The George Joannides Coverup

99 views
Skip to first unread message

jeffersonm

unread,
May 19, 2005, 11:39:25 AM5/19/05
to
People interested in the JFK story will be interested to know that the
CIA is due to file papers in court tomorrorow, May 20, to block release
of certain JFK assassination-related documents.

The records in question concern a deceased CIA officer named George
Joannides. At the time of Kennedy's death, Joannides was the Chief of
Psychological Warfare branch of the Agency's JM/WAVE station in Miami.

Among his primary responsibilities were guiding, monitoring and
financing the Revolutionary Cuban Student Directorate or DRE, one of
the largest and most effective anti-Castro groups in the United States.
CIA records show, and the group's former leaders confirm, that
Joannides provided them with up $18-25,000 per month while insisting
they submit to CIA discipline. Joannides, in his job evaluation of 31
July 1963, was credited with having established control over the group.

Five day later, Lee Harvey Oswald wandered into the DRE's New Orleans
delegation, setting off a string of encounters between the pro-Castro
ex-Marine and the anti-Castro exiles. Members of the DRE confronted
Oswald on a street corner. They stared him down in a courtroom. They
sent a DRE member to Oswald's house posing a Castro supporter. They
challenged him to a debate on the radio. They made a tape of the debate
which was later sent to Joannides. And they issued a press release
calling for a congressional investigation of the thoroughly obscure
Oswald. This, at a time, when the DRE had been warned to clear its
public statements with the Agency.

What, if anything, Joannides made of the encounters between his assets
in the DRE and the future accused assassin is unknown. Former leaders
of the DRE are divided on the question.

Within an hour of Oswald's arrest on Nov. 22, 1963, the DRE leaders in
Miami went public with their documentation of Oswald's pro-Castro ways,
thus shaping early press coverage of the accused assasssin. Joannides
told the group to take their information to the FBI.

Joannides connection to Oswald's antagonists was not disclosed to the
Warren Commission.

In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as CIA liaison
to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Joanndides did not
disclose his role in the events of 1963 to investigators. HSCA general
counsel Bob Blakey says that Joannides's actions constituted
obstruction of Congress, a felony. Joannides's support for the DRE was
uncovered by the Assassination Records Review Board in 1998. Joannides
died in 1991.

I filed suit against the CIA in December 2003 seeking records of
Joannides's activities in 1963 and 1978. In December 2004, the CIA gave
me about 150 pages of heavily redacted and obviously incomplete records
from Joannides's personnel file. The Agency informed me that it retains
an unspecified number of records about Joannides actions that it will
not release IN ANY FORM.

Thus JFK assassination records are kept secret in 2005 in the name of
"national security."

The records that CIA gave me are not reassuring. They show that
Joannides travelled to New Orleans in connection with his CIA duties in
1963-64. They also show that he was cleared for two highly sensitive
operations in December 1962 and June 1963. The nature of these
operations is unknown.

It would be premature and foolish to speculate on what George
Joannnides was doing in New Orleans in 1963. What is certain is that he
had a professional obligation to report on the activities of the DRE in
August and November 1963, especially as they related to Oswald. The CIA
is legally obliged to make such records public.

Instead, they are stonewalling in court. This is a disappointing, if
not disturbing.

I am interested in hearing from JFK researchers willing to publicly
support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act. I know that
the Joannides records are not the only assassination-related material
that is being illicitly withheld so I am also interested in hearing
from researchers about specific groups of records, known to exist, that
have not been released.

Whatever one's interpretation of November 22, 1963, I think we can all
agree that these records should be made public immediately.


Ray

unread,
May 19, 2005, 11:59:52 AM5/19/05
to
Jefferson Morley wrote:"I am interested in hearing from JFK researchers
willing to publicly
support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act." Would it
help to involve the Attorney-General? Isn't the Justice Department
supposed to enforce the Law?

Ray

"Do not block the way of inquiry" C. S. Peirce


dshar...@yahoo.com

unread,
May 19, 2005, 2:26:06 PM5/19/05
to

jeffersonm wrote:
> People interested in the JFK story will be interested to know that
the
> CIA is due to file papers in court tomorrorow, May 20, to block
release
> of certain JFK assassination-related documents.
>

Jeff,

I've always been hesitant my ownself to climb on bandwagons, but my own
curious route from there to here in my reading bumbps into this...what
can I say..I read your posts!

It's an engaging part of the tale, and maybe some website somewhere
will relate this court proceeding?

David
It's just to nice--outside, wireless, and a lady bug strolls across the
screen...
May 19, 2005


jeffersonm

unread,
May 19, 2005, 2:26:17 PM5/19/05
to
The language of the JFK Records Act indicates that the National
Archivist and the Senate and House Committees have jurisdiction for the
enforcement of the Act.


Canuck

unread,
May 19, 2005, 8:15:01 PM5/19/05
to
Is "ownself" actually a real word? - prw


Martijn Meijering

unread,
May 19, 2005, 8:15:22 PM5/19/05
to
> Whatever one's interpretation of November 22, 1963, I think we can all
> agree that these records should be made public immediately.

Surely there has to be some kind of review before records are made
public. It's not inconceivable that people might end up in a Cuban jail
or worse if all records are released just like that. Isn't that what the
ARRB was for?


Russ Burr

unread,
May 19, 2005, 8:22:24 PM5/19/05
to
Interesting post. What, if any, relationship did Joannides have with
RFK? I always assumed that Robert had a big handle on DRE.

Russ


Martin Shackelford

unread,
May 20, 2005, 11:56:34 AM5/20/05
to
The ARRB scheduled records for release on certain dates. The Bush
administration, after the fact, has sought to ignore those release dates
and continue to withhold the documents. The Joannides documents are only
the latest example.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
May 20, 2005, 11:57:11 AM5/20/05
to
RFK was tied into Artime's group, Brigade 2506.

Martin

train

unread,
May 20, 2005, 12:03:17 PM5/20/05
to

Whatever Intelligence Agency LHO may have worked for, I seriously that
Agency will never publicly admit it. Why? Because Hoover's FBI and
LBJ's WC identified LHO as JFK's killer. No Agency can hope to stay in
business if the American public thinks it employs presidential
assassins.
This is the damage Hoover's FBI and the WC did to both LHO (if he was a
good guy) and the CIA at that time in American history, IMHO.
It would be wonderful for the historical record if the Agency would
come clean about LHO, this generation can handle the truth of those
days gone by. Most of the older generation already suspected LHO was a
company man anyway.


Martijn Meijering

unread,
May 20, 2005, 12:03:51 PM5/20/05
to
Russ Burr wrote:
> Interesting post. What, if any, relationship did Joannides have with
> RFK? I always assumed that Robert had a big handle on DRE.

Definitely very interesting. I'd love to have the documents Jefferson
Morley is after. Still, the CIA may have good reasons for wanting to
redact some of the information. I wonder if the judge who has to decide
on this will get the chance to read the information in unredacted form?
My guess is no. Does anyone here know for sure?

And if turns out there was a strong DRE-RFK link, that would be
explosive wouldn't it?


Russ Burr

unread,
May 20, 2005, 12:39:06 PM5/20/05
to
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> RFK was tied into Artime's group, Brigade 2506.

I got that one from Russo's book. But thanks for the information.

Russ

TexExtra

unread,
May 20, 2005, 5:11:41 PM5/20/05
to
End up in a Cuban jail? Do you really think Castro wants some guy so he
can issue him a bed pan, a pair of reading glasses and some laxative?


TexExtra

unread,
May 20, 2005, 11:19:36 PM5/20/05
to

Martijn Meijering

unread,
May 20, 2005, 11:20:48 PM5/20/05
to
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> The ARRB scheduled records for release on certain dates. The Bush
> administration, after the fact, has sought to ignore those release dates
> and continue to withhold the documents.

I knew about the delayed releases, but didn't know that the Bush
administration was trying to ignore them. Has the law been changed to
allow this, or are they just doing it anyway?

> The Joannides documents are only
> the latest example.

But the ARRB never saw those, right? Does that mean people now have to
follow a regular FOIA procedure, just as they would about say Abu Ghraib?


Robert Harris

unread,
May 20, 2005, 11:24:50 PM5/20/05
to

LOL!! Not in this newsgroup:-)

I would also like to see the report on Oswald's CIA debriefing after
his return from Russia, that was uncovered in the PBS documentary.

Of course, the Canal St. incident was staged in order to undermine the
FPCC, a mortal enemy of the FBI. Oswald likewise, tried to damage the
ACLU by pretending to be authorized to receive mail for them.

Oswald was working for the FBI and indirectly, for the DRE, a fact
that had to have been known to their CIA controllers. The CIA will
never release those documents, because they would reveal that fact.

The part that we all overlooked, was that Oswald was indeed, a "nut".
He was totally obsessed with becoming a spy and an anticommunist
informant - enough so that he tried to kill himself when he thought
his big chance in Russia would fall through, and enough to literally
break into tears when he couldn't get into Cuba.

Robert Harris


>
>

The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/

Ray

unread,
May 20, 2005, 11:25:51 PM5/20/05
to

Can you post the names of the committeepersons? Perhaps researchers could
lobby those from their states.

Has the National Archivist shown any recognition of his responsibilities
under the Statute?


jeffersonm

unread,
May 21, 2005, 9:36:23 AM5/21/05
to
I don't know of any evidence that Joannides had any relationship with
RFK or that RFK had any ties to the DRE. During the missile crisis,
Dick Helms, with more a touch of impatience, recommended the DRE's
seriousness of purpose to Bobby, with the clear implication that JFK's
Cuba policy lacked seriousness.


jeffersonm

unread,
May 21, 2005, 9:36:44 AM5/21/05
to
While the CIA's stonewalling is reprehensible and probably illegal, I
am skeptical about arguments that the government will "never" release
certain kinds of damaging information.

By that logic, the CIA never would have released the Joannides story.

But they did. And they did because they were forced to.

There is no omnipotent intelligence in the government that decrees: "no
damaging information about the JFK assassination shall be released."

Rather, intelligent searching and enforcement of the law will maximize
the scope of the public record on the JFK case and from that
information new dimensions of the story, if they exist, will become
apparent.

To put it less abstractly, I think we know more than they do at this
point.


jeffersonm

unread,
May 21, 2005, 9:37:49 AM5/21/05
to
Of course, documents should be reviewed before release. That is what
the JFK Records Act calls for. The CIA should comply with the law.


John Hunt

unread,
May 21, 2005, 9:38:24 AM5/21/05
to

"Martijn Meijering" <mar...@mevs.nl> wrote in message
news:428e407c$0$95325$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

If they are JFK assassination related, the CIA was OBLIGATED BY LAW to make
them available to the ARRB.


John Hunt

>
>

jeffersonm

unread,
May 21, 2005, 9:39:48 AM5/21/05
to
People should call the Joannides story and other examples of
non-compliance with the JFK Records Act to their own representatives
with copies to Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Jon Cornyn (R-TX).
They are the leading advocates of open government in the Senate at this
point.

No, the Archvist has not yet shown any awareness of his responsibilitie
under the Act.


jeffersonm

unread,
May 21, 2005, 9:39:38 AM5/21/05
to

Martin Shackelford

unread,
May 21, 2005, 9:41:56 AM5/21/05
to
They're just doing it anyway.
All JFK documents have a sunset date for release, even if the ARRB
didn't know about them.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
May 21, 2005, 9:41:47 AM5/21/05
to
DRE was more right-wing--linked with INCA in New Orleans.
Brigage 2506 was more liberal, run by Artime, close to RFK, who after
the assassination told one of them, "One of your guys did this."

Martin

jeffersonm

unread,
May 21, 2005, 9:41:22 AM5/21/05
to

John McAdams

unread,
May 21, 2005, 2:26:43 PM5/21/05
to
On 19 May 2005 11:39:25 -0400, "jeffersonm" <mor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>People interested in the JFK story will be interested to know that the
>CIA is due to file papers in court tomorrorow, May 20, to block release
>of certain JFK assassination-related documents.
>
>The records in question concern a deceased CIA officer named George
>Joannides. At the time of Kennedy's death, Joannides was the Chief of
>Psychological Warfare branch of the Agency's JM/WAVE station in Miami.
>
>Among his primary responsibilities were guiding, monitoring and
>financing the Revolutionary Cuban Student Directorate or DRE, one of
>the largest and most effective anti-Castro groups in the United States.

Effective?

What is your criterion for this?

>CIA records show, and the group's former leaders confirm, that
>Joannides provided them with up $18-25,000 per month while insisting
>they submit to CIA discipline. Joannides, in his job evaluation of 31
>July 1963, was credited with having established control over the group.
>

Regardless of what the job evaluation shows, I'm a bit skeptical that
anybody in the CIA had too much success in controlling that bunch of
hotheads.

I'm sure we all know about inflated job evaluations.


>Five day later, Lee Harvey Oswald wandered into the DRE's New Orleans
>delegation, setting off a string of encounters between the pro-Castro
>ex-Marine and the anti-Castro exiles. Members of the DRE confronted
>Oswald on a street corner. They stared him down in a courtroom. They
>sent a DRE member to Oswald's house posing a Castro supporter. They
>challenged him to a debate on the radio. They made a tape of the debate
>which was later sent to Joannides.

Can you supply some details on this?

Do you mean "sent to Joannides" or "sent to the DRE in Miami?"


>And they issued a press release
>calling for a congressional investigation of the thoroughly obscure
>Oswald. This, at a time, when the DRE had been warned to clear its
>public statements with the Agency.
>

Sure it had.

I do trust you are being careful not to make unwarranted assumptions
about how much control the CIA *really* had over these guys.


>What, if anything, Joannides made of the encounters between his assets
>in the DRE and the future accused assassin is unknown. Former leaders
>of the DRE are divided on the question.
>
>Within an hour of Oswald's arrest on Nov. 22, 1963, the DRE leaders in
>Miami went public with their documentation of Oswald's pro-Castro ways,
>thus shaping early press coverage of the accused assasssin.

Which would be expected, right?

They know this guy is a Communist, and they don't like Communists, and
are quite happy to puff Oswald's Communist (or supposed Communist)
connections.


>Joannides
>told the group to take their information to the FBI.
>

You mean *instead of* going public with it?

But they didn't have time to check with Joannides in the hour after
the assassination, right?

And by the time Joannides told them that the FBI was in charge of the
investigation, right?

So *you,* had you been in touch with them in 1963, would have probably
said "if you have any information take it to the FBI," right?


>Joannides connection to Oswald's antagonists was not disclosed to the
>Warren Commission.
>

You're not actually suggesting that everybody who had some
"connection" to the DRE should have been viewed as suspect by the WC,
are you?


>In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as CIA liaison
>to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Joanndides did not
>disclose his role in the events of 1963 to investigators. HSCA general
>counsel Bob Blakey says that Joannides's actions constituted
>obstruction of Congress, a felony.

Blakey's statements are a bit suspect, as I'm sure you know.

He's been taking a pounding for 20+ years for being too easy on the
CIA, and so an opportunity to attack the Agency is a dandy opportunity
for him.


>Joannides's support for the DRE was
>uncovered by the Assassination Records Review Board in 1998. Joannides
>died in 1991.
>
>I filed suit against the CIA in December 2003 seeking records of
>Joannides's activities in 1963 and 1978. In December 2004, the CIA gave
>me about 150 pages of heavily redacted and obviously incomplete records
>from Joannides's personnel file. The Agency informed me that it retains
>an unspecified number of records about Joannides actions that it will
>not release IN ANY FORM.
>
>Thus JFK assassination records are kept secret in 2005 in the name of
>"national security."
>
>The records that CIA gave me are not reassuring. They show that
>Joannides travelled to New Orleans in connection with his CIA duties in
>1963-64. They also show that he was cleared for two highly sensitive
>operations in December 1962 and June 1963. The nature of these
>operations is unknown.
>
>It would be premature and foolish to speculate on what George
>Joannnides was doing in New Orleans in 1963. What is certain is that he
>had a professional obligation to report on the activities of the DRE in
>August and November 1963, especially as they related to Oswald.


Not if he didn't really *know* anything about the DRE and Oswald.


>The CIA
>is legally obliged to make such records public.
>
>Instead, they are stonewalling in court. This is a disappointing, if
>not disturbing.
>
>I am interested in hearing from JFK researchers willing to publicly
>support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act. I know that
>the Joannides records are not the only assassination-related material
>that is being illicitly withheld so I am also interested in hearing
>from researchers about specific groups of records, known to exist, that
>have not been released.
>
>Whatever one's interpretation of November 22, 1963, I think we can all
>agree that these records should be made public immediately.
>
>

I frankly don't know what they are hiding, but certain activities of
people still alive sounds like the most likely thing.

I certainly think they should turn these records over, if necessary
redacted to protect anybody who might have engaged in some legitimate
collaboration with the Agency.

.John

The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

John McAdams

unread,
May 21, 2005, 2:29:42 PM5/21/05
to

LOL!

Sounds like the government we all know and -- if we don't exactly love
it -- at least put up with.

It's not hard to know more than government bureaucrats. Especially
about a subject that seems to them to be ancient history.

Peter Fokes

unread,
May 21, 2005, 5:58:11 PM5/21/05
to


Not so ancient for the CIA I guess since they are still trying to
block some JFK-assassination related papers from being released. As
Jeff wrote:


>People interested in the JFK story will be interested to know that the
>CIA is due to file papers in court tomorrorow, May 20, to block release
>of certain JFK assassination-related documents.


>
>.John

PF


Martijn Meijering

unread,
May 21, 2005, 5:59:02 PM5/21/05
to
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> They're just doing it anyway.
> All JFK documents have a sunset date for release, even if the ARRB
> didn't know about them.

Very interesting, I didn't know that. From some googling I get the
impression that the last sunset date is 2017, unless the president
certifies that continued secrecy is necessary. I wonder who has the
power to do any reviews now that the ARRB no longer exists.


Questioning

unread,
May 21, 2005, 6:01:29 PM5/21/05
to

"jeffersonm" <mor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116509373.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> People interested in the JFK story will be interested to know that the
> CIA is due to file papers in court tomorrorow, May 20, to block release
> of certain JFK assassination-related documents.
>
> The records in question concern a deceased CIA officer named George
> Joannides. At the time of Kennedy's death, Joannides was the Chief of
> Psychological Warfare branch of the Agency's JM/WAVE station in Miami.
>
> Among his primary responsibilities were guiding, monitoring and
> financing the Revolutionary Cuban Student Directorate or DRE, one of
> the largest and most effective anti-Castro groups in the United States.
> CIA records show, and the group's former leaders confirm, that
> Joannides provided them with up $18-25,000 per month while insisting
> they submit to CIA discipline. Joannides, in his job evaluation of 31
> July 1963, was credited with having established control over the group.
>
> Five day later, Lee Harvey Oswald wandered into the DRE's New Orleans
> delegation, setting off a string of encounters between the pro-Castro
> ex-Marine and the anti-Castro exiles. Members of the DRE confronted
> Oswald on a street corner. They stared him down in a courtroom. They
> sent a DRE member to Oswald's house posing a Castro supporter. They
> challenged him to a debate on the radio. They made a tape of the debate
> which was later sent to Joannides. And they issued a press release

> calling for a congressional investigation of the thoroughly obscure
> Oswald. This, at a time, when the DRE had been warned to clear its
> public statements with the Agency.
>
> What, if anything, Joannides made of the encounters between his assets
> in the DRE and the future accused assassin is unknown. Former leaders
> of the DRE are divided on the question.
>
> Within an hour of Oswald's arrest on Nov. 22, 1963, the DRE leaders in
> Miami went public with their documentation of Oswald's pro-Castro ways,
> thus shaping early press coverage of the accused assasssin. Joannides

> told the group to take their information to the FBI.
>
> Joannides connection to Oswald's antagonists was not disclosed to the
> Warren Commission.
>
> In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as CIA liaison
> to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Joanndides did not
> disclose his role in the events of 1963 to investigators. HSCA general
> counsel Bob Blakey says that Joannides's actions constituted
> obstruction of Congress, a felony. Joannides's support for the DRE was

> uncovered by the Assassination Records Review Board in 1998. Joannides
> died in 1991.
Its funny that no information ever comes out until the people die. Like
Nixon was the CIA liason in the Bay of Pigs Operation. It was his and
Dulles' idea to change the insertion point to the bay. But many people do
not know. Nixon in his zeal denied even being in Dallas at all. Until
pictures surfaced with his presence at the Pepisco confernce the day before.

>
> I filed suit against the CIA in December 2003 seeking records of
> Joannides's activities in 1963 and 1978. In December 2004, the CIA gave
> me about 150 pages of heavily redacted and obviously incomplete records
> from Joannides's personnel file. The Agency informed me that it retains
> an unspecified number of records about Joannides actions that it will
> not release IN ANY FORM.
>
> Thus JFK assassination records are kept secret in 2005 in the name of
> "national security."
There are many records kept un a cloak of national security blanket. Robert
Groden asked the HSCA for a copy of the original Nix film for further
research and was told by Blanky that it was "lost." A common theme.

>
> The records that CIA gave me are not reassuring. They show that
> Joannides travelled to New Orleans in connection with his CIA duties in
> 1963-64. They also show that he was cleared for two highly sensitive
> operations in December 1962 and June 1963. The nature of these
> operations is unknown.
>
> It would be premature and foolish to speculate on what George
> Joannnides was doing in New Orleans in 1963. What is certain is that he
> had a professional obligation to report on the activities of the DRE in
> August and November 1963, especially as they related to Oswald. The CIA

> is legally obliged to make such records public.
>
> Instead, they are stonewalling in court. This is a disappointing, if
> not disturbing.
>
> I am interested in hearing from JFK researchers willing to publicly
> support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act. I know that
> the Joannides records are not the only assassination-related material
> that is being illicitly withheld so I am also interested in hearing
> from researchers about specific groups of records, known to exist, that
> have not been released.
>
> Whatever one's interpretation of November 22, 1963, I think we can all
> agree that these records should be made public immediately.
They aren't only protecting themselves, the agency, but also their
offspring.
>
>

John Hunt

unread,
May 21, 2005, 6:06:48 PM5/21/05
to

"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:428f7a34...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

> On 19 May 2005 11:39:25 -0400, "jeffersonm" <mor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>
>
>>In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as CIA liaison
>>to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Joanndides did not
>>disclose his role in the events of 1963 to investigators. HSCA general
>>counsel Bob Blakey says that Joannides's actions constituted
>>obstruction of Congress, a felony.
>
> Blakey's statements are a bit suspect, as I'm sure you know.
>
> He's been taking a pounding for 20+ years for being too easy on the
> CIA, and so an opportunity to attack the Agency is a dandy opportunity
> for him.
>

Cool! You're able to climb inside Blakey's mind and enlighten us about the
fact that Blakey was NOT REALLY DISTURBED by Joannides' intentional
suppression of his prior CIA connection to the JFK assassination. Thanks
for clearing that up, .John. Keep up the good work!!

John Hunt

stug...@aol.com

unread,
May 22, 2005, 7:56:24 AM5/22/05
to

> Blakey's statements are a bit suspect, as I'm sure you know.
>
> He's been taking a pounding for 20+ years for being too easy on the
> CIA, and so an opportunity to attack the Agency is a dandy
opportunity
> for him.


Taking a pounding from who, John? Certainly not you. Certainly not
the media. Oh YES!!! The conspiracy theorists have pounded him. The
ones you claim don't bother the government one bit; the ones you claim
have zero influence on the media; the ones who you say don't mean
anything to anyone but themselves.

But all along we have gotten to one man who has secretly hoped that he
could find some way, some means, of dodging the withering attacks of
Mark Lane and Harry Livingstone. That man is Robert Blakey. For 20
years he has looked for every opportunity he could find. The Liberty
Lobby Trial did not measure up for him. Phillips Melanson's book did
nothing for him. The release of John Newman's book and the Roman
admission fell way short of a pretext. None of Jeff Morley's articles
pre-2000 offered any hope. All along Blakey languished: "will
someone, PLEASE, PLEASE give me the opportunity to fall into Peter Dale
Scott's good graces! Will I die without the approval of Jim Lesar?"
And then finally, like a White Knight, came Jeff Morley. Just when
Blakey thought there would be no hope for him to wither the biting
criticisms of Lisa Pease and Gaeton Fonzi, the revelations about
George Joannides came along. Finally, Blakey could make the public mea
culpa he'd been wanting to make; finally, he could repent for his sins
and admit that he let the CIA off the hook in the late 1970s, even
though he knows he really didn't. He doesn't actually believe
anything Morley is writing --- no. Instead, this simply satisfies
Blakey's inner-needs to meet the approval of the next batch of Lancer
Conference attendees. Only John McAdams has seen through Blakey's
dense layers of self-denial and human psyche to root out the true core
of Blakey's recent claims. Sigmund Freud I bring you-- John McAdams.

-Stu


Robert Harris

unread,
May 22, 2005, 10:28:43 AM5/22/05
to
On 21 May 2005 09:36:44 -0400, "jeffersonm" <mor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>While the CIA's stonewalling is reprehensible and probably illegal, I
>am skeptical about arguments that the government will "never" release
>certain kinds of damaging information.
>
>By that logic, the CIA never would have released the Joannides story.

Yes, now and then something falls through the cracks - like those
arrest records that were locked away under federal seal in the
basement of the DPD for so long, or the 90 percent redacted memo that
Adams found, from 11/18/63.

But those were accidents. The FBI and CIA regularly thumb their noses
at the law whenever they have the opportunity to hide anything
important to the JFK case. Who do you report them to? George W?

Where is that debriefing report that the PBS crew uncovered?

Where are all the reports from the FBI interviews of Elrod and the
others who might have overhead the same thing he did?

Where is the unredacted version of the report that Adams found?

Where are all the documents related to the informant in the
Miller-Whitter case that the FBI lied about to federal prosecutors?
Marina begged for those reports as well as numerous others?


>
>But they did. And they did because they were forced to.
>
>There is no omnipotent intelligence in the government that decrees: "no
>damaging information about the JFK assassination shall be released."

I wish I could believe that.

So why do we see endless coverups of this information? Why are we so
often given the preposterous excuse that national security would be
endangered if they were released?

And why do they flatly and deliberately, lie about so many of these
issues? Tell me, do you really think the FBI has no records of their
interviews of Elrod and the tramps, because they never interviewed
them?

Do you think they didn't believe they should talk to arrested murder
suspects? And do you think that Elrod and the others lied when they
said they were indeed, interviewed by the FBI?

And why do we have to fight with these people? Why aren't THEY
investigating all this, with a tenth of the fervor that they use to
investigate a Cat Stevens?

There is something very rotten here, Jeff.


>
>Rather, intelligent searching and enforcement of the law will maximize
>the scope of the public record on the JFK case and from that
>information new dimensions of the story, if they exist, will become
>apparent.
>
>To put it less abstractly, I think we know more than they do at this
>point.

Hehe, I think you've been talking to certain people in S. Florida a
bit too long.

Look - these people have lied and done everything in their power to
prevent us from learning about their relationship with Oswald.

And they are not just a bunch of overworked filing clerks. They are
VERY proactive - especially when it comes to influencing the media -
as you should have learned by now:-)


Rober Harris

jeffersonm

unread,
May 22, 2005, 10:30:13 AM5/22/05
to
DRE effectiveness.

They were effective in terms of rallying opposition to and taking
action against Castro. They published the monthly Cuban Report, which
circulated widely on Capitol Hill. Until Sept. 1962, they had an
organization inside Cuba which supplied U.S. policymakers with useful
information. As the New York Times reported during the Cuban Missile
Crisis, the DRE had reported on trucks carrying large missiles in the
Cuban countryside. They were also regarded as effective at mounting
operations inside Cuba. When the National Security Council discussed
the distribution of propaganda inside
Cuba in April 1963, the DRE was the only group mentioned as being able
to pull it off. This is documented in Foreign Relations of the United
States


jeffersonm

unread,
May 22, 2005, 11:08:27 AM5/22/05
to
DRE EFFECTIVENESS

States.

CONTROL OVER THE DRE

No, he didn't have total control. the Fitness report says that he
established a "degree of control." And, in fact, there were fewer
public displays of DRE insubordination during Joannides's tenure as
case officer than under his predecessor. Before Joannides, the DRE had
attempted to assassinate Castro (Aug. 62), blabbed to a Miami Herald
reporter about their Agency connections (Oct. 62) and peddled the
"missiles in caves" story (Nov. 62), all without CIA authorization.
Such incidents ceased in 1963 and Joannides got credit.

THE OSWALD TAPE

The DRE gave the Oswald tape to Joannides." The tape is in the National
Archives in a box marked "To Howard." Luis Fernandez Rocha, the former
head of the DRE, says the handwriting on the box is his and that the
"Howard" in question was his CIA contact whom he says was Joannides.

THE OSWALD PRESS RELEASE

OK, let's say the DRE's exposure of Oswald was an example of the
group's independent ways and Joannides didn't authorize it. In that
case Joannides had a hell of problem on November 22 when he found out
that his assets whom he and his colleagues thought were under control
had, in fact, been gathering intelligence on the man who just shot the
President dead--without ever telling him.

The point is, whether Joannides "really" had the DRE under control or
not, he was responsible for their actions because they were spending
CIA funds.

You're assuming that because the DRE was "out of control" he had no
responsibility for their actions. No good operations officer--and
Joannides by all accounts was a good operations officer--would make
that assumption.

DRE GOING PUBLIC ON Nov. 22.

Sure it was natural for the DRE to denounce Oswald. The question is
whether Joannides and his superiors intended it to happen.

Afterall, the CIA gave the DRE lots of money for (and these are the
CIA's terms, not mine) "intelligence collection," "political action,"
and "propaganda" activities."

The DRE ran into this obscure pro-Castro character named Oswald and
they collected intelligence on him and generated propaganda, classic
examples of political action.

After President Kennedy was killed, apparently by Oswald, they
disseminated the intelligence and generated more propaganda, ie. more
political action. There is no record that Joannides ever objected.

So if they paid for the DRE's activities, "guided and monitored" those
activities (again the CIA's phrase) and condoned those activities
after the fact, one reasonable conclusion is that they intended these
things to happen.


JOANNIDES TOLD THE DRE TO GO TO THE FBI

Here's what happened: The DRE called Joannides around 5 pm on 11/22 and
said they were going public with what they knew. He told them to hold
off while he checked with HQ. They went ahead anyway and the wire
services were reporting on New Orleans encounters by 6pm Eastern Time.
Joannides called back and told them to go to the FBI.

That was certainly the correct thing to do under the circumstances.

The other correct thing to do, according to the six retired operations
officers who I've interviewed on the subject, would have been to report
to CIA headquarters on DRE contacts with the presidential assassin.

If Joannides did this--and I'm pretty sure he did--the CIA has never
disclosed it.

JOANNIDES NOT DISCLOSED TO THE WARREN COMMISSION

Straw man. No, I am not saying "anybody" connected with the DRE should
have been "a suspect."

The CIA purported to tell the Warren Commission everything its
employees knew about Oswald. Dick Helms said this under oath.

But he did not disclose the Agency's close collaborative relationship
with the exile group that first called public attention to Oswald's
duplicitous pro-Castro's ways.

This may not be perjury but it was certainly not the level of
disclosure that the Warren Commission expected.

BLAKEY

Another straw man. Blakey's statement that Joannides deceived him and
the Congress is indisputably true.

If a poster to this forum deceived you about their past in this way,
you would quickly and correctly
denounce them. Joannides did it and you blame the messenger.

NOT IF HE DIDN'T 'KNOW' ANYTHING ABOUT THE DRE AND OSWALD.

Those quotation marks are especially revealing here John.

To recap: The president of the United States is killed. Within hours, a
CIA officer learns that members of an organization that is wholly and
secretly funded by him has had a series of encounters with the accused
assassin. These encounters are of an intensely political nature,
involving support for an enemy of the United States (the Castro
government). The DRE has supplied him with a tape recording of the
accused assassin talking about his political views.

Your position is that he didn't have a professional obligation to
report any of this because he didn't "know" anything. Depends on what
you mean by "know."

All I can say is that no CIA operations officer who I have ever talked
to--and I've asked six about this point--agrees with you.

DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE HIDING

I don't know what they're hiding either John but thanks for your
support.


Robert Harris

unread,
May 22, 2005, 5:45:56 PM5/22/05
to

Mr. Morley,

Have you come to the conclusion that Oswald really did attempt to
infiltrate the DRE by himself and that the altercation on Camp St. was
real and not staged?


Robert Haris

The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/

Anthony Marsh

unread,
May 22, 2005, 5:47:44 PM5/22/05
to
Questioning wrote:

There is no evidence that Nixon changed the landing location to the Bay
of Pigs and plenty of direct evidence that it was JFK who did that.
Nixon did not have the same concerns as did Kennedy about not letting it
be too noisy an operation.

tomnln

unread,
May 22, 2005, 5:50:42 PM5/22/05
to
Count me IN

"Ray" <j.raymon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116517953.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Jefferson Morley wrote:"I am interested in hearing from JFK researchers
> willing to publicly
> support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act." Would it
> help to involve the Attorney-General? Isn't the Justice Department
> supposed to enforce the Law?
>
> Ray
>
> "Do not block the way of inquiry" C. S. Peirce
>
>


jeffersonm

unread,
May 22, 2005, 9:55:58 PM5/22/05
to
No. The preponderance of evidence indicates that something else was
going on.

The CIA gave the the DRE for "intelligence gathering," "propaganda,"
and "political action." When they met Oswald, they engaged in all
three. Joanndies, the case officer for the group, was praised a week
before this happened for having established a degree of control over
the group and after it was over he got the highest possible marks for
his job performance concerning the group. His job review for 1963
praised him for "translating policy directives into action."

The most plausible conclusion is that someone at the CIA intended for
these encounters to happen. Of course, I can't prove that because of
the CIA's illicit withholding of documents. But that seems the most
plausible explanation.

The notion that all of this activity happened on the watch of George
Joannides, who was in New Orleans in 1963 and 1964, without him knowing
is hard to credit.


John McAdams

unread,
May 23, 2005, 12:36:09 AM5/23/05
to

Only if you assume that the whole Oswald/Casa Roca thing was some sort
of government operation.

But if it wasn't, it's quite easy to believe that Joannides knew
nothing about it.

Just exactly when, and for how long, was he in New Orleans?

John McAdams

unread,
May 23, 2005, 12:43:46 AM5/23/05
to
On 22 May 2005 07:56:24 -0400, stug...@aol.com wrote:

>
>> Blakey's statements are a bit suspect, as I'm sure you know.
>>
>> He's been taking a pounding for 20+ years for being too easy on the
>> CIA, and so an opportunity to attack the Agency is a dandy opportunity
>> for him.
>
>
>Taking a pounding from who, John? Certainly not you. Certainly not
>the media. Oh YES!!! The conspiracy theorists have pounded him. The
>ones you claim don't bother the government one bit; the ones you claim
>have zero influence on the media; the ones who you say don't mean
>anything to anyone but themselves.
>

Let's try to keep straight what I've said, Stu.

Yes, conspiracy theorists have pounded him.

Yes, the ones that "bother the government" only because they can be a
nuisance sometimes, not because they the government is hiding evidence
of a conspiracy.

I've never said that buffs "don't mean anything to anyone but
themselves," but I have said that they are terrible self-absorbed, and
tend to believe things like (for example) a massive disinformation
operation still going on.


>But all along we have gotten to one man who has secretly hoped that he
>could find some way, some means, of dodging the withering attacks of
>Mark Lane and Harry Livingstone. That man is Robert Blakey. For 20
>years he has looked for every opportunity he could find. The Liberty
>Lobby Trial did not measure up for him. Phillips Melanson's book did
>nothing for him. The release of John Newman's book and the Roman
>admission fell way short of a pretext. None of Jeff Morley's articles
>pre-2000 offered any hope. All along Blakey languished: "will
>someone, PLEASE, PLEASE give me the opportunity to fall into Peter Dale
>Scott's good graces! Will I die without the approval of Jim Lesar?"
>And then finally, like a White Knight, came Jeff Morley. Just when
>Blakey thought there would be no hope for him to wither the biting
>criticisms of Lisa Pease and Gaeton Fonzi, the revelations about
>George Joannides came along. Finally, Blakey could make the public mea
>culpa he'd been wanting to make; finally, he could repent for his sins
>and admit that he let the CIA off the hook in the late 1970s, even
>though he knows he really didn't.

That's about right, Stu.

He's too sensible to fall for CIA conspiracy theories (admittedly,
he's not to sensible to fall for Mafia did it theories).

But if it's just fussing and fuming about documents that the CIA
withheld -- hell, why not!

You can blast the CIA, and make the buffs happy, all the time without
saying there was some CIA conspiracy.


>He doesn't actually believe
>anything Morley is writing --- no.

He doubtless believes Morley about the CIA withholding documents.

Are you saying he now believes the CIA conspiracy to kill Kennedy?

If so, just produce a quote.


>Instead, this simply satisfies
>Blakey's inner-needs to meet the approval of the next batch of Lancer
>Conference attendees. Only John McAdams has seen through Blakey's
>dense layers of self-denial and human psyche to root out the true core
>of Blakey's recent claims. Sigmund Freud I bring you-- John McAdams.
>

Kind of embarrassing to have to rehabilitate the guy you folks have
always hated, isn't it?

John McAdams

unread,
May 23, 2005, 1:31:05 AM5/23/05
to
On 22 May 2005 11:08:27 -0400, "jeffersonm" <mor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>DRE EFFECTIVENESS
>
>They were effective in terms of rallying opposition to and taking
>action against Castro. They published the monthly Cuban Report, which
>circulated widely on Capitol Hill. Until Sept. 1962, they had an
>organization inside Cuba which supplied U.S. policymakers with useful
>information. As the New York Times reported during the Cuban Missile
>Crisis, the DRE had reported on trucks carrying large missiles in the
>Cuban countryside. They were also regarded as effective at mounting
>operations inside Cuba. When the National Security Council discussed
>the distribution of propaganda inside
>Cuba in April 1963, the DRE was the only group mentioned as being able
>to pull it off. This is documented in Foreign Relations of the United
>States.
>

OIC. They were "mentioned."

Any evidence that they actually *did* pull off any such a thing?

BTW, isn't "distribution of propaganda inside Cuba" ineffective even
if they can actually do it?

Have you listened to the Oswald/Butler/Bringuier debate? Does
Bringuier strike you as a sophisticated propagandist?

Do you agree with Gus Russo that the entire anti-Castro movement was
thoroughly penetrated by Castro's agents?


>CONTROL OVER THE DRE
>
>No, he didn't have total control. the Fitness report says that he
>established a "degree of control."


IOW, some. Maybe not much.

And what was the evidence behind the fitness report? Joannides,
perhaps?


>And, in fact, there were fewer
>public displays of DRE insubordination during Joannides's tenure as
>case officer than under his predecessor. Before Joannides, the DRE had
>attempted to assassinate Castro (Aug. 62), blabbed to a Miami Herald
>reporter about their Agency connections (Oct. 62) and peddled the
>"missiles in caves" story (Nov. 62), all without CIA authorization.
>Such incidents ceased in 1963 and Joannides got credit.
>

A lot of things could account for that -- assuming you aren't
overlooking some things that happened in 1963.


>THE OSWALD TAPE
>
>The DRE gave the Oswald tape to Joannides." The tape is in the National
>Archives in a box marked "To Howard." Luis Fernandez Rocha, the former
>head of the DRE, says the handwriting on the box is his and that the
>"Howard" in question was his CIA contact whom he says was Joannides.
>

Did you show him a photo and Joannides, and get the ID from the photo?

The tape, according to your article, wasn't sent until after the
assassination.

Not very incriminating. Oswald is world famous at the guy who killed
Kennedy, and the DRE wants to cash in on their previous
"confrontation" in New Orleans.


>THE OSWALD PRESS RELEASE
>
>OK, let's say the DRE's exposure of Oswald was an example of the
>group's independent ways and Joannides didn't authorize it. In that
>case Joannides had a hell of problem on November 22 when he found out
>that his assets whom he and his colleagues thought were under control
>had, in fact, been gathering intelligence on the man who just shot the
>President dead--without ever telling him.
>

Why?

Are you actually saying that the DRE in New Orleans was supposed to
report to Joannides about every leftist oddball they confronted?

You understand the fallacy of thinking that since we *now* consider
Oswald a very important figure, everybody in 1963 had to think of him
the same way, right?

And you say "gathering intelligence" as though they were some sort of
slick spooks.

Their "gathering intelligence" involved sending one fellow to his
apartment, who was utterly transparent to Oswald.

That's not a lot of "gathering intelligence."

I fear you are falling into the trip of using language that *sounds*
sinister, but only because you leave out detail.


>The point is, whether Joannides "really" had the DRE under control or
>not, he was responsible for their actions because they were spending
>CIA funds.
>

Your whole theory requires that he had them under very firm control.

You really need to prove that Joannides (in Miami) actually had
detailed knowledge of what was going on between Oswald and the DRE in
New Orleans.


>You're assuming that because the DRE was "out of control" he had no
>responsibility for their actions. No good operations officer--and
>Joannides by all accounts was a good operations officer--would make
>that assumption.
>

"Responsibility" is really irrelevant.

For your conspiracy theory to fly, you really need to prove that
Joannides (in Miami) actually had detailed knowledge of what was going
on between Oswald and the DRE in New Orleans.


>DRE GOING PUBLIC ON Nov. 22.
>
>Sure it was natural for the DRE to denounce Oswald. The question is
>whether Joannides and his superiors intended it to happen.
>

And you have no evidence that this was the case.


>Afterall, the CIA gave the DRE lots of money for (and these are the
>CIA's terms, not mine) "intelligence collection," "political action,"
>and "propaganda" activities."
>

You don't routinely assume that government money is spent effectively,
do you?


>The DRE ran into this obscure pro-Castro character named Oswald and
>they collected intelligence on him and generated propaganda, classic
>examples of political action.
>

You are just completely ignoring the details and the texture of what
happened.

You really are using vague language to try to make a case when precise
language would give a very different impression.

Bringier listed to Oswald expound in the Casa Roca twice. He let
Oswald give him his Marine manual. He sent a very amateurish "agent"
to pretend to be pro-Castro and find out what he could about the "Fair
Play for Cuba Committee."

They went ballistic when Oswald was distributing pro-Castro literature
in Canal Street and created a confrontation.

They prodded Stuckey to set up a radio debate, which was seen as a
huge Oswald defeat (no thanks to Bringuier, who debated very badly).

And that was it until they found that this fellow Oswald had shot the
President.


>After President Kennedy was killed, apparently by Oswald, they
>disseminated the intelligence and generated more propaganda, ie. more
>political action. There is no record that Joannides ever objected.
>

There is no record he ever told them to do it or endorsed their doing
it.

Jeff, I think you actually believe that the DRE types were some sort
of Hispanic Jame Bonds.


>So if they paid for the DRE's activities, "guided and monitored" those
>activities (again the CIA's phrase) and condoned those activities
>after the fact, one reasonable conclusion is that they intended these
>things to happen.
>

Beautiful.

You are writing from Washington, DC, and you actually assume that
government programs always work as planned and claimed.


>
>JOANNIDES TOLD THE DRE TO GO TO THE FBI
>
>Here's what happened: The DRE called Joannides around 5 pm on 11/22 and
>said they were going public with what they knew. He told them to hold
>off while he checked with HQ. They went ahead anyway and the wire
>services were reporting on New Orleans encounters by 6pm Eastern Time.
>Joannides called back and told them to go to the FBI.
>

Translation: they were out of control.

You've just undermined your own argument.


>That was certainly the correct thing to do under the circumstances.
>
>The other correct thing to do, according to the six retired operations
>officers who I've interviewed on the subject, would have been to report
>to CIA headquarters on DRE contacts with the presidential assassin.
>
>If Joannides did this--and I'm pretty sure he did--the CIA has never
>disclosed it.
>

It's not so clear he should have "disclosed" anything he *knew* if he
*knew* nothing beyond what was all over the news.

If you *assume* that the DRE was setting Oswald up though some kind of
master spy operation in the Big Easy, and that they did that on orders
of Joannides, then he should "disclose" it.

Do you see how you are assuming things you need to prove?


>JOANNIDES NOT DISCLOSED TO THE WARREN COMMISSION
>
>Straw man. No, I am not saying "anybody" connected with the DRE should
>have been "a suspect."
>
>The CIA purported to tell the Warren Commission everything its
>employees knew about Oswald. Dick Helms said this under oath.
>

Given that you have no evidence that Joannides knew anything, you have
no case here.

Can't you see how you are begging the question?

Make a key *assumption* (Joannides directed the DRE in their actions
vis a vis Oswald in New Orleans) and you can huff and puff endlessly
about how "information was withheld."

But claims about "withheld information" are only as good as your
assumption, no better.


>But he did not disclose the Agency's close collaborative relationship
>with the exile group that first called public attention to Oswald's
>duplicitous pro-Castro's ways.
>

Which was only relevant given you *assumptions.*


>This may not be perjury but it was certainly not the level of
>disclosure that the Warren Commission expected.
>
>BLAKEY
>
>Another straw man. Blakey's statement that Joannides deceived him and
>the Congress is indisputably true.
>
>If a poster to this forum deceived you about their past in this way,
>you would quickly and correctly
>denounce them. Joannides did it and you blame the messenger.
>

You haven't even claimed that Joannides told the HSCA anything untrue.

You just claim that he should have told the HSCA some stuff that you
*assume* would have been relevant.

And you have to be aware that Blakey has taken a lot of heat from the
"CIA did it" types.


>NOT IF HE DIDN'T 'KNOW' ANYTHING ABOUT THE DRE AND OSWALD.
>
>Those quotation marks are especially revealing here John.
>
>To recap: The president of the United States is killed. Within hours, a
>CIA officer learns that members of an organization that is wholly and
>secretly funded by him has had a series of encounters with the accused
>assassin. These encounters are of an intensely political nature,
>involving support for an enemy of the United States (the Castro
>government). The DRE has supplied him with a tape recording of the
>accused assassin talking about his political views.
>
>Your position is that he didn't have a professional obligation to
>report any of this because he didn't "know" anything. Depends on what
>you mean by "know."
>

It means, "did he have any inside knowledge?" "Did he know anything
beyond what was all over the news?"

Jeff, you really have only your *assumption* that he did.

You have nothing more than that, and you doubtless took logic in
college and know that your conclusions can't possibly be any better
than the premises you start with.


>All I can say is that no CIA operations officer who I have ever talked
>to--and I've asked six about this point--agrees with you.
>

Then let me talk to them, and I bet I'll be able to report that they
agree with me.


>DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE HIDING
>
>I don't know what they're hiding either John but thanks for your
>support.
>
>

You certainly have my support in wanting the CIA to cough up the
documents -- although I think minimal redactions to conceal the name
or names of sources still living would be acceptable.

jeffersonm

unread,
May 23, 2005, 10:36:59 AM5/23/05
to
So where is the original Nix film? Do you have a RIF/Locator #?


jeffersonm

unread,
May 23, 2005, 10:41:05 AM5/23/05
to
bottom line Robert is I don't like going into a fight thinking I'm
going to lose.

We are going to win this thing and I have a strategy for doing it. That
strategy does not begin with the belief that "they" are "never" going
to lose.

It begins with the fact that we have the law on our side, that
everybody--the public, the Congress, the "lone nut" faithful--agrees
that all JFK assassination-related records should be made public.

We have to identify and locate those records. We have reiterate and
clarify the law to the people responsible for those records. And we
have to take public action that forces (or shames) them into reviewing
and releasing those records.

Its tedious and should be unnecessary. Its shameful that we get no help
from news organizations. But it can be and is being done.


jeffersonm

unread,
May 23, 2005, 10:41:21 AM5/23/05
to
Thanks Raymond. What city/town do you live in? This is for ID purposes
only?


jeffersonm

unread,
May 23, 2005, 10:40:14 AM5/23/05
to
Thanks David. Where do you live? I want to include that in my
presentation.


John McAdams

unread,
May 23, 2005, 1:58:57 PM5/23/05
to

They do this by instinct, Peter.

A lot of papers have been "withheld" and when released, showed nothing
to explain why they were withheld. No "smoking gun" showing a
conspiracy. No good national security reason either.

.John
--

stug...@aol.com

unread,
May 23, 2005, 3:17:09 PM5/23/05
to
John,

Why don't we stick to what people are actually saying...

I never said that Blakey believed in a CIA conspiracy to kill JFK.
That's a pure red herring. Work harder.

You clearly were implying that Blakey's change of heart on a CIA
*COVERUP* was insincere on the absolutely ridiculous basis that he was
knuckling under to the pressure of conspiracy theorists. Do you
honestly hold to that claim or are you willing to admit that Blakey,
who had nothing but positive things to say about the CIA's cooperation
on through the 1990s, has sincerely changed his mind about how the CIA
worked with the HSCA?

I understand the reluctance to admit the change... after all, Blakey
was on your side of the cover-up issue for decades and now he is
actually changing his mind when confronted with evidence. I understand
how hard it is to accept the fact that most people don't go through
Blackwell's Guide to Rationalizations, when it comes to obvious
obstruction. But to claim conspiracy theorists have brainwashed the
man is ridiculous.

-Stu

tomnln

unread,
May 23, 2005, 3:18:37 PM5/23/05
to
McAdams would have us all believe that everyone connected to the Lone
Assassin
Theory are complete Idiots.

Rather than admit a handful of people in Authority are Dishonest.

"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message

news:42915d71...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

John McAdams

unread,
May 23, 2005, 11:39:31 PM5/23/05
to
On 23 May 2005 15:17:09 -0400, stug...@aol.com wrote:

>John,
>
>Why don't we stick to what people are actually saying...
>
>I never said that Blakey believed in a CIA conspiracy to kill JFK.
>That's a pure red herring. Work harder.
>
>You clearly were implying that Blakey's change of heart on a CIA
>*COVERUP* was insincere on the absolutely ridiculous basis that he was
>knuckling under to the pressure of conspiracy theorists.

I don't even know that he saw himself "caving in."

But he has to understand that a bit of rhetoric to placate the
hate-the-CIA crowd would make them like him better.


>Do you
>honestly hold to that claim or are you willing to admit that Blakey,
>who had nothing but positive things to say about the CIA's cooperation
>on through the 1990s, has sincerely changed his mind about how the CIA
>worked with the HSCA?
>

I don't doubt that Morley has convinced him that the CIA has withheld
some documents. I *have* pointed out that he was probably easy to
convince.


>I understand the reluctance to admit the change... after all, Blakey
>was on your side of the cover-up issue for decades and now he is
>actually changing his mind when confronted with evidence.

Oh, my!!

He now believes that the CIA killed Kennedy and is engaged in a
coverup, does he?


>I understand
>how hard it is to accept the fact that most people don't go through
>Blackwell's Guide to Rationalizations, when it comes to obvious
>obstruction. But to claim conspiracy theorists have brainwashed the
>man is ridiculous.
>

Quit misrepresenting what I said.

He's taken a huge amount of abuse from the hate-the-CIA crowd. I'll
bet that *you* have abused him quite a bit.

So some protective cover by saying bad things about the Agency is
doubtless something that would appeal to him.

Brandon Alexander

unread,
May 24, 2005, 12:18:20 AM5/24/05
to
On 19 May 2005 11:39:25 -0400, "jeffersonm" <mor...@gmail.com> wrote:

What this man had to do with the assassination of President Kennedy
and/or Lee Oswald is speculative at best.

I say continue to seek the release of any document you want to.

And when you get it, don't be surprised if it tells you nothing we
don't already know, or nothing at all.

Al.

>I filed suit against the CIA in December 2003 seeking records of
>Joannides's activities in 1963 and 1978. In December 2004, the CIA gave
>me about 150 pages of heavily redacted and obviously incomplete records
>from Joannides's personnel file. The Agency informed me that it retains
>an unspecified number of records about Joannides actions that it will
>not release IN ANY FORM.
>
>Thus JFK assassination records are kept secret in 2005 in the name of
>"national security."
>

>The records that CIA gave me are not reassuring. They show that
>Joannides travelled to New Orleans in connection with his CIA duties in
>1963-64. They also show that he was cleared for two highly sensitive
>operations in December 1962 and June 1963. The nature of these
>operations is unknown.
>
>It would be premature and foolish to speculate on what George
>Joannnides was doing in New Orleans in 1963. What is certain is that he
>had a professional obligation to report on the activities of the DRE in
>August and November 1963, especially as they related to Oswald. The CIA
>is legally obliged to make such records public.
>
>Instead, they are stonewalling in court. This is a disappointing, if
>not disturbing.
>

>I am interested in hearing from JFK researchers willing to publicly

>support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act. I know that
>the Joannides records are not the only assassination-related material
>that is being illicitly withheld so I am also interested in hearing
>from researchers about specific groups of records, known to exist, that
>have not been released.
>
>Whatever one's interpretation of November 22, 1963, I think we can all
>agree that these records should be made public immediately.
>

.

dshar...@yahoo.com

unread,
May 24, 2005, 7:06:29 AM5/24/05
to
Jeff,

In the Valley of the Gizzlies, within earshot of Grizzly Falls, (which
is booming).

:)

Good luck.

(not even a word?...eesh...)

my own self

David Sharpness
Mail to:
PO Box 191
Yosemite
CA 95389
May 24, 2005


jpsh...@my-deja.com

unread,
May 24, 2005, 8:26:13 AM5/24/05
to
I tried to send you an email at your gmail address. Did you
receive it?

Jerry Shinley

jeffersonm

unread,
May 24, 2005, 11:31:07 AM5/24/05
to
I would be very surprised if the documents told us nothing at all.

Joannides had a professional responsibility to report on the DRE's
activities in August and November 1963. His reporting would provide two
things that we never had before: the CIA's perspective on the
DRE-Oswald encounters, as well as the CIA's response to the first JFK
scenario ever published, the DRE's claim on November 23, 1963 that
Oswald and Castro were "the presumed assassins."


stug...@aol.com

unread,
May 24, 2005, 2:38:40 PM5/24/05
to
So let's just be clear, John. G. Robert Blakey who has resisted the
call to accuse the CIA obstruction despite:

a) Complaints from his own staffers at the time
b) Books like Spy Saga by Melanson
c) The Jane Roman revelations by Morley/Newman
d) And twenty years of what you claim is influential CIA-hating
rhetoric (CIA-hating rhetoric that, mind you, has failed, in your
estimation, to have any influence whatsoever on the CIA itself, on the
media, on the government, etc.-- just Blakey apparently.)

You think he suddenly, insincerely, caved in to the "CIA-haters?" Is
this what you honestly think? It sounds like the biggest reach in a
long history of reaches. You can't seem to accept this fact: an
objective person, who was on your side on this issue, is convinced the
CIA obstructed justice based on the material Morley presented. He
accepts the idea that CIA officers are supposed to report information;
he doesn't buy into the coincidence that the only gap in Joannides
reporting came at the time of the Oswald request; he accepts the idea
that a job evaluation might actually reflect someone's job performance.
If there is denial, maybe it is by the person who wouldn't accept the
idea of CIA obstruction if E. Howard Hunt showed him a film of Richard
Helms shredding documents.

-Stu

John McAdams

unread,
May 24, 2005, 6:09:41 PM5/24/05
to
On 24 May 2005 14:38:40 -0400, stug...@aol.com wrote:

>So let's just be clear, John. G. Robert Blakey who has resisted the
>call to accuse the CIA obstruction despite:
>
>a) Complaints from his own staffers at the time

You mean crackpots like Fonzi!


>b) Books like Spy Saga by Melanson

Another crackpot book.


>c) The Jane Roman revelations by Morley/Newman

Which, although interesting, in fact prove almost nothing.


>d) And twenty years of what you claim is influential CIA-hating
>rhetoric (CIA-hating rhetoric that, mind you, has failed, in your
>estimation, to have any influence whatsoever on the CIA itself, on the
>media, on the government, etc.-- just Blakey apparently.)
>

I never said the rhetoric of the buffs has had "no influence," just
that you folks kid yourselves that all of official Washington is
quaking it its boots worried that you will "blow the lid" on the
conspiracy.

It's an annoyance to them.


>You think he suddenly, insincerely, caved in to the "CIA-haters?"


You don't bother to read what I wrote. I'm sure Blakey is honestly
convinced that the CIA "withheld information." To a degree they
really did.

But he was an easy sell.


>Is
>this what you honestly think? It sounds like the biggest reach in a
>long history of reaches. You can't seem to accept this fact: an
>objective person,

Oh! My! He has now become "an objective person."

A fellow who was a scum CIA lackey is now "an objective person."


>who was on your side on this issue, is convinced the
>CIA obstructed justice based on the material Morley presented.

Again, he was an easy sell.


>He
>accepts the idea that CIA officers are supposed to report information;
>he doesn't buy into the coincidence that the only gap in Joannides
>reporting came at the time of the Oswald request; he accepts the idea
>that a job evaluation might actually reflect someone's job performance.
> If there is denial, maybe it is by the person who wouldn't accept the
>idea of CIA obstruction if E. Howard Hunt showed him a film of Richard
>Helms shredding documents.
>

Stu, we've seen too many bogus buff claims of "obstruction."

You might look at the thread about how the Rockefeller Commission
refused to release Wecht's testimony. This was supposed to have some
nefarious intent, but when it was finally released it showed that
Wecht said what the Commission said he said.

.John
--

stug...@aol.com

unread,
May 25, 2005, 2:15:08 PM5/25/05
to
John,

You can't have it both ways here: either we are "crackpots" who
shouldn't faze G. Robert Blakey one bit or we are "CIA-haters" with
loads of influence on the man? Take your pick. But if you go with
"crackpots" then you have to concede that Blakey has changed his mind
based on the *merits* of Morley's work. Which means that Morley has
work that is capable of convincing anyone other than the most blatant
CIA apologists.

If you go with "CIA haters with loads of influence" then you have to
explain why Blakey insisted on his original propositions vis a vis the
CIA for 20 years, despite