The JFK Files: Rhetoric vs. Truth

[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.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

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.

I am not aware of anyone but Armstrong who has said (specifically) what individual committed the crime, where they were shooting from, what the physical evidence for that shooting position is and so on. Any such theory, to be viable, would have to explain how they framed Oswald. I am speaking about published authors not people who bloviate on forums. Now, my memory is not what it used to be, but I don't recall any book with those specifics that is believable.

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

No he's not anymore and that is the tragedy. You can follow my debates with Morley at these links:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/07/veciana-and-cia.html

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/another-slobbering-love-affair.html

Just a few examples. Morley said that Veciana was a CIA agent (that is a person who was employed by the agency). He was not. He was a registed asset at one point but never used. Morley accepted Veciana's claim that he was the brains behind the Pedro Pan exodus. There is no evidence for this assertion beyond Veciana's word. Morley said Veciana "definately" had a "relationship with David Phillips. Again, only verified by Veciana.

So, Morley is now acting as an activist for a position rather than a journalist.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I am not aware of anyone but Armstrong who has said (specifically) what individual committed the crime, where they were shooting from, what the physical evidence for that shooting position is and so on. Any such theory, to be viable, would have to explain how they framed Oswald. I am speaking about published authors not people who bloviate on forums. Now, my memory is not what it used to be, but I don't recall any book with those specifics that is believable.

No he's not anymore and that is the tragedy. You can follow my debates with Morley at these links:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/07/veciana-and-cia.html

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/another-slobbering-love-affair.html

Just a few examples. Morley said that Veciana was a CIA agent (that is a person who was employed by the agency). He was not. He was a registed asset at one point but never used. Morley accepted Veciana's claim that he was the brains behind the Pedro Pan exodus. There is no evidence for this assertion beyond Veciana's word. Morley said Veciana "definately" had a "relationship with David Phillips. Again, only verified by Veciana.

So, Morley is now acting as an activist for a position rather than a journalist.

Anyone who has followed Morley's writings on this event can see that he is no longer simply asking questions; he's making explicit claims now. He's a "the CIA killed JFK" believer and not a "Did the CIA kill JFK" questioner. Questions are fine; outright claims are different.

Although my guess is that he'll walk back some of those statements. He's done this quite often.

[Jon Banks]

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.

I'm not sure if that's the exact quote. Do you have a link to it?

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.

Exactly. Which is why some so desperately want to discredit him.

But Morley has that platform because he IS a credible JFK assassination researcher.

Another JFK assassination researcher often cited in mainstream media publications is Phil Shenon. He seems to imply that Castro knew of Oswald's plans. What are your thoughts on Shenon?