Morley v. Reynolds

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Conspiracy theorist and gadfly Jefferson Morley is at it again.

This time, Morley has taken umbrage with an article by Robert Reynolds that is critical of him and his incessant (and mostly inaccurate) assertions. The purpose of Morley’s rejoinder (originally posted on a private email group) is ostensibly to correct the “facts” that Reynolds was “wrong” about. But in “correcting” Reynolds, Morley is guilty of his own errors and unsupported statements. Some of these he is aware of yet he continues to unabashedly promote these bits of misinformation. Let’s take a look. Morley’s assertions are in blockquotes.

Continue Reading Here: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/01/morley-v-reynolds.html

[Gerry Down]

Impressive article. Nice little nuggets of info there. But one point - CIA Headquarters never passed on the June and August 1962 Fain fbi reports to Mexico city station when they responded to the Mexico city station in oct 1963. Jane Roman never explains why these fbi reports were not passed on to Mexico city station. Those reports demonstrated that Oswald had not cooperated with US authorities upon his return to USA. That should have been a relevant point CIA Headquarters should have passed on to Mexico city station. Oswald not not matured like they said.

[Jon Banks]

Every Conspiracy that was proven to have been true began as a "Theory".

So I don't understand why it's a bad thing to speculate about Conspiracies. The CIA and the media do it all the time with foreign adversaries like Putin and Xi and even domestic villains like Donald Trump. They speculate frequently about stuff that may not be true and sometimes is proven not to be true.

However, I don't agree that Morley is a "Conspiracy Theorist" because he never proposes his own alternate theory of what actually happened in the Kennedy assassination. He merely documents factual yet suspicious behavior by the US government surrounding the JFK assassination. While you may disagree with his interpretations of certain factual information, Morley for the most part discusses facts not theories.

That the US government behaved suspiciously following the Kennedy assassination and engaged in cover ups is no longer a "theory", it's an established FACT.

Only a person in denial would argue in 2022 that it's a "theory" that the government tried to cover up information about Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination...

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Every Conspiracy that was proven to have been true began as a "Theory".

So I don't understand why it's a bad thing to speculate about Conspiracies. The CIA and the media do it all the time with foreign adversaries like Putin and Xi and even domestic villains like Donald Trump. They speculate frequently about stuff that may not be true and sometimes is proven not to be true.

My article is targeted at Morley not the average Joe posting on forums as a hobby. I am concerned about Morley because he is what is known as a "social media influencer" and also has sufficient pull to be able to appear on C-Span and other networks. He is spreading misinformation (for example) that the JFK files contain significant information when he doesn't know what they contain. Perhaps even more serious, he has lately started attacking Alecia Long with false allegations that she is a lone gunman advocate who is smearing all conspiracy people. But Long's book offers no theory of the assassination and indeed is not about the assassination. It is about Garrison's homophobic investigation of Clay Shaw.

However, I don't agree that Morley is a "Conspiracy Theorist" because he never proposes his own alternate theory of what actually happened in the Kennedy assassination. He merely documents factual yet suspicious behavior by the US government surrounding the JFK assassination. While you may disagree with his interpretations of certain factual information, Morley for the most part discusses facts not theories.

As I explained to you in another thread, Morley says that Oswald was a "patsy." That means he believes someone else pulled the trigger on JFK. So, he is a conspiracy theorist by definition. And he used to discuss facts. Now, he is working out of the same playbook as Stone and DiEugenio-anything goes in service of the cause. This is why I am concerned about him and will continue to report on his shenanigans.

[Jon Banks]

My article is targeted at Morley not the average Joe posting on forums as a hobby. I am concerned about Morley because he is what is known as a "social media influencer" and also has sufficient pull to be able to appear on C-Span and other networks. He is spreading misinformation (for example) that the JFK files contain significant information when he doesn't know what they contain. Perhaps even more serious, he has lately started attacking Alecia Long with false allegations that she is a lone gunman advocate who is smearing all conspiracy people. But Long's book offers no theory of the assassination and indeed is not about the assassination. It is about Garrison's homophobic investigation of Clay Shaw.



As I explained to you in another thread, Morley says that Oswald was a "patsy." That means he believes someone else pulled the trigger on JFK. So, he is a conspiracy theorist by definition. And he used to discuss facts. Now, he is working out of the same playbook as Stone and DiEugenio-anything goes in service of the cause. This is why I am concerned about him and will continue to report on his shenanigans.

It’s quite clear that Morely’s respect from the mainstream media and platform is what bothers you.

My advice is to set your feelings aside and accept that speculation about the JFK assassination will never end. There will always be room for speculation or “Conspiracy Theories” because many of the remaining questions about the Kennedy assassination will never be answered.

[John Iacoletti]

But Long's book offers no theory of the assassination and indeed is not about the assassination. It is about Garrison's homophobic investigation of Clay Shaw.

What is her evidence that Garrison investigated Shaw based on his sexual orientation?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

What is her evidence that Garrison investigated Shaw based on his sexual orientation?

I haven't had a chance to read the book yet. But she told me by email that she has no theory of the assassination one way or another. The book is about the Garrison investigation as opposed to the assassination.