The JFK Files: Rhetoric vs. Truth

[W. Tracy Parnell]

"Conspiracy theorist Jefferson Morley should learn to choose his friends more carefully"

Jeff Morley isn't a "Conspiracy Theorist". He has never proposed his own alternative theory of how JFK was killed. Morley, like Josiah Thompson, Cyril Wecht, John Newman, and other JFK researchers are just skeptics of the Warren Report narrative.

Some in the JFK research community ARE conspiracy theorists but you're widely missing the mark if you put all JFK assassination researchers in the same bucket.

Unfortunately, he is now a conspiracy theorist in my book. Which is a shame considering his former position as a journalist.  Consider theses quotes from his most recent book:

"The likelihood that there was a conspiracy, that the killing was not the work of a lone assassin, remains the conclusion best informed by the preponderance of the publicly available evidence."

"Perhaps now, observant people can understand how JFK’s enemies pulled off the 'greatest magic trick under the sun,' how they made Oswald a patsy for their crime. They did it with covert psychological warfare schemes, like the AMSPELL program, whose workings are still protected by state secrecy."

"[Joannides] certainly obstructed HSCA investigators who wanted to know more about the agency’s knowledge of the accused assassin (or patsy) as he made his way to Dallas."

I guess we could argue semantics, but this is "conspiracy speak" to me.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Unfortunately, he is now a conspiracy theorist in my book. Which is a shame considering his former position as a journalist.  Consider theses quotes from his most recent book:

"The likelihood that there was a conspiracy, that the killing was not the work of a lone assassin, remains the conclusion best informed by the preponderance of the publicly available evidence."

"Perhaps now, observant people can understand how JFK’s enemies pulled off the 'greatest magic trick under the sun,' how they made Oswald a patsy for their crime. They did it with covert psychological warfare schemes, like the AMSPELL program, whose workings are still protected by state secrecy."

"[Joannides] certainly obstructed HSCA investigators who wanted to know more about the agency’s knowledge of the accused assassin (or patsy) as he made his way to Dallas."

I guess we could argue semantics, but this is "conspiracy speak" to me.

If he wrote that "Oswald was a patsy for their crime", that's not a theorist: that's a full throated advocate or believer. I assume "their" is the CIA and Angleton using AMSPELL?

He's now gone from suspecting Joannides had some sort of relationship/contact with Oswald  or used him in some way to now claiming that Joannides was part of a CIA program to use "covert psychological warfare schemes" (whatever the hell that is) to make Oswald a patsy. How is using a pyschological scheme on Oswald make him a patsy? Who killed JFK? How did Oswald's rifle end up in the TSBD?

Morley presents, as far as I can see, no evidence that any of this took place. He admits that the details of AMSPELL are still "state secrets" but also claims to know what those "state secrets" hold. Viz., that Oswald was a "patsy" that was setup by the program. I guess he thinks Oswald left the building shortly after the shooting because he really wanted to see a movie?

Listen to his rhetoric: "state secrecy" and "covert psychological warfare schemes". That's tabloid type language. The National Enquirer needs to hire him.

Morley used to say that Angleton should have been charged with "criminal negligence" for not informing the Secret Service about the threat Oswald posed to JFK. Meaning that Oswald killed JFK. Now he's gone full Alex Jones. What an embarrassment.

[Jon Banks]

Unfortunately, he is now a conspiracy theorist in my book. Which is a shame considering his former position as a journalist.  Consider theses quotes from his most recent book:

"The likelihood that there was a conspiracy, that the killing was not the work of a lone assassin, remains the conclusion best informed by the preponderance of the publicly available evidence."

"Perhaps now, observant people can understand how JFK’s enemies pulled off the 'greatest magic trick under the sun,' how they made Oswald a patsy for their crime. They did it with covert psychological warfare schemes, like the AMSPELL program, whose workings are still protected by state secrecy."

"[Joannides] certainly obstructed HSCA investigators who wanted to know more about the agency’s knowledge of the accused assassin (or patsy) as he made his way to Dallas."

I guess we could argue semantics, but this is "conspiracy speak" to me.

To be a "Conspiracy Theorist" one must have a theory of conspiracy.

Morley to my knowledge has never proposed his own theory of what happened on 11/22/63. If I'm wrong, cite where he has proposed his own theory.

What Morley does is bring attention to factual stuff that suggests that we don't know the entire truth about what led to JFK's assassination.

To me, it seems unreasonable to call anyone who thinks we don't know the entire truth about how JFK was killed, a "conspiracy theorist". There are completely legitimate reasons for speculating about alternative explanations. Far too many coincidences and weird stuff involved with the case to not speculate.

People speculate all the time with other historical events. Why should the JFK assassination be the exception?

[Jon Banks]

If he wrote that "Oswald was a patsy for their crime", that's not a theorist: that's a full throated advocate or believer. I assume "their" is the CIA and Angleton using AMSPELL?

He's now gone from suspecting Joannides had some sort of relationship/contact with Oswald  or used him in some way to now claiming that Joannides was part of a CIA program to use "covert psychological warfare schemes" (whatever the hell that is) to make Oswald a patsy. How is using a pyschological scheme on Oswald make him a patsy? Who killed JFK? How did Oswald's rifle end up in the TSBD?

Morley presents, as far as I can see, no evidence that any of this took place. He admits that the details of AMSPELL are still "state secrets" but also claims to know what those "state secrets" hold. Viz., that Oswald was a "patsy" that was setup by the program. I guess he thinks Oswald left the building shortly after the shooting because he really wanted to see a movie?

Listen to his rhetoric: "state secrecy" and "covert psychological warfare schemes". That's tabloid type language. The National Enquirer needs to hire him.

Morley used to say that Angleton should have been charged with "criminal negligence" for not informing the Secret Service about the threat Oswald posed to JFK. Meaning that Oswald killed JFK. Now he's gone full Alex Jones. What an embarrassment.

As far as I know, Morley has never proposed his own theory or claimed to know who killed JFK.

Saying that I believe Oswald didn't act alone doesn't make me a conspiracy theorist.

Claiming that I know who really killed JFK would make me a conspiracy theorist.

I personally don't think it's implausible that Oswald could've acted alone. I'm just not convinced that he acted alone after three decades of my researching the case.

As noted earlier, even former Sec. of State John Kerry has publicly speculated that Oswald might not have acted alone. Kerry knows far more about national security stuff than you or I.

I've found that in recent years, an increasing number of people with intelligence experience have been more open about JFK assassination speculation (they usually point the finger at Castro not the CIA). And that seems healthy to me. It's not "crazy" or "unhinged" to think we don't know the full truth when there are so many coincidences, problems with the evidence, and confirmed coverups.

What I don't understand about the LN side of the debate is why you refuse to acknowledge that there are legit reasons to speculate about the Kennedy assassination? What are you afraid of?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

To be a "Conspiracy Theorist" one must have a theory of conspiracy.

Morley to my knowledge has never proposed his own theory of what happened on 11/22/63. If I'm wrong, cite where he has proposed his own theory.

No, and neither has anyone else except John Armstrong. That is-they have stated how the plot was done and who did it. But when you try and do that, you wind up with Harvey & Lee or something like it and a list of conspirators longer than your arm. That is why it is much eaiser to write articles saying "we don't know the full truth" even though there is overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt. Once Morley states that Oswald was a "patsy" he is saying someone setup Oswald and that makes it a conspiracy in my book whether he lays out the details of the plot or not. If you disagree, that is ok.

[Jon Banks]

No, and neither has anyone else except John Armstrong. That is-they have stated how the plot was done and who did it. But when you try and do that, you wind up with Harvey & Lee or something like it and a list of conspirators longer than your arm. That is why it is much eaiser to write articles saying "we don't know the full truth" even though there is overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt. Once Morley states that Oswald was a "patsy" he is saying someone setup Oswald and that makes it a conspiracy in my book whether he lays out the details of the plot or not. If you disagree, that is ok.

There literally are hundreds of researchers who have proposed theories about "who" killed Kennedy. If you want to go after the low hanging fruit of researchers who say "there were dozens of snipers in Dealey Plaza" or that "Oswald had a doppelgänger since childhood", be my guest.

Whatever you think of Morley's opinions, he's a solid journalist who sticks to the verifiable facts in the case.

But even factual things can be open to more than one interpretation. That's where the speculation comes in.

[Bill Chapman]

[Steve M. Galbraith]

To be a "Conspiracy Theorist" one must have a theory of conspiracy.

Morley to my knowledge has never proposed his own theory of what happened on 11/22/63. If I'm wrong, cite where he has proposed his own theory.

What Morley does is bring attention to factual stuff that suggests that we don't know the entire truth about what led to JFK's assassination.

To me, it seems unreasonable to call anyone who thinks we don't know the entire truth about how JFK was killed, a "conspiracy theorist". There are completely legitimate reasons for speculating about alternative explanations. Far too many coincidences and weird stuff involved with the case to not speculate.

People speculate all the time with other historical events. Why should the JFK assassination be the exception?

Jon: Tracy quotes Morley as saying that "Oswald was a patsy for their crime." Their is the CIA, presumably Angleton and counter intelligence. The crime is the assassination of JFK.

That's a conspiracy believer. The fact that he doesn't present a detailed explanation as to how it was done is secondary. He's clearly gone from asking fair questions about Joannide and what CI knew or didn't know about Oswald. And whether he was the target of some operation to embarrass the FPCC and Castro. Fine, ask away. But he's gone much further than simply asking questions. He's making claims.

As to speculation: There's a difference between people speculating about who shot JFK or whether FDR knew about Pearl Harbor or other historic events - fine we ask the types of questions about controversial events all of the time - and a professional journalist known for his work on the assassination publicly making these claims. Morley is often cited or quoted by the media on this matter. He's not a nobody here.

He's given a platform to express his views. He'll have to be held accountable for them. Just as he does to lone assassin believers.