just like JFK, Morley's brain seems to be missing...to put it nicely.
Morley is a CIA-WPost man, after all.

http://www.ctka.net/2008/morley.html

Our Man in Mexico
By Jefferson Morley

Reviewed by James DiEugenio
.....
Oddly, Morley writes that a Palestinian waiter killed Robert Kennedy. (p. 282) Sirhan was never a waiter at the Ambassador Hotel. And the sentence assumes Sirhan was the actual assassin. Which jibes with the curious and unexplained statements in the book-made more than once-- that Oswald shot Kennedy.

My, my. Morley says both patsies were guilty.
You can see how useful his carrying the flag on Joannides is to confusing people.

Morley, like Bugliosi, is fronting the CIA line for both JFK and RFK and he's using Joannides as his cred prop, a common tactic-

> Disinfo perps Posner, McAdams, and Epstein all signed on to a researcher group open letter to CIA demanding the Joannides files.

> Vince Bugliosi (LAPD/CIA) did a 2008 book tour condemning Bush as a murderer as his cred prop after in 2007 he fronted a huge $50 CIA-written 'lone gunman' book.

> Jane Mayer (New Yorker/CIA) tossed an anti-torture bone to the Left to market her book, 'The Dark Side,' which was chock full of USG disinfo.

> Other spooks working for fake anti-semitic websites did a similar thing with 9/11, got out front with new info to contaminate it with their baggage.
Honest researchers like David Ray Griffin have still not purged their old citations from the likes of Christopher Bollyn and Greg Szymanski, as intended by those two.

Further, the CIA was ordered to search JFK act files that it had transferred to NARA, but had admitted to keeping copies of as well as to sent to NARA but that aren't to be released to the public until 2017.


Hugh,
.....
...why does the above in blue occur at all?

As powerful as the alphabet people are, why in the hell do we even have the 50 year secrecy rule as it pertains to FOIA? Why don't they just seal the documents and let that be it? Why do they even bother to put a time limit on the sealing of info?

To give the impression that un-redacted info will be released in the future maybe? This always puzzled me a bit.

Vigilant, you correctly answered your own questions. Mostly.
Any court ruling that really matters is made by CIA-friendly judges.
Otherwise, the CIA can just stonewall as they did for years on their mandated disclosures regarding working with Nazi war criminals.

Read Angus MacKenzie's 1997 book, 'Secrets: The CIA's War at Home,' for a history of how the CIA wriggled out of FOIA accountability, especially to hide their Operation CHAOS gestapo campaign against domestic dissent including celebrities. Dangerous stuff that was even hidden from lots of CIA employees who objected to these tactics.
By the early 1980s, the Reaganauts had helped William Casey's CIA recover from the 1970s. Former DCI George Bush was VP, after all.

Promises to reveal at a much later date are made to reinforce the cover story that the cover-up is for our own good, for national security, not to hide criminality or incompetence. There's some ironic truth to this claim only because if the public knew what was being hidden, they'd demand the dissolving of the CIA, FBI, and Pentagon.

By shifting info-liabilities to the distant future, it is almost guaranteed files will have been forgotten, lost, or sanitized to the level of revelation that has no sociopolitical consequence in future context.

Or a show of disclosure with new embedded disinfo can be made to buy creds and misdirection in some other hot water, like the way the CIA's 1976 'family jewels' were rereleased a couple of years ago but with less material and lies about Operation Mockingbird inserted up front in the early pages where they'd be read. These lies about Operation Mockingbird (CIA media) were repeated the next day on Amy Goodman's show by another CIA gatekeeper named John Prados. And Amy let him despite her having written about Bernstein's 1977 article in her own latest book.

And, nathan28, disinfo perps make a show of demanding the release of documents to reinforce their own cover as honest researchers.
As I said, disinfo perps Posner, McAdams, and Epstein all signed on to a researcher group open letter to CIA demanding the Joannides files.

Picture the scene in 'Casablanca.'

Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

[MinM]

Will the CIA obey the law? | Jefferson Morley's Blog
July 20, 2009, 8:47AM

Last week, I did my part to hold the CIA accountable.

I filed my sixth (!) declaration in connection with Morley v. CIA, my ongoing lawsuit against the agency seeking records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

My case is far removed from the House Intelligence Committee's investigation of the mysterious assassination program recently canceled by CIA director Leon Panetta. It has nothing to do with Attorney Eric Holder's controversial consideration of whether to prosecute CIA officers for illegal interrogation methods. It is irrelevant to what Rep Rush Holt (D.-NJ) has proposed: a congressional investigation of the CIA as "intense and comprehensive as the probe conducted more than 30 years ago -- in the wake of the Watergate scandal -- by a special committee headed by U.S. Sen. Frank Church, an Idaho Democrat." (Hat tip to Spencer.)

But my Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, now in its sixth year, is a microcosm of the same basic question facing the White House, Congress and the American public: can the CIA be made to obey the law?


In my experience, the answer is: not easily. In this latest submission to the court, I did not bother offer a JFK conspiracy theory because I don't have one. Rather, my bone-dry 28-page declaration refutes a number of CIA claims made in a sworn affidavit submitted last year to Judge Richard J. Leon last November.

Who was George Joannides and why does his story matter? At the time of Kennedy's murder in Dallas on November 22, 1963, Joannides, using the aliases of 'Howard' and 'Walter Newby,' served as the chief of the CIA's psychological warfare programs in Miami. His assignment was to mount covert operations to confuse and confound the government of Fidel Castro so as to hasten its overthrow.

Joannides's duties, according my declaration and declassified CIA records, included guiding and monitoring an anti-Castro student exile group which was harshly critical of JFK's Cuba policy. The group made headlines within hours of JFK's murder by denouncing accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as a Castro supporter. The Warren Commission was not told of Joannides' involvement with the group. Fifteen years later, Joannides served as the agency's liaison to the congressional committee re-investigating JFK's assassination. Congress was not told of Joannides' actions in 1963. Joannides died in 1990, having never been questioned by investigators about his knowledge of Oswald's contacts with the group he handled.

(If you want to know the Joannides story in detail, read here, here and here, then watch this video where I explain how the CIA at first tried to disavow any knowledge of Joannides' actions in 1963 and then had to backtrack.)

The Joannides file, say a diverse group of JFK authors, are part of the assassination story and should be made public. For six years, the CIA has refused, alleging their release would harm "national security."

In the sworn affidavit, Delores Nelson, the agency's chief information officer, downplayed the CIA's and Joannides' connection to Oswald's anti-Castro antagonists in 1963. Nelson stated that Joannides did not file the standard monthly reports on the group, known as the Cuban Student Directorate, in 1963 because of funding reductions and "policy differences." In fact, I showed that senior CIA officials preserved funding for the group up until one week before Kennedy was killed and that Joannides' boss credited him having it under control at the time that the group used CIA funds to link Oswald to Castro.

Nelson's affidavit, I noted, had relied on two error-filled CIA memoranda written in 1998. Those memos served to conceal from a civilian review panel the full extent of Joannides' contacts with anti-Castro Cubans in the weeks and days before Kennedy was killed, according to Judge John Tunheim who chaired a civilian review panel that declassified thousands of JFK records in the 1990s. "We were lied to about Joannides for a long time," said Tunheim, former head of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB)...
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/ta ... -law-1.php

George Joannides - The Education Forum

[MinM]

http://www.playboy.com/magazine/features/jfk/jfk-page01.html

I'm reading this Jefferson Morley article in Playboy with a gas mask on and the windows open. He's working for the CIA sure as sewage stinks.

All in bold below are longtime CIA venues-

Editor's note: Jefferson Morley, a former editor and staff writer for washingtonpost.com, is the author of the forthcoming book, Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA, published by the University Press of Kansas. He has written about the Kennedy assassination for Reader's Digest, the New York Review of Books, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Salon, Washington Monthly and the Miami New Times.

Bob Woodward, my former colleague at the Washington Post, once warned me in a collegial way that the story of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a journalistic "black hole," and so it is.

Say what about Vincent Bugliosi?

Perhaps the single most intriguing story to emerge from the JFK files concerns a career CIA officer named George Joannides. He died in 1990 at age 67, taking his JFK secrets to the grave in suburban Washington. His role in the events leading up to Kennedy's death and its confused investigatory aftermath goes utterly unmentioned in the vast literature of JFK's assassination. Vincent Bugliosi's otherwise impressive 1,600 page book debunking every JFK conspiracy theory known to man mentions him only in an inaccurate footnote.

Here Morley covers Robert Blakey's lying ass with 'gosh, he was deceived.'
Shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

When the story of the Joannides file emerged, former HSCA chief counsel G. Robert Blakey was stunned by the audacity of Joannides's deception. Blakey, a former federal prosecutor, thought the Agency had cooperated with Congress's effort to look into JFK's murder. Twenty-three years later he learned that the CIA bureaucrat ostensibly assisting his staff was actually a material witness in the investigation. "The Agency set me up," reported the Washington Post.

Blakey, now a law professor at Notre Dame, says Joannides's actions were "little short of outrageous. You could make a prima facie case that it amounted to obstruction of Congress, which is a felony."

Blakey has long argued that organized crime figures orchestrated Kennedy's assassination. The revelation of Joannides's unknown role has given him second thoughts about the CIA's credibility.

"You can't really infer from the Joannides story that they [the CIA] did it," he says. "Maybe he was hiding something that is not complicitous in a plot but merely embarrassing. It certainly undermines everything that they have said about JFK's assassination."

Gee, Oswald really did it?

Bringuier went so far as to issue a press release on Oswald, calling for a congressional investigation of the then-obscure ex-Marine. "Write to your congressman for a full investigation on Mr. Lee H. Oswald, a confessed 'Marxist,'" the DRE spokesman wrote on August 21, 1963.

Did George Joannides of the CIA ignore Bringuier's prescient and potentially life-saving call for investigating Oswald?

Wait, Castro did it.

Whether Oswald ever read this recruiting pitch is unknown. What is certain is that the CIA's campaign of assassination had gotten inside Castro's head. The same week that See hit the newsstands in Miami, the canny Cuban leader pulled aside an Associated Press reporter at a diplomatic reception in Havana. He said that he knew the CIA was plotting to kill him or his brother. "We are prepared to...answer in kind," the Cuban leader said. If American plots continued, he added, "United States leaders would be in danger...they themselves will not be safe."

Oh, and that totally faked story about Oswald going to Mexico? Now it is true again and Morley is rerunning the CIA's fabrications.

In September 1963, a month after confronting Joannides's assets in New Orleans, Oswald went to Mexico City and visited the Cuban consulate, seeking a visa. He passed through a CIA surveillance program code-named LIERODE. He then visited the Soviet Embassy where his voice was picked up by a telephonic wiretapping program known as LIENVOY. (These recordings of Oswald, seized from the home office safe of Mexico City station chief Win Scott, were hidden from investigators and later destroyed.)

Seems the JFK researchers online are just "chat groups" of "furious partisans" when it comes to "new documents." Of course, the authenticity of those "new documents" is extremely suspect.
Say, isn't that negative framing and injection of possible disinfo? I'd say.

This cable, dated October 10, 1963, is no smoking gun. But is one of the key new documents in the JFK paper trail whose significance is not appreciated by the mainstream media or the furious partisans of the JFK chat groups.

Here Morley tells us why the vigilant CIA was paying attention to that 'lone commie, Oswald' and repeats all the cover created for a double agent-suckered-into-patsy as if he was just homegrown trouble up to no good on his own. What blatant falsehood here-

The interest of these senior officials does not necessarily imply anything more sinister than a bureaucracy's natural tendency to cover its ass. The CIA had ample reason to be monitoring Oswald in late 1963. He publicly supported the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, a pro-Castro group, formally classified as a "subversive" organization by U.S. national security agencies. He attempted to travel to Cuba via Mexico, a signal of intent to violate U.S. law. Naturally, the Agency was paying attention.

"Naturally, the Agency was paying attention." Oh, brother.


But wait! Now for some misleading tapdancing around the Zapruder film segueing into...
TA DA - 9/11 DISINFO! WOO HOO!

There have also been interesting developments from the crime scene, perhaps the most important of which may seem like a no-brainer: The famous 26-second Zapruder home movie of JFK's murder contains original undoctored photographic imagery of the assassination. This authentication was deemed necessary by the Assassination Records Review Board, created by Congress to oversee the release of JFK records, because a vocal faction of JFK conspiracy theorists in the 1990s started claiming that the film had been surreptitiously altered to hide evidence of a conspiracy. (Their theory refuted, these conspiracy theorists abandoned the JFK field for greener pastures of 9/11 speculation.)

This is my favorite example of this articles's misdirection.
When it gets around to the medical evidence, one of the most gruesome parts of the cover-up that also points right at the highest levels (like Pentagon/CIA) is that JFK's mostly destroyed brain was first substituted with another less damaged one for autopsy photos and then after it was stored by itself as evidence...it disappeared sometime in 1965 or 1966.

Dr. Gary Aguilar's work is minimized by Morley but here is Aguilar on this-
http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/c010699b.html

So how does Morley 'dispose' of this brain evidence in his disinfo article?
He turns it into a mere figure of speech-

II. CSI Dallas

There have also been interesting developments from the crime scene, perhaps the most important of which may seem like a no-brainer: The famous 26-second Zapruder home movie of JFK's murder contains original undoctored photographic imagery of the assassination.

"...a no-brainer..." Get it? Hunh-hunh? Get it? "...a no-brainer...."
This Morley guy is SUCH A JOKER. Such the funny man, haw-haw.

Now for more gobs of negative framing of JFK researchers here when the dictabelt recording is refuted by a Mr. O'Dell-

O'Dell is an unobtrusively brilliant man who lives with his wife in Fresno, California. By day, he runs the technology department of an insurance company. O'Dell is not one of those people drawn to the assassination by interest in the Kennedys or true crime stories or political conspiracies or the Mafia or anything like that -- and that is a great strength of his work. He does not embody the paranoid style in American politics. He embodies the empirical style sorely lacking in most JFK coverage. His methods are detached, analytical, polite and methodical. His e-mail exchanges with Thomas are civil.

Here's severe minimization of the enormous number of people who heard shots from the grassy knoll and fenceline plus a misleading photo instead of the stunning photos showing a stampede of people and cops towards the grassy knoll-

The HSCA asked two other nationally known acoustic scientists, Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy, to examine Barger's data, focusing on the alleged from the grassy knoll. They found that the pattern of impulses closely matched the pattern from the Dictabelt. They concluded there was a 95 percent probability of a shot from the grassy knoll.

This finding confirmed what a substantial minority of the people at the crime scene thought. The book reviewers don't seem to know it but at the very least a significant minority of eyewitnesses thought at least one gun shot came from in front of JFK's motorcade.

"...a substantial minority...a significant minority..."
That's misleading minimization. I'm still trying to find the stills from Tina Towner's filming of the assassination aftermath with a stampede of people up to the grassy knoll and overpass to find the perps.

Now one disinformationist pays tribute to another as Morley pimps the CIA's lead online JFK liar, John McAdams-

One of the more judicious surveys of statements given by people in the crowd in the vicinity of the motorcade found that 40 out of 103 bystanders said that at least some of the gunfire came from behind a stockade fence atop the knoll. The tally was done by John McAdams, a Marquette University professor who runs a reliable website that debunks JFK conspiracy theories.

Morley is an unmitigated disinformationist, no question about it.

The bleat goes on...la di da di da....

That's enough exposing this article's deceptions and frame-ups for now.
Back to just reading this 'blame it on the dead guy' misdirection...

Looks like some other researchers are coming around to your long held views on Morley, Hugh.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index ... 741&st=180

...Perhaps it would help if you were to specify why you think Morley “rightly links (Alford) to the Mary Pinchot Meyer case.”

I fail to see the slightest similarity. One is a 19 year old who lived to tell her alleged tale five decades later, and the other a worldly woman married to a CIA careerist, who separated from him and was thereafter murdered, without writing a tell-all book. Aside from both allegedly sleeping with the President, what do they share in common? And whatever it is, why did Morley fail to mention this commonality if it is so important?.

You say that you learned some time ago that people aren’t right about everything. Indeed.

However, this veteran journalist got a very elementary detail spectacularly wrong, per your own admission, yet is nevertheless somehow well placed to offer an opinion - for it is only that, absent any evidence for its veracity - because....? Because it dovetails with your own bias, perhaps?

One notes your chiding tone toward JFK researchers who may not share your opinion on this book. Morley’s take is “sensible and logical,” whereas the “other JFK researchers cannot do that.” In fact, Morley’s take is only one man’s opinion, and defies both sense and logic. A visit to the following link would help explain (at least partly) why to all but the most wilfully, obdurately partisan.

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net ... ing-alford

Others here have already raised equally salient points.

If you have something more than mere condescension to offer, I’d welcome it. If not, posts such as these - with so lazy and baseless a blanket denunciation of those who may not necessarily agree with you - don’t elevate the tone of debate.

And if Mimi Alford was so intent upon making sure her daughters knew the totality of her life story, why didn’t she just tell them? Or commit it in writing for their exclusive consumption, without seeking a personal profit from it?

Much about this book is highly suspect, but reasons for wariness will be ignored by those who have already concluded that JFK was a “lousy human being.” Such prejudice is precisely what this book was designed to feed upon. And does. And will.

Or, as your boy Dickens said, “There are books of which the backs and covers are by far the best parts.”

WHY IS MORLEY SUPPORTING ALFORD?

[MinM]

Posted 23 March 2012 - 01:20 PM
From Salon.com

The return of "Castro did it" theory
by Jefferson Morley
March 22, 2012

Excerpt:

The charge is sensational because Latell is the highest-ranking former CIA official to ever accuse the Cuban leader of personal responsibility for JFK’s death. It is uncorroborated because much of the evidence Latell cites in the book is not in the public record or available to JFK scholars. Even the CIA is keeping its distance. When I asked the Agency to comment on Latell’s thesis on Wednesday, a spokesperson replied, “You can report the CIA declined comment.”

Still, Latell is a former CIA official in good standing, and his allegations signal the CIA may be changing its institutional position on the causes of JFK’s death. As the 50th anniversary of JFK’s death approaches in 2013, Latell’s book indicates the Agency defenders are moving toward “a modified limited hangout” — Washington lingo for a public relations maneuver to release previously hidden information in the service of preventing exposure of more damning detail.

For most of the past five decades the institutional posture of the CIA has said that there is no evidence of conspiracy in Kennedy’s death and no evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald, a known leftist, acted at Castro’s behest. In 1967, CIA director Richard Helms sent an order to every CIA station in the world ordering them to take steps to combat speculation about Oswald’s motives and associations. The Agency’s line echoed the Warren Commission: that Oswald had killed JFK for reasons known only to himself and anybody who thought differently was irrational or anti-American or both. If Latell, a career CIA employee, had written his book in the 1960s or 1970s, he would have been fired.

Complete article: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/22/the_ret ... singleton/

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index ... opic=18926

Posted Today, 01:03 AM

Jeff Morley's article on Sgt. Bales, the soldier who shot up the Afghans talks about the reports of more than one guy was responsible. I think itwas one guy – it is after all an - Army of One – but the conspiracy theory I have heard but have notyet read about is the possibility he was part of a MKULTRA type experiment.

Did Sgt. Bales have help? - Salon.com

From the US military report – Use of Humans in Chemical Agent Research – they used soldiers, prisoners and students as theprimary subjects of the MKULTRA research with LSD and other such experimental drugs, and this guy certainly qualifies on that count.

And just as Tom Clancy wrote about Japanese suicide airplane hijackers years before 9/11, Jacob's Ladder is a sci-fi-movie about an American soldier who they experiment on who goes nuts – and it begs the question of whether or not this guy was one of those test subjects.

If you want I will dig out my old files on the military's experiments, a story that I did in 1977 with Bill Vitka, now with CBS Newsradio in NYC and John Judge. Using the military report Judge obtained, Vitkaexposed University of Penn professor Dr. Albert Kligman as one of the research scientists who experimented with Dixon, mainly on prisoners,but also students and soldiers.

I later met one of Kligman's patients who I am still in contact with, and he told me some horror stories, all kept secret because of national security...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index ... opic=18967

viewtopic.php?p=454654#p454654

[Wombaticus Rex]

^^Great catch!

Also, I thought Hugh's takedown was pretty superb. You don't have to buy his whole theory to appreciate the nuts and bolts of narrative control at work, he illuminated it nicely.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Thanks for your qualified compliment, WR.

This subject, assassination of a political leader, is way simple compared to other psyops subjects.

[MinM]

From Watergate to WikiLeaks
A new book demolishes the myth of Deep Throat -- and the romance of heroic journalism

Once again the bad Jefferson Morley rears his ugly head in promoting a book by disinfoteer Max Holland. Although it is usually interesting reading Morley -- limited hangout and all.

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... 47#p452147

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... 37#p449737

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... 31#p407931

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... 29#p454429

[MinM]

The 'good' Morley shows up in this short-lived thread from Octafish @ DU:

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Warren Stupidity (a host of the General Discussion forum).

Corporate McPravda continues to, ah, fumble JFK assassination reportage.

Regarding Robert F. Kennedy and Rory Kennedy's interview in which they expressed their father's thinking on the assassination of President Kennedy:

Fact check: ABC’s Marquardt fumbles JFK facts

Jefferson Morley
January 13, 2013

ABC News correspondent Alexander Marquardt made two factual mistakes in his Good Morning America report today on Robert Kennedy Jr.’s remarks that his father believed “rogue CIA agents” may have been involved in uncle’s assassination.

Marquardt stated, “Now for the first time ever we’re learning that JFK’s own brother and Attorney General RFK was quote ‘fairly convinced’ that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone.”

That is not accurate. RFK’s views had been reported twice previously by credible sources.

SNIP...

ABC News then erred by quoting historian Robert Dallek about the JFK assassination controversy without context. On camera the UCLA historian said that the assassination has been “investigated, re-investigated, investigated again and again and no one’s ever come up with highly credible evidence” to contradict the theory that Oswald acted alone.

CONTINUED...

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/fact- ... #more-2351

PS: Founded by Jefferson Morley and Rex Bradford, http://www.JFKFacts.org is a new website that DUers and everyone interested in learning the truth about Dallas should know about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022189427