03-07-2016, 04:04 AM
03-07-2016, 04:55 AM
I glanced it. Looks like a legal brief for Morley vs CIA in the matter of Joannides and his deception on the committee.
03-07-2016, 06:44 AM
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Really good stuff, Dan is so honest it hurts.
http://aarclibrary.org/wp-content/upload...ration.pdf
Great document! Great summary with all the references! I hope it helps. It was certainly interesting reading, even if I know well this basic story. Oh how the CIA has lied by commission and omission over the years, and continues to block access to information and documents that would lead to the truth!
03-07-2016, 07:25 AM
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Really good stuff, Dan is so honest it hurts.
http://aarclibrary.org/wp-content/upload...ration.pdf
Brutality honest, I'd say, should be a good thing, now, who are the real top researchers out there that can pull some strings? Morley, DiEugenio, Hardway, anyone? What kind of information can the best of the best locate, publish and disclose for everyone to see on Richard Poyle? Hell, I've disclosed his name in the past, now, what will the CIA release on Poyle regarding his classified trip to Mexico on 11/21/1963.
Better yet, why not see if you can find for yourself the information Poyle reports back to the CIA regarding stolen photographs, and, who of all people took these photographs? Hint, Eddie Bayo's brother-in-law, found in Edwin Kaiser's address book.
Why has Poyle infiltrated Kaiser?
There's nothing wrong with reiterating plain facts [over and over] while providing minimum to invasive details of the same individuals who attended the HSCA. However, what about those who were suppose appear but didn't, what kind of information do you suppose we'd find? Would the information found be outlined any differently to captivate ones attention as written in this report? Now, we could just continue to repeat what's found in this report for the next 38 years by defining everything diversely, on the other hand, making it interesting, but, nonetheless, it's the same information right? On the contrary, wouldn't you agree?
This report drawn up by Hardway is no new news or big surprise about the CIA lying regarding their involvement, [right?] Hell, how many times does a person need to rehash old information before they've learned the CIA lied? Now, find out why for Christ sake! The information is right there in front of you! Ugh!
Lord, help me help those!
03-07-2016, 07:42 AM
Quote:and continues to block access to information and documents that would lead to the truth!
To further project this imagine, it's called the fifth volume of the Bay of Pigs.
03-07-2016, 07:49 AM
Fifty-one years after a CIA-backed exile force hit the beaches of Cuba for what became known as the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Central Intelligence Agency is still fighting the release of the final volume of its official history of the ill-fated mission. The final volume is a rebuttal by Jack Pfeiffer, the CIA's chief historian, of a report by the agency's inspector general that found the CIA itself bore primary responsibility for the failure of the April 14-19, 1961, invasion. The IG blamed "bad planning,'' faulty intelligence, inadequate staffing and failure to inform President John F. Kennedy that the success of the operation was "dubious.'' The invasion, whose centerpiece was a 1,500-man exile force called the 2506 Brigade that landed at Playa Girón on April 17, was designed to topple the Castro regime. Instead, it failed less than 72 hours later, resulting in the deaths of 114 exiles and the capture of 1,100 men by the Cuban army and militia.
Who is to blame for the failure has been debated for the past five decades. Lyman Kirkpatrick, who wrote the inspector general's report, cited "a tendency in the agency to gloss over CIA inadequacies and to attempt to fix all of the blame for the failure of the invasion upon other elements of the government'' in a cover letter to the 1961 report.
In contrast, Pfeiffer's account "tried to fully pin the blame for the historic calamity on the Kennedy White House,'' said Peter Kornbluh, senior analyst at The National Security Archive. "Pfeiffer pushed the line that Kennedy was responsible and his brother Bobby helped transfer blame to the CIA.''
The Washington-based nonprofit research institute and library filed a lawsuit last year on the 50th anniversary of the invasion, asking for declassification of all five volumes in the official history. Previous requests for the documents under the Freedom of Information Act had been unsuccessful. Volume III was actually released in 1998 but the world was unaware of it until David Barrett, a Villanova University professor, found it in 2005 at the National Archives Kennedy Assassination Records Collection in a box marked "CIA miscellaneous.'' Last summer, in response to The National Security Archive lawsuit, the CIA released more than 1,200 pages of "The Official History of the Bay of Pigs Operation,'' but it held onto the fifth volume. "More than 50 years after the failed invasion, the CIA continues to try and hide this dramatic history from public scrutiny,'' Kornbluh said. The National Security Archive has continued to fight for release of the fifth volume in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. in a case before Judge Gladys Kessler.The CIA has argued that the final volume can't be released because it is "an internal draft of a CIA history that was never approved for release or publication.'' In a court filing, David S. Robarge, currently the CIA's chief historian, said that "the mere possibility that an initial draft could be released to the public would undoubtedly chill open and frank deliberations" that go into creating CIA histories. "The release of an unfinished draft of CIA history risks placing inaccurate or incomplete information into the public domain,'' Robarge said in a statement to the court. The CIA's concern is the draft "will confuse the public,'' Kornbluh said. "Certainly the public is astute enough to judge for itself.'' Ironically, Pfeiffer, who died in 1997, tried to have both Volume IV and V declassified in the mid-1980s because he wanted to write about them after he left the CIA. Pfeiffer wrote the bulk of the official Bay of Pigs history from 1973 until 1979 but continued to work on it until his retirement from the CIA in 1984. Volume IV is Pfeiffer's rebuttal of the findings of a Presidential Commission headed by the late Army Gen. Maxwell Taylor on the failed invasion. Pfeiffer took issue with the Taylor critique, saying it gave a "bum rap" to the CIA for "a political decision that insured the military defeat of the anti-Castro forces.'' That was a reference to President Kennedy's decision not to provide overt air cover to the invading Brigade 2506. Previously released documents show that Kennedy clung to the idea that the Bay of Pigs invasion must remain covert even though planners had doubt months before that it could succeed as a secret mission. The CIA released the Taylor critique but successfully fought declassification of Volume V. The National Security Archive noted in a memorandum filed with the court that the circumstances were different then because Volume V was only five years old at the time and it appeared a final "official'' version of the document was forthcoming. Now the document is nearly three decades old but is still in draft form. There is no indication that it will be finished. In the 1980s, Kenneth McDonald, Pfeiffer's successor as CIA historian, made an argument similar to the CIA's current objections: release of the document "could seriously impair the ongoing historical manuscript review process.'' McDonald also said that in his judgment the draft "had serious deficiencies as a historical study.'' But in court papers, The National Security Archive said the U.S. government has released draft material under FOIA and labeled it accordingly in the past and could release Volume V "with an appropriate disclaimer if it deems such a condition necessary to clarify the status of the document.''
Who is to blame for the failure has been debated for the past five decades. Lyman Kirkpatrick, who wrote the inspector general's report, cited "a tendency in the agency to gloss over CIA inadequacies and to attempt to fix all of the blame for the failure of the invasion upon other elements of the government'' in a cover letter to the 1961 report.
In contrast, Pfeiffer's account "tried to fully pin the blame for the historic calamity on the Kennedy White House,'' said Peter Kornbluh, senior analyst at The National Security Archive. "Pfeiffer pushed the line that Kennedy was responsible and his brother Bobby helped transfer blame to the CIA.''
The Washington-based nonprofit research institute and library filed a lawsuit last year on the 50th anniversary of the invasion, asking for declassification of all five volumes in the official history. Previous requests for the documents under the Freedom of Information Act had been unsuccessful. Volume III was actually released in 1998 but the world was unaware of it until David Barrett, a Villanova University professor, found it in 2005 at the National Archives Kennedy Assassination Records Collection in a box marked "CIA miscellaneous.'' Last summer, in response to The National Security Archive lawsuit, the CIA released more than 1,200 pages of "The Official History of the Bay of Pigs Operation,'' but it held onto the fifth volume. "More than 50 years after the failed invasion, the CIA continues to try and hide this dramatic history from public scrutiny,'' Kornbluh said. The National Security Archive has continued to fight for release of the fifth volume in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. in a case before Judge Gladys Kessler.The CIA has argued that the final volume can't be released because it is "an internal draft of a CIA history that was never approved for release or publication.'' In a court filing, David S. Robarge, currently the CIA's chief historian, said that "the mere possibility that an initial draft could be released to the public would undoubtedly chill open and frank deliberations" that go into creating CIA histories. "The release of an unfinished draft of CIA history risks placing inaccurate or incomplete information into the public domain,'' Robarge said in a statement to the court. The CIA's concern is the draft "will confuse the public,'' Kornbluh said. "Certainly the public is astute enough to judge for itself.'' Ironically, Pfeiffer, who died in 1997, tried to have both Volume IV and V declassified in the mid-1980s because he wanted to write about them after he left the CIA. Pfeiffer wrote the bulk of the official Bay of Pigs history from 1973 until 1979 but continued to work on it until his retirement from the CIA in 1984. Volume IV is Pfeiffer's rebuttal of the findings of a Presidential Commission headed by the late Army Gen. Maxwell Taylor on the failed invasion. Pfeiffer took issue with the Taylor critique, saying it gave a "bum rap" to the CIA for "a political decision that insured the military defeat of the anti-Castro forces.'' That was a reference to President Kennedy's decision not to provide overt air cover to the invading Brigade 2506. Previously released documents show that Kennedy clung to the idea that the Bay of Pigs invasion must remain covert even though planners had doubt months before that it could succeed as a secret mission. The CIA released the Taylor critique but successfully fought declassification of Volume V. The National Security Archive noted in a memorandum filed with the court that the circumstances were different then because Volume V was only five years old at the time and it appeared a final "official'' version of the document was forthcoming. Now the document is nearly three decades old but is still in draft form. There is no indication that it will be finished. In the 1980s, Kenneth McDonald, Pfeiffer's successor as CIA historian, made an argument similar to the CIA's current objections: release of the document "could seriously impair the ongoing historical manuscript review process.'' McDonald also said that in his judgment the draft "had serious deficiencies as a historical study.'' But in court papers, The National Security Archive said the U.S. government has released draft material under FOIA and labeled it accordingly in the past and could release Volume V "with an appropriate disclaimer if it deems such a condition necessary to clarify the status of the document.''
03-07-2016, 12:00 PM
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Really good stuff, Dan is so honest it hurts.
http://aarclibrary.org/wp-content/upload...ration.pdf
Indeed, Jim. A lot being discussed on this at Jeff Morley's site, with a wealth of information in the comments section dug up by your 'protege', Tom Scully.
03-07-2016, 06:27 PM
I'm now reading what Tom Scully posted sometime ago. And, to learn that WerBell was a member of the boat Venus and associated himself with JURE. I remember that Posada told me the boat Venus was owned by Gordon Campbell who was at the Ambassador Hotel the night RFK was assassinated.
I know that WerBell dealt in selling silencers for weapons.
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?...3&tab=page
I know that WerBell dealt in selling silencers for weapons.
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?...3&tab=page
03-07-2016, 07:08 PM
In September, 1966, Irving Richard Poyle was reported to be imprisoned in Cuba and accused of crimes against the state.:
What crime, according to Poyle, he was arrested for trying to illegally leave Cuba, ask yourself this, what was Poyle doing in Cuba in the first place?
1. 1966 was the same year Tony Cuesta got caught with Eugenio.
2. The CIA sent in Tony, Eugenio and Poyle believing they would all be killed in Cuba, yes, I provide proof.
3. The CIA didn't expect Poyle to return from Cuba, when he did, he immediately infiltrates [KAISER,] why?
4. Why would my father be showing photos off to Aldo Vera, "Nino" Diaz including Richard Poyle and others around August 3, 1973?
5. If they were photos of individuals taken by Luis Castiilo in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, then, is it possible that Kaiser stole the photos from the CIA? And, were those photos my father's free get-out-of-jail card he played often?
6. If more proof is needed just ask yourself this, what was Watergate truly about, and were all the burglars including my father involved with Cuba and her problems? If so, then what would Kennedy's assassination be about? Can you surmise that his assassination was also over Cuba?
7. The CIA had also sent Poyle into Cuba, why?
8. Wasn't Irving Richard Poyle handled by CIA agent Oliver E. Fortson while at CIA station in Mexico City on 11/21/1963? And wasn't Fortson's handler Win Scott who helped create we have Oswald on tape and we have photos of Oswald in Mexico story?
9. Just why was Poyle's debriefing and trip to Mexico never disclosed?
10. Why did the CIA lie and say Poyle's trip to Mexico was to met his wife when his wife was still in Miami, and then, the CIA says Poyle was there for a debriefing, however, this debriefing was never disclosed?
11. Isn't Luis Castillo Eddie Bayo's brother-in-law?
12. There's no reason I should keep rehashing the same thing over and over either, you all enjoy researching, now, find answers to these questions, and you will see what I'm talking about.
What crime, according to Poyle, he was arrested for trying to illegally leave Cuba, ask yourself this, what was Poyle doing in Cuba in the first place?
1. 1966 was the same year Tony Cuesta got caught with Eugenio.
2. The CIA sent in Tony, Eugenio and Poyle believing they would all be killed in Cuba, yes, I provide proof.
3. The CIA didn't expect Poyle to return from Cuba, when he did, he immediately infiltrates [KAISER,] why?
4. Why would my father be showing photos off to Aldo Vera, "Nino" Diaz including Richard Poyle and others around August 3, 1973?
5. If they were photos of individuals taken by Luis Castiilo in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, then, is it possible that Kaiser stole the photos from the CIA? And, were those photos my father's free get-out-of-jail card he played often?
6. If more proof is needed just ask yourself this, what was Watergate truly about, and were all the burglars including my father involved with Cuba and her problems? If so, then what would Kennedy's assassination be about? Can you surmise that his assassination was also over Cuba?
7. The CIA had also sent Poyle into Cuba, why?
8. Wasn't Irving Richard Poyle handled by CIA agent Oliver E. Fortson while at CIA station in Mexico City on 11/21/1963? And wasn't Fortson's handler Win Scott who helped create we have Oswald on tape and we have photos of Oswald in Mexico story?
9. Just why was Poyle's debriefing and trip to Mexico never disclosed?
10. Why did the CIA lie and say Poyle's trip to Mexico was to met his wife when his wife was still in Miami, and then, the CIA says Poyle was there for a debriefing, however, this debriefing was never disclosed?
11. Isn't Luis Castillo Eddie Bayo's brother-in-law?
12. There's no reason I should keep rehashing the same thing over and over either, you all enjoy researching, now, find answers to these questions, and you will see what I'm talking about.
03-07-2016, 07:31 PM
^Edited.