If you didn't get a chance to watch today…..here is a brief summary. (I'm sure you can pull it up if you want): 1.) While Oliver Stone's film JFK was instrumental in creating the ARRB, which was the main reason he was there….his cognitive decline was extremely apparent. He was very confused at times and James Diogenio (sp) and Morley had to bail him out at times when it came to him understanding and answering questions. 2.). Diogenio is of course a major conspiracy theorist and pushed that narrative throughout the questioning…although he did bring up some interesting points that most anyone familiar with the case would be familiar with. He was way off on facts at times…at one point saying there are 41 people still alive who witnessed JFK's head wounds. 3.) Jefferson Morley was extremely prepared and well versed all day, and I would agree with his assessment that the CIA was certainly negligent in JFK's death and still remains whether they were "complicit" in his death. Morley is a walking encyclopedia of information and he certainly did his best to stick to facts rather than speculation. He was very professional and mentioned documents, like Joannides file, and others, in which the CIA is still withholding. 4.) Last guy who spoke escapes me, but he was only there to chide the Trump administration for releasing documents with SS numbers on the people still alive.
When each were given 6 minutes to begin I was only quickly viewing the beginning while at work. I felt each should have had more time to present their case, but the question and answer session accomplished some of that.

Three other major things stood out: 1,) None of the members of the committee are well versed in JFK Assassination knowledge. 2.). All Democrat members (ALL) used their time not to ask pertinent questions about the JFK Assassination, but instead used their time to bash the current Trump Administration….to the point where Morley, who is an admitted Liberal Democrat had to say I came here to talk about JFK, not the current President. 3.) Based on Luna's closing statements this entire thing is a farce and has the goal of openly criticizing our three letter agencies……

Thanks, Big Hunter! I only saw a couple snippets on twitter. Having Morley in was great, but having Stone and DiEugenio was for theatrics. Even though they have both been involved in multiple JFK conspiracy productions, neither has the knowledge base of guys like Morley or Posner.

It is funny to see the Trump Republicans join forces with far left liberals like Stone, DiEugenio, and Morley, though.

What is sad is what you were getting to - we aren't going to actually find out much more about the depth of the CIA misdeeds because this is more about slinging mud than discovering the truth.

I think Conspiracy Theorists and Lone Gunman Theorists have in common is they both think the CIA was at the very least negligent in how they handled LHO prior to 11/22. The hope with the document releases is if we could find more definitive evidence that it was more than negligent or how much they knew before hand.

You are absolutely correct when it comes to the CIA. Morley says the CIA, under James Jesus Angleton, a high up figure, was reading Oswald's mail and keeping tabs on him from 1959 to November 1963. That includes what they knew about Mexico City….and had a 180 plus page file on Oswald on his desk prior to the assassination. He and Richard Helms were definitely stonewalling the WC on what they knew, and that's a proven fact. Now, was that to keep them from looking like they failed to protect JFk? That would certainly make them accountable in that respect. Was it to keep the government in the dark on how much they were involved in undercover foreign espionage, etc…..or was it to cover up complicity…I.e. involvement? I'm pretty sure of the first two of those three being absolute. Now, Jefferson has alluded to the George Joannides file…and Joannides was head of the Miami station and hired the DRE anti-Castro Cubans who had contact with Oswald in New Orleans. Remember, Oswald at first tried to join them and said he could be of service to them as an ex marine…then did a 180 and started passing out Fair Play for Cuba leaflets and got in an altercation with those same DRE members (Carlos Bringuier)…also, after Oswald was arrested for that altercation, there were CIA agents in the courtroom and Oswald spoke secretly with an FBI agent afterwards …so, once Oswald assassinated JFK those same DRE people immediately tried implicate Castro as being involved…obviously tying Castro in gives them what they wanted…reason to invade Cuba. Joannides was the liaison from the CIA to the 1978 HSCA….and when Chief Counsel Robert Blakey asked who was in charge of the Miami station and DRE….Joannides said he'd have to find out and get back to him…while HE was the one in charge of Miami the entire time. Morley has written extensively about these things, and brought them up today. One thing he did not mention today , but recently revealed to his readers that while the 2400 FBI files have not been put online..he and his team has had the opportunity to see them in person at the National Archives and he has said there is a VERY significant Oswald file among them, and he would eventually disclose that. In conclusion, he did say that the NYT and mainstream media were too quick to say the released files had no smoking gun, and encourages people to look for a specific fact pattern. He also said the CIA whistleblower he talked to who saw incriminating CIA hidden documents would be willing to come forward with the promise of not being prosecuted….all of which could mean more to it all, or as Posner would say…Case Closed!

Quote:

---

...…at one point saying there are 41 people still alive who witnessed JFK's head wounds.

---

He said that 21 people at Parkland, joined by 21 at Bethesda saw and identified a large wound in the right rear of JFK's head. He misspoke about the numbers and that they were still alive, but the salient point being the agreement of a significant number who saw a large wound in the back of the head. And I'll add myself to the list of those who have seen photos of the same! Those still exist somewhere.

I agree it was a "dog and pony show ", with little accomplishment other than Jeff Morley's indictment of the CIA's complicity. He's now convinced that the CIA was complicit in the assassination, and like me, does not believe LHO was a gunman, never mind THE sole shooter. He's convinced there were more than one shooter (as am I).

Google Jefferson Morley/JFK if you want to see his work. He's thorough and fair-minded.

Uhm…..I'm a member of Morley's JFK facts website I'm more than familiar with his findings. He's not much for speculation….and while he has alluded to conspiracy…you won't be able to nail him down on what he believes actually occurred that day. He is an extremely intelligent researcher. However….when he says the CIA was either culpable (as in negligent) or complicit (involved)in the assassination….well those have extremely different meanings…and by him saying it like that, it once again shows he's not quite willing to concede which one is correct.

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

...…at one point saying there are 41 people still alive who witnessed JFK's head wounds.

---

He said that 21 people at Parkland, joined by 21 at Bethesda saw and identified a large wound in the right rear of JFK's head. He misspoke about the numbers and that they were still alive, but the salient point being the agreement of a significant number who saw a large wound in the back of the head. And I'll add myself to the list of those who have seen photos of the same! Those still exist somewhere.

I agree it was a "dog and pony show ", with little accomplishment other than Jeff Morley's indictment of the CIA's complicity. He's now convinced that the CIA was complicit in the assassination, and like me, does not believe LHO was a gunman, never mind THE sole shooter. He's convinced there were more than one shooter (as am I).

Google Jefferson Morley/JFK if you want to see his work. He's thorough and fair-minded.

---

You had not even heard of him two days ago!

Bahahahahhahha

Is that one of the replies that he thought got deleted when his internet was giving him trouble?!?!?

Guitarsoup & Stive:

You all don't think that in basically 4 days BG couldn't have dove into the information that was shared with him? I don't interpret what he states as saying, nor implying, anything like "I have known this all along" or anything similar. Just as BG can come across caustically at times, others can and like to dog pile and make veiled sophomoric attempts to goad him, and others as well. I, for one, appreciate BG's questioning and opinions, as I do others.

Here shortly, I am going to make a post that likely will garner eye rolling from some more informed than me, but nonetheless I believe I am entitled to so and would hope on an Aggie board I could do so without running the risk of scorn or ridicule.

On a personal level, and this is strictly personal, I find most of what is posted on this thread very interesting, and for an amateur like me enlightening. All the different frame of references and opinions coupled with the sourcing that GS does is very educational, dare I say convincing and has prodded me to dive a little deeper.

Bluntly, I wish that all contribute here could be of the mind set that what we all likely seek is the absolute truth. Will we obtain it? Likely not, but getting into personal pissing matches is just boring. There are 568,237 other threads on TexAgs that we can do that on.

RGV AG said:

---

Guitarsoup & Stive:

You all don't think that in basically 4 days BG couldn't have dove into the information that was shared with him? I don't interpret what he states as saying, nor implying, anything like "I have known this all along" or anything similar. Just as BG can come across caustically at times, others can and like to dog pile and make veiled sophomoric attempts to goad him, and others as well. I, for one, appreciate BG's questioning and opinions, as I do others.

---

Sure, it is possible he had read a ton of Morley's in the last two days, but the only things he has really posted in that time are things that Morley has outwardly rejected and debunked. And he posted those things as fact with no sourcing. So it seems unlikely to me that that is the case. If there was specific research that Morley has done that he found especially enlightening, I would love to read it and be proven wrong. But him telling BH43 how great Morley is when BH43 has used Morley and recommended him as a resource for years is just objectively funny. The last few pages had multiple references by BH and me of Morley.

Quote:

---

Here shortly, I am going to make a post that likely will garner eye rolling from some more informed than me, but nonetheless I believe I am entitled to so and would hope on an Aggie board I could do so without running the risk of scorn or ridicule.

On a personal level, and this is strictly personal, I find most of what is posted on this thread very interesting, and for an amateur like me enlightening. All the different frame of references and opinions coupled with the sourcing that GS does is very educational, dare I say convincing and has prodded me to dive a little deeper.

Bluntly, I wish that all contribute here could be of the mind set that what we all likely seek is the absolute truth. Will we obtain it? Likely not, but getting into personal pissing matches is just boring. There are 568,237 other threads on TexAgs that we can do that on.

---

I love your posts, and look forward to whatever you have to post next. You especially have brought forward a point of view and knowledge base that I have not seen in books or other research posted by Morley, Posner, Bugliosi or other more famed researchers.

We can all make mistakes and admit we are wrong. I've always thought that LHO used the scope since it was there, and there was testimony that the slight right and up sight (rather than actual zeroed) on it would have helped him as he wouldn't have needed any lead. But the USMC poster came on here and made a great case why he would have just used the iron sights, as the offset scope would have enabled either to be used. And the explanation made perfect sense. We can't know for a fact if the scope or the iron sights were used, but there is a great argument for the iron sights there. All part of learning.

Good evening to all gents.

Where to start on this, what BigHunter states about what this Morley character believes is something very akin to what I am believing as of today. Starting mid last week I started doing whatever amateurish research that I could on in the internet and found myself going down all kinds of rabbit holes. Nothing to do with the shooting or trigger pulling, but more about who Oswald was and his activities leading up to 11/22/63, with an emphasis on his time in CDMX and to a lesser degree his time in the USSR and how/why he got there and such.

I am no experienced expert on any of this, but I am entitled to have my own opinions and after "wasting" prolly 10-12 hours, possibly a little more, on this stuff a few things stand out to me. Relaying all of the "how's and why's" of my opinion would take much more time to write, summarize and organize correctly, and footnote. Bluntly, I am just not willing to spend that kind of time.

I have no opinion about the actual shooting, and can believe that LHO did it alone but there exists the possibility of the involvement of others. I also believe that LHO might have been wound up in a skewed manner by the CIA, who I believe wanted nothing to do with him after his time in Russia but to me it is obvious that LHO had some kind of covert support/training/prodding/assistance or whatever it might be prior to him defecting. I think it is likely that LHO was recruited, and recruited might not be the right word as "picked out" might be better, by a front or offshoot of the CIA. For what particular reason? I have no idea, but there is always a place for an easily deniable and easily disposable "useful idiot" in the nebulous world of the 1950's & 60's CIA, and possibly FBI. And after a mostly vapor locked life this approach by whatever group or entity LHO might have thought himself desirable and I believe somewhere along the way, likely prior to his "defecting to Russia" whoever had approached and was crafting LHO cut bait with him due to him being somewhat of an un-malleable dolt.

I believe LHO had delusions of grandeur of some kind and someone from the CIA spotted him and found out about his background, likely in Japan via all his trouble there, and figured that LHO could be used as a throw away for something, and likely it was never meant to be assassinating the president of the US. The more I read on LHO, and the supposed actions he took, prior to the JFK killing the more I think that it is highly unlikely that a bumbler like him could have done all that he has supposed to have done without some kind of training or help or guidance. Think about this, how many 22 year olds in the United States in 1962 would have been able to get a passport, figure out that an easy way to get to the USSR would be via Helsinki and then spend over two years in the USSR? And then figure out a way to get hitched, get back to the US and just kinda meld into society again. There are a ton of "should been or should happened" with LHO.

One major "should have happened" is that most any American that traveled privately to the USSR, much less one that tried to renounce his US Citizenship and state to the State Department that he was about to obtain Russian citizenship, would have had a "Lookout" card placed in their file in the State Department Passport division. Somehow LHO didn't have that happen after he received a Single Use Return to the US passport from the Moscow embassy. Thus, he was able to obtain the second passport without any issue. Why? Those interviewed about this just chalk it up to "must have been an oversight". LHO caused the US Embassy a case of heartburn and redass, he could not even afford his passage back to the US. LHO, being the savvy world traveler that he was, wrote to his mother to send money and she sent a check(s) which were useless in the USSR. He could get to Moscow, renounce his citizenship, yet he asked his mom for checks? Makes no sense.

In the files that I read, supposed correspondence from LHO to the Moscow Embassy is listed. I believe those "letters" were either fake or doctored because by all accounts LHO would likely have not written in the style and vernacular that he did. He was a very capable communicator and writer for a high school drop out. After being basically broke in Minsk for a long spell, he gathers up some funds and has to borrow the rest from Uncle Sugar, which he repaid ahead of time once back in the US (pretty impressive for a guy that supposedly despises the US), and he returns to the U.S. Then he gets wanderlust again and gets a passport, no "lookout" card in his file, and lists the countries he is going to visit as several in Europe including the USSR and The Dominican Republic (WTF?).

Then he goes to Mexico, again making an arduous bus trip (it is arduous today) from NOLA to CDMX with a stop in Monterrey. And there things really get nebulous. There are so many varying accounts and suppositions that there is no telling what went on there. But damn skippy, almost within hours of it being known that LHO killed the president the Mexican DFS runs a dragnet and pings on several folks that have had supposed contact with him and picks up many of them. Again, this will get really long if I try to summarize the hours of reading that I did, but suffice to say that the DFS, (sorry, the Mexican intelligence) service deeply penetrated by the CIA ,who had 3 future presidents of Mexico on the payroll, 2 of whom ran the government and the DFS reported to.

What I believe is that it would be very non-kosher, even today, if the depth of CIA involvement and manipulation in Mexico ever were truly exposed. I can't help but think that the reason Mexico was a haven for so many leftist subversives is that the CIA was encouraging this at best, so that they could use the DFS to surveil and penetrate these movements/people, and possibly at worst is that the CIA was actually sponsoring these leftist movements and could easily do so via Mexico. Talk about redundant job security.

All in all, I think that there is much more to LHO than we will ever know and the CIA has had 60 years to scrub things. I also believe all the convoluted disinformation, wild goose chases, outlandish rumors with a shred of fact, and rabbit holes were created on purpose to muddy the waters around what the CIA either did or didn't do.

[url]
[/url] Jeff Morley on Jesse Watters tonight . Go to 30 minute mark.

That was interesting….didn't know he was on Watters show tonight. Thanks for sharing….and I'll add that hearing him say today during the hearing that he "doesn't believe Oswald fired shots" and reiterating it on Jesse Watters is shall we say very bold for him. I haven't really read anything written by him that indicated he believes those exact things with such certainty. (Perhaps that new Oswald document he said he saw in the remaining 2400 files at the National Archives that the public hasn't seen yet and he alluded to as very important has more information than we think…lol…I'm kidding about that by the way). Thanks for sharing.

Quote:

---

...…at one point saying there are 41 people still alive who witnessed JFK's head wounds.

---

There were a lot more than 41 virologists who looked at the COVID virus structure and concluded it was naturally occurring. Perhaps the existing wet market narrative influenced the determination.

There has been very little talk here about the wound images that are supposedly leaked, either bc they are unautheticated, unreliable, or not conclusive. Instead, the focus has been almost exclusively on the same day autopsy with strict gov oversight. Its a big red flag that that many people positively identified entry and exit on an exploded head, with many of those likely being peaks and glances instead of first hand examinations.

It's worth noting that Dr. Cyril (non-gov pathologist) saw the head wound *photos first hand, and he argued it suggested a shot from the front.

In any event, its easy to just assume the entry/exit wound would not be somewhat ambiguous or not influenced. Just like it's easy to assume LHO used a scope.

Just imagine what would have ensued IF the expert consensus proclaimed anything other than a rear entry headshot. It would be 100x worse than finding out Kevin Clinesmith didn't act alone in Crossfire Hurricane. Which he didn't, but we were all spoon fed the "lone agent" narrative from the gov anyway.

Bighunter43 said:

---

That was interesting….didn't know he was on Watters show tonight. Thanks for sharing….and I'll add that hearing him say today during the hearing that he "doesn't believe Oswald fired shots" and reiterating it on Jesse Watters is shall we say very bold for him. I haven't really read anything written by him that indicated he believes those exact things with such certainty. (Perhaps that new Oswald document he said he saw in the remaining 2400 files at the National Archives that the public hasn't seen yet and he alluded to as very important has more information than we think…lol…I'm kidding about that by the way). Thanks for sharing.

---

Once you hear Dr. McClelland say he saw a hole the size of an orange in the lower right corner of JFK's head, the notion that LHO was responsible for it is obviously impossible, given the video evidence. Once that occurs, the entire narrative starts to crumble. It's really common sense.

Just to be clear Fob….if you are referring to Dr Cyril Wecht…he did not see anything "first hand". (If you meant like being at the autopsy) He did serve as one of the pathologists on HSCA in 1978…apparently he was allowed to look at medical evidence in 1972 before he was on the HSCA. I believe he dissented with the HSCA over CE399 the "magic bullet" theory, and spent much of his life writing and discussing what he believed wasn't possible with that theory.

After that up until is dying days he argued 2 shooters. Kind of like how some people argued a scope was used, then changed.

I'll admit, this clip is questionable, claiming 2 headshots. Maybe thats how he justifies both his earlier testimony and subsequent frontal wound theory.

2min mark

Bighunter43 said:

---

Just to be clear Fob….if you are referring to Dr Cyril Wecht…he did not see anything "first hand". (If you meant like being at the autopsy)

---

I was refering to the 1972 private viewing of autopsy photos and Xrays, that he was invited to view first hand. While all of us rely on 2nd hand accounts.

Edit- I'm not taking Dr. Cyrils or anyone else's wound assessment to the bank. Just making the point that it could all be tainted, like "magic bullet", and all the WC lying.

Argue...debate all you want. Makes for interesting reading...sometimes. For us simpletons, the only things that makes sense (to my way of thinking) is "motive" and "where-with-all". For the most part, I'm not 100% convinced LHO possessed either. A loner and HS drop out with very little to his name. The ONLY motives that seem to fit are $$ and or recognition. As for $$...there's no record of an exchange and as for recognition, he achieved that but never realized it. Was he used? Seems a likely scenario to me.

BoerneGator said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

That was interesting….didn't know he was on Watters show tonight. Thanks for sharing….and I'll add that hearing him say today during the hearing that he "doesn't believe Oswald fired shots" and reiterating it on Jesse Watters is shall we say very bold for him. I haven't really read anything written by him that indicated he believes those exact things with such certainty. (Perhaps that new Oswald document he said he saw in the remaining 2400 files at the National Archives that the public hasn't seen yet and he alluded to as very important has more information than we think…lol…I'm kidding about that by the way). Thanks for sharing.

---

Once you hear Dr. McClelland say he saw a hole the size of an orange in the lower right corner of JFK's head, the notion that LHO was responsible for it is obviously impossible, given the video evidence. Once that occurs, the entire narrative starts to crumble. It's really common sense.

---

I just thought that definitive of a statement by Morley was unusual for him. Perhaps Guitarsoup could help us here…..Morley's writings lean towards conspiracy, but I haven't read much by him to pin his actual thoughts down on that. In other words, in the past he's kind of avoided that type of response when asked that question. Although he has been more outspoken as of late, saying he believes one day we'll find out that Kennedy was killed by enemies within his own government. So, I thought it was a little out of the norm shall we say for him to actually be that definitive about Oswald not being involved as a shooter. He, of course, with so many other researchers have known about McClelland's testimony for a long time…so that's certainly not the reason for him suddenly being so bold with that statement. It does have me wondering why he suddenly said that.

BoerneGator said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

That was interesting….didn't know he was on Watters show tonight. Thanks for sharing….and I'll add that hearing him say today during the hearing that he "doesn't believe Oswald fired shots" and reiterating it on Jesse Watters is shall we say very bold for him. I haven't really read anything written by him that indicated he believes those exact things with such certainty. (Perhaps that new Oswald document he said he saw in the remaining 2400 files at the National Archives that the public hasn't seen yet and he alluded to as very important has more information than we think…lol…I'm kidding about that by the way). Thanks for sharing.

---

Once you hear Dr. McClelland say he saw a hole the size of an orange in the lower right corner of JFK's head, the notion that LHO was responsible for it is obviously impossible, given the video evidence. Once that occurs, the entire narrative starts to crumble. It's really common sense.

---

Serious question. You constantly bring up McClelland.

Why not the expert medical opinions of these Parkland doctors that were in the Parkland OR with JFK:

• Dr. Charles James Carrico (first to see JFK)
• Dr. William Kemp Clark (chair of neurosurgery)
• Dr. Charles Baxter (third in the OR)
• Dr. Malcolm Perry (Second in the OR)
• Dr. Marion Jenkins
• Dr. Fouad A. Bashour (Cardiologist that also treated LHO)
• Dr. A. Hartung Giesecke
• Dr. Ronald Jones
• Dr. Paul C. Peters
• Dr. George Burkley
• Dr. Gene Akin
• Dr. Don Curtis
• Dr. Kenneth Sayler

Bighunter43 said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

That was interesting….didn't know he was on Watters show tonight. Thanks for sharing….and I'll add that hearing him say today during the hearing that he "doesn't believe Oswald fired shots" and reiterating it on Jesse Watters is shall we say very bold for him. I haven't really read anything written by him that indicated he believes those exact things with such certainty. (Perhaps that new Oswald document he said he saw in the remaining 2400 files at the National Archives that the public hasn't seen yet and he alluded to as very important has more information than we think…lol…I'm kidding about that by the way). Thanks for sharing.

---

Once you hear Dr. McClelland say he saw a hole the size of an orange in the lower right corner of JFK's head, the notion that LHO was responsible for it is obviously impossible, given the video evidence. Once that occurs, the entire narrative starts to crumble. It's really common sense.

---

I just thought that definitive of a statement by Morley was unusual for him. Perhaps Guitarsoup could help us here…..Morley's writings lean towards conspiracy, but I haven't read much by him to pin his actual thoughts down on that. In other words, in the past he's kind of avoided that type of response when asked that question. So, I thought it was a little out of the norm shall we say for him to actually be that definitive about Oswald not being involved as a shooter.

---

You are absolutely right. Definitely out of the norm from him. He also said today the mob sent Ruby to kill LHO, which is also out of the norm for him.

Morley has been one to stoke multiple fires without committing to any of them. Will be interesting to see where he goes from this.

Morley wrote a book almost a decade ago on one of the CIA guys he blames today. I haven't read the book, but I don't think he accused the guy of killing the POTUS in it either.

Guitarsoup said:

---

Why not the expert medical opinions of these Parkland doctors that were in the Parkland OR with JFK:

• Dr. Charles James Carrico (first to see JFK)
• Dr. William Kemp Clark (chair of neurosurgery)
• Dr. Charles Baxter (third in the OR)
• Dr. Malcolm Perry (Second in the OR)
• Dr. Marion Jenkins
• Dr. Fouad A. Bashour (Cardiologist that also treated LHO)
• Dr. A. Hartung Giesecke
• Dr. Ronald Jones
• Dr. Paul C. Peters
• Dr. George Burkley
• Dr. Gene Akin
• Dr. Don Curtis
• Dr. Kenneth Sayler

---

There needs to be at least 50 experts, like how Hunter's laptop was confirmed to be "Russian Disninfo".

Morley was on Piers Morgan recently with guest Michael Franzese who was a member of the Colombo Crime Family. Franzese has repeatedly claimed that it was well known in all mob circles that the mob's role was to have Ruby kill Oswald. (I know….perfect timing by Ruby by the way…lol) So, I can only guess that was where he was coming from when he mentioned that today…(I do believe he referenced Franzese today) and again…yes that's also very bold for him too!

I believe he referred today to the two (or three) women that were on the fourth floor of the TSD, watching from an open window. They immediately went down stairs to "see what they could see", and noticed LHO sitting in the second floor lunchroom drinking a coke. They were never called by the WC, but Jeff Morley believes their story. Lotta little things like this add up to a preponderance. I'm sure that's where he is.

But the clincher for him appears to be the combination of the revelation that James Angleton had the 180 page file of LHO on his desk the week before the assassination plus the release of the un redacted report by Authur Schlesinger to JFK about the CIA regarding its efforts to overthrow Castro.

BoerneGator said:

---

I believe he referred today to the two (or three) women that were on the fourth floor of the TSD, watching from an open window. They immediately went down stairs to "see what they could see", and noticed LHO sitting in the second floor lunchroom drinking a coke. They were never called by the WC, but Jeff Morley believes their story. Lotta little things like this add up to a preponderance. I'm sure that's where he is.

But the clincher for him appears to be the combination of the revelation that James Angleton had the 180 page file of LHO on his desk the week before the assassination plus the release of the un redacted report by Authur Schlesinger to JFK about the CIA regarding its efforts to overthrow Castro.

---

It was actually DiEugenio and Stone who brought up the women on the stairs as it's part of their documentary JFK Revisited. Morley did reference the Schlesinger Memo….but it outlines how the CIA should be completely reorganized from the top down. I would assume it's being brought up to show "motive" by the CIA to get rid of Kennedy. As for as the CIA-Mafia plots to remove Castro, I believe both JFK and Bobby were well aware of those to some extent. Now, the CIA did not reveal those plans to the WC…and therein lies the theory that it was that group who just used the same players for the hit on JFK….unproven of course. In the book Legacy of Secrecy by Thom Hartman and Lamar Waldron, it is believed that JFK and Bobby already had an inside man in Castro's government…Commander Juan Almeida, to take over once Castro was killed. It pushes away from CIA involvement…and says that Bobby didn't want the CIA to mention the plots to the WC, as it might jeopardize Almeida's life as he was still one of Castro's right hand men.
In their second book, The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination, Hartmann and Waldron push the mafia angle….with Carlos Marcello being in charge of New Orleans and Dallas…setting Ruby up in the Carousel Club, and therefore using Ruby to kill Oswald. It's got all the same characters as the JFK movie… as David Ferrie was actually Marcello's pilot. The one thing in that book that is very interesting, is Operation CamTex…where the FBI was using under cover informat Jack Van Laningham wired in Marcello's jail cell and has his confession of his involvement in JFK's murder. Good reading…but just more unproven theories! That is actually something Morley wants released and the FBI is apparently still holding that tape. (Operation CamTex)
Finally, there is no way anyone on that Task Force has a clue about these types of information….and they are in way in over their head…and I believe it will come to nothing.

I agree with your premise that this "commission" will come to nothing. Too many years, too much muddying of the waters, and more than enough time to have deaths and the purging of files and records.

Given the intermittent CIA and FBI rivalry and distrust, particularly during the tenure of J. Edgar Hoover and shortly thereafter, I believe it is possible that the FBI, and maybe the DOJ, have retained some hidden leverage over the CIA.

But so much time has passed and the world situation changed so much that it is likely viewed as "destructive" in these times as opposed to "constructive" and thus it will never see the light of day.

Dating back to the late 1940's and early 50's the CIA truly took on a life of its own. Guatemala, Iran, Egypt, Syria (all the 3 previous with Kermit Roosevelt involved), Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Bolivia, and varied and sundry others having upheaval and regime change, and the CIA at the front and center.

In all of the above the CIA had involvement, contact, and participation with both sides, and with all sides when there were more than two, of the conflicts. It almost appears that the CIA was fomenting instability in order to always retain US participation. Was the previous the policy of the Executive? And if it was or wasn't where is the legality to all of this?

As I have mentioned, the specifics of the "tactics" of the JFK assassination are one thing, but I believe the embroiglio and many of the characters were part of something much larger afoot in US foreign policy at the time. I do not believe the CIA was serving the true interests of the American populace and that is biggest thing that has to be kept hidden. JFK's killing was either blind luck for that facet of the shadow government or possibly the unintended result of caotic CIA machinations that were common at the time.

Didn't Oswald have a handler? Is it possible that his handler instructed him to take his rifle to the depository that day and leave it on the sixth floor for someone else to use? It would certainly explain him sitting in the break room drinking a coke while the assassination took place. It would also explain why he claimed he was a patsy. Once he realized what was happening he flees the depository because he knows he is being framed.

I don't research this stuff like some of you, but this is the first claim I have heard about him being on break during the procession.

Burdizzo said:

---

I don't research this stuff like some of you, but this is the first claim I have heard about him being on break during the procession.

---

It happened at 12:30 and essentially the entire building was at lunch/watching the procession. No one was working.

Texmid said:

---

Didn't Oswald have a handler? Is it possible that his handler instructed him to take his rifle to the depository that day and leave it on the sixth floor for someone else to use? It would certainly explain him sitting in the break room drinking a coke while the assassination took place. It would also explain why he claimed he was a patsy. Once he realized what was happening he flees the depository because he knows he is being framed.

---

All are plausible IMHO. No one witnessed him or anyone, actually pulling the trigger.

whatthehey78 said:

---

Texmid said:

---

Didn't Oswald have a handler? Is it possible that his handler instructed him to take his rifle to the depository that day and leave it on the sixth floor for someone else to use? It would certainly explain him sitting in the break room drinking a coke while the assassination took place. It would also explain why he claimed he was a patsy. Once he realized what was happening he flees the depository because he knows he is being framed.

---

All are plausible IMHO. No one witnessed him or anyone, actually pulling the trigger.

---

Multiple people in the follow cars and on Houston St described someone that matches his description there on the 6th floor, though.

This is what we were referring to last night….Morley has never written any conspiracy books and apparently is upset (understandably) at CBS for reporting that. That's why his claim at the Task Force and on Jesse Watters that Oswald didn't fire a gun kind of took me by surprise!

Guitarsoup said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Texmid said:

---

Didn't Oswald have a handler? Is it possible that his handler instructed him to take his rifle to the depository that day and leave it on the sixth floor for someone else to use? It would certainly explain him sitting in the break room drinking a coke while the assassination took place. It would also explain why he claimed he was a patsy. Once he realized what was happening he flees the depository because he knows he is being framed.

---

All are plausible IMHO. No one witnessed him or anyone, actually pulling the trigger.

---

Multiple people in the follow cars and on Houston St described someone that matches his description there on the 6th floor, though.

---

And we all know how RELIABLE eye witnesses are...especially 6 stories + ? distance to said moving car. I'll give that evidence (?) a 62+ year "wait and see". Only witness on Houston St. I am aware of is one teenager, whose motive for his commentary is well...suspect at best.

whatthehey78 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Texmid said:

---

Didn't Oswald have a handler? Is it possible that his handler instructed him to take his rifle to the depository that day and leave it on the sixth floor for someone else to use? It would certainly explain him sitting in the break room drinking a coke while the assassination took place. It would also explain why he claimed he was a patsy. Once he realized what was happening he flees the depository because he knows he is being framed.

---

All are plausible IMHO. No one witnessed him or anyone, actually pulling the trigger.

---

Multiple people in the follow cars and on Houston St described someone that matches his description there on the 6th floor, though.

---

And we all know how RELIABLE eye witnesses are...especially 6 stories + ? distance to said moving car. I'll give that evidence (?) a 62+ year "wait and see". Only witness on Houston St. I am aware of is one teenager, whose motive for his commentary is well...suspect at best.

---

The person you are talking about is Arnold Rowland. And yes, he was not at all reliable. But he was not the only person.