Comment of the week

Charles – January 20

Here is a another conspiracy theory.

This site seems to have taken a strange turn in the last few months.

Mr. Morely was interviewed by Alan Dale a while ago and he was quite contemptuous of the term conspiracy, noting that it was antithetical and counterproductive to a discussion which ought to focus on facts.

Now we are here discussing conspiracy theory on a site called JFK Facts.

I don’t like it. It feels clickbaity as the kids say.

33 thoughts on “Comment of the week”

  1. During his lifetime Gaeton wrote that he was not a conspiracy theorist, but a conspiracy believer. On p. 408 of THE LAST INVESTIGATION he wrote “And, yes, one of the opinions I’ve come to is that the issue of conspiracy is not contestable.” He went on to explain that two pieces of evidence irrefutably verified a conspiracy: the discrediting of the Single Bullet Theory and Sylvia Odio’s report. “Why,” he might now ask, “are you wasting valuable time disputing the use of the word which describes what is blatantly obvious?”

  2. The word conspiracy has become ingrained in the subject of the JFK assassination. That’s because it was a conspiracy IMO and 60-80% of the people in the USA depending on who you believe.
    Conspiracies are part of our society from two people decide to rob a bank, one holds it up, one drives the getaway car, to, the corporate boardrooms of banks and oil companies among others, and yes possibly certain persons in the CIA in 1963.
    As I’ve said on another thread it’s the word theory that bugs me.
    Yes there are discredited “theories”, e.g. the Secret Service Agent did it, or James Files (disinformation? Mockingbird?).
    But that there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination is not theory to me. It’s fact. I say this almost exclusively from reading the work of researchers who have dug through files and interviewed people over the last 53 years. The Warren Omission had theories about Oswald acting alone which have fallen apart.
    I realize those in the media must do as their editors say and not discuss it because their livelihood depends on it.
    But the reality of it all is in spite of Operation Mockingbird I, and that other 60-80% of U.S. Citizens are not conspiracy theorists but Conspiracy Realists.

    1. I agree. I think there is an abundance of evidence that proves that there was a conspiracy as well as a conspiracy to cover up. To me the theorizing isn’t about whether or not there was a conspiracy. The theorizing is about who was involved at various levels and who the primary organizers were and how it was put together.

  3. I am not persuaded that the introduction of additional comments critical of other commenters will be responsive to the observations actually presented in this comment of the week. If you are disappointed, unhappy, or suspicious with or about or what you read here, consider that no commenter is directly responsible for any of this site’s content. Before clicking on the “Post Comment” block ask yourself if you would approve what you are intending to submit, considering the impression it could make on all who submit subsequently.

  4. Why verbally spar over a contrived and purely derogatory terminology coined by the very entity that condemns honest inquiry into the morass of the JFK murder? Since the CIA has shot itself in the foot with the infamous “conspiracy theory” memo, one has to infer that CIA continues to have a vested interest in down-playing any and all conspiracies related to JFK. The CIA is the master creator of conspiracies evidenced by their incessant and diabolical toppling of legitimate heads of state to install their butchering puppets across the globe. Those of us seeking the truth need not adopt, of fear the CIA’s use of the term “conspiracy theory,” because the Warren Omission is equally a “conspiracy theory” proffered on tainted evidence and specious arguments presented to condemn Oswald as the only gunman shooting at JFK. Killing Oswald was part of the conspiracy to facilitate his public vilification; thus, allowing the real murderers to escape justice. The Warrenati subscribe to this most egregious hoax perpetrated by that most august body of contemptuous deceivers (read: Warren Omission), who themselves were deceived by professional liars within the FBI, CIA, and other defense and intel-agencies – even LBJ in the WHITE HOUSE. No, my truth seeking fellows, should we accept their terminology we submit to allowing them to name us. Then we are no longer free. Let us forever be known as TRUTH SEEKERS; and, let us be patient and content knowing we shall prevail. “Truth crushed to the ground shall always rise.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

    1. Well written Kennedy63.

      The truth is out there and we are getting closer to it. If you shake the Texas Book Depository-so many explanations, dodges, lies, autopsy photos, contrived answers, lost questions, dead witnesses, trajectory foibles, erased tapes, a girl on the stairs, a Posner on the toilet, a Tippit on the street, the magic bullet rabbit hatted on a gurney.

      Not even Photon or the other guy (our Dulles twins) can put it back together again. We need to think of the entire case as a Pinata, and keep hitting it until everything falls out.

      It will.

      Like to think of Edward R. Murrow to paraphrase-just before he went on the air to dismantle Joe McCarthy, “The conspiracy is right here. Right here in this room.”

      1. Well said yourself Marty. What was the name of the recent Murrow movie? I’d like to watch it again. I watched it recently late at night and was falling asleep towards the end but it was very good.

        1. I was referencing Good Night and Good Luck 2005.
          Of course Murrow’s exit line. Funny that Keith Olbermann used it for his exit line on MSNBC. Cute!

          I prefer the PBS Murrow project on American Experience where his staff contributed to the narrative on camera. Have shown it to my classes

          Good Night and Good Luck a George Clooney project. Nominated for a number of Academy Awards.

          1. “Good Night and Good Luck a George Clooney project.”~martyfeeney

            Great movie! I have it on DVD. Have watched it quite a few times. The guy that plays Murrow captures him to a tee!

            I will have to check this one out:
            PBS Murrow project on American Experience


  5. I suppose I will take door #3 and pick “that is not the point.”

    What disturbs me is that the term “conspiracy theory” incubates a distinct form cognitive dissonance which destroys the legitimacy of whatever theory about whatever conspiracy is under discussion. This is why the term was coined by the CIA and is forever linked to space aliens and Area 51, the Illuminati, fake moon landings, shape shifting lizard people, black helicopters and everything else on the likes of Alex Jones, David Ike or Coast to Coast AM.

    The linkage of “conspiracy theory” (as distinct from a theory about a conspiracy) to JFK gives anyone the power and license to dismiss any concern or argument, even if they know better. The rebooting this year of the X-Files TV series features a neo-nazi angle that seems remarkably on point with David Talbot’s book on Dulles. A coincidence? Who knows, but damage will be done now that his arguments and evidence are placed on the same footing as a TV entertainment about paranoia and the parsing of delusion.

    Conspiracy theory is just a psycho-linguistic poison that should never be willingly associated with a responsible discussion of JFK. People in power lie all the time, they think it’s part of the job. They know full well they lie and they don’t care, they are proud of their skill. As long as they can hang onto the slightest shred of dignity, they will maintain a straight face and hang on to a lie. Facts, reason, proofs, arguments, count for nothing. Their lies are only overcome when they can no longer lie to THEMSELVES. As long as their opponents can be tarred with accusations of conspiracy theory, they will never break.

    1. Charles,

      I agree with every word you just put to your comment. But WE are not the ones calling ourselves “conspiracy theorists” – that was my point.

      There is little to be done about the term, as it has become weaponized since that CIA memo.

      I am pleased you got this comment of the week, I think more needs to be addressed here on general terms as to what we are up against here with the Public Relations Regime and constant 24/7 psychological conditioning on both TV and in so-called “education” as well as other modes of information.

  6. Who is this “Charles” and what does it matter what he thinks?

    We are in a tug’o’war with propagandists who accuse us of being “conspiracy theorists”, this is not a term we chose for ourselves, nor is the term “buffs”.

    I consider myself a conspiracy analyst and a historical researcher. I do my very best to stick to the ‘facts’ as I can determine them to be. These are complex issues, and they are made more complex by the propagandists here that use every technique in the playbook to turn threads here into carousels of relitigation. They are spin-doctors, and some are certainly professionals at their game.

    One of the “facts” we are attempting to establish here is that there are cointel, Sunsteinian, CIA asset spooks working these pages — as there are on any Internet website these days. This is not a theory, it is established fact, and anyone who has read Cass Sunstein’s book on Conspiracy theories understands this. See:


    1. Willy Whitten
      January 26, 2016 at 11:22 pm

      “Who is this “Charles” and what does it matter what he thinks?”

      Could we not say the same about you?

      “We are in a tug’o’war with propagandists who accuse us of being “conspiracy theorists”, this is not a term we chose for ourselves, nor is the term “buffs”.”

      Nor is the term “Lone Nutter”. If you could come up with a tag for each side that would satisfy everyone that would be a biggie for you. Until then…..

      “I consider myself a conspiracy analyst and a historical researcher. I do my very best to stick to the ‘facts’ as I can determine them to be.”

      In my major interest here, JFK/Vietnam War, your lack of knowledge on this subject indicates a lack of personal research and a blind acceptance of the Camelot crowd’s propaganda.

      1. Your knowledge of this subject is also lacking. Did LBJ and company start the war? When was the invasion of Vietnam again? LBJ invaded Vietnam in 1964. How many conscripts (not CIA flunkies) were there in 1963?

        How many conscripts (not CIA flunkies) are in Syria? Are we at war? Why?

  7. Charles, You de man, as we say here in the States. If I may translate your comment into a British and American argot we can all understand — What the bloody ‘ell is the discrepancy, the conflict, between conspiracy and fact? Facts about conspiracies are still facts, innit?

    I see what you’re getting at. Maybe we should say plan or plot or scheme or collusion or contrivance or machination or intrigue or photon, so not to offend delicate ears. Is the word “conspiracy” some spooky, scary word that invokes evil spirits or the NSA? Shortly after JFKA, CIA put out a memo ALWAYS to sneer at anything that deviates from the party line by calling it “conspiracy theory,” forever consigning both words to shame. America’s problem is the FEAR of calling a bloody rotten conspiracy a bloody rotten conspiracy.

    P.S. Please don’t tell QE II I said “bloody.” She may think less of us Yanks.
    PPS Maybe you, David Regan, Ronnie Wayne, Leslie Sharp, and all the other genuine Conspiracy Researchers can start a website that isn’t scared of the plain-as-day facts of conspiracy. Willie Whitten would be great if he had a forum where he didn’t have to spend half his time rebutting the wankers.

    1. Roy and Willy:

      I have not thought that long about it but I think I like the term theories about conspiracy.

      The slightly awkward grammar makes it difficult to read or say without consciously distinguishing it from the slander of conspiracy theory.

      Like a verbal Judo flip, perhaps theories about conspiracy could make the accusations of conspiracy theory re JFK sound irrational and biased.

      1. Charles,

        I think it is fruitless to attempt to parse the technical meaning of the term “theory” as a scientific hypothesis with the generally ignorant public. I would therefore forgo any mention of the term ‘theory’ in any manner when discussing the facts of conspiracies as we entertain them.

        I have spent a great deal of time studying the psychology and sociology of this current culture. I have come to the conclusion that this is in fact a pathological society we are ensconced within, one driven mad by the psychopaths running the system.
        You may be interested in this thread from my blog which deals with the history of Indoctrination in the guise of “education:

        I would also highly recommend reading Antony Sutton’s ‘SKULL & BONES’ which gives one of the best histories of the imposition of the Prussian warehousing method of indoctrination of the youth from Kindergarten to University.

        1. I think you are probably right about the fruitlessness of word games on a mass audience driven mad by a lack of any rational connection between the stated aims of governmental policy and their actual results.

          A book you might like if you have not already read it is as Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture by Mark Fenster. He is a professor of law at the University of Florida.

          There are two editions of the book written ten years apart (pre and post 9/11) and I must recommend both as they are quite different. The evolution of his thinking as demonstrated by the two editions is rather striking.

          I would recommend the books to anyone seeking to ward off the attacks of propagandists or other cointel types. The effective presentation of information not supported by officialdom is difficult. The author may not offer perfect solutions but he effectively identifies and reasons through most traps.

          1. Charles,

            Having just read this:

            Mark Fenster
            On his book Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture (revised and updated edition)
            At this link:


            I must say that I would not take the time to read the whole book. The reason is that I am not in the slightest bit interested in “Conspiracy Theories”. I think it a great waste of time to think on that level.

            I am not here to discuss ‘conspiracy theories’, I am here to discuss historical facts and reasoned analysis of those facts.

            But thank you for your input!

          2. Willy I think you are right again, bringing us full circle to the starting point of this whole subject. Conspiracy theory always mutates into a rat`s nest of confusion, so don`t go there.

      2. Roy W Kornbluth

        Charles, I have a big favor to ask.
        We True Historians over here are hurting. The Lone Nutters have us at a disadvantage. THEY got to name THEMselves when they came up with their theory that one crazy guy (the Nut part, which also conveniently dispenses with the motive, no motive), all by his Lone-some caused 7 torso wounds with at least 3 shots on the 2 most powerful men in Texas at the time, including the most powerful man in the world — AND shot out that same most powerful man in the world’s brains with at least 2 shots — AND caused at least 4 bullet marks in the limo — AND caused at least 4 bullet marks around the limo. From 5 different directions, 5 different locations. With a WWI rifle that may not have been fired. All in 6 seconds. Now it’s true that they have been able to distort, suppress and destroy most of the evidence, turning at least 9 gunshots from 5 places into 3 gunshots from 1 place. But still. Lone Nut encapsulates their whole theory into 2 short, sweet words, 2 syllables!, a mere 6 phonemes.

        Contrast that with the bummer of a fancy-schmancy tongue-twister they laid on us. There must be many better expressions for the good guys in this dispute. I have racked my brain these many years. All the “CR”s don’t cut it. Conspiracy Reporter is okay; Researcher sounds ivory tower; Realist is way too abstract. Conspiracy Analyst the same, though thanks for trying, Willy. So throw away the whole “conspiracy” framework, right? How about some of these as replacements:
        – sub-rosa admin maneuver-ology (Latin has a legal feel)
        – klepto-crypto political science (Greek sounds scientific), which could be shortened to klep-cryp poli-sci, though it doesn’t roll off the tongue like the good ol’ poli-sci
        – ambush chronicles
        – acronyms are a possibility, sort of like an anti-COINTELPRO or -CREEP.

        You see my problem. I can’t do it. I ain’t got no style. Whereas, YOU are a much published, critically acclaimed, massively popular poet and essayist. And, with your experience running the British mental health department in your salad days and your hobby of writing advert jingles, this is right in your line. I know it’s a lot to ask, but we’re dying of apoplectic frustration over here.

        1. Roy,

          I think we can often get too hung up in labels and brands. I think it is more beneficial to begin with understanding our own conceptualizations, which is a rather philosophical but necessary approach in epistemology.

          One may attempt to, but at the heart of the matter it is difficult to honestly separate the philosophical from the theological, and the attempt to draw a bold border between the two labels is ultimately a futile rhetorical exercise.

          I think that one would benefit from the recognition that all thought is METAPHOR.
          And then to recall that, “Like is Not”.

        2. Roy, if you start out with so many false statements it is no wonder you can’t accept the truth . Nine shots from five different places? Six seconds?
          Comments like that illustrate the conspiracy mindset better than anything I could quote.

          1. Oh Photon:

            “We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody’s yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand.” Jesse Curry

            Sibert rejected the account given by Arlen Specter about the single-bullet theory: “What a liar. I feel he got his orders from above – how far above I don’t know.” James Sibert

            “I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.

            Significantly, the Warren Commission’s conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.

            We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency.

            Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story.

            I am now in that camp.” Robert Blakey

            Comments like the three above from people DIRECTLY involved in the “investigation” of the murder, shows me the mindset and the foolishness of anyone who believes the WO was out to “settle the dust.”

          2. Roy W Kornbluth

            Dear Photon B.,
            As long as you’ve been looking into this matter, I shouldn’t have to hold your hand and walk you through this AGAIN, but since you were so good to me about 40 years ago, here goes anyway:

            At least 6 bullet marks outside the limo caused by at least 4 shots:
            -N side of Elm soon after the turn, which peppered JFK’s face with debris, from Dal-Tex or Harry Weatherstone with his fancy new huntin iron w/scope and sound suppressor, atop Records Building
            -Stemmons sign, probably from TSBD
            -S curb of Elm at the feet of Jean Hill (repeatedly asked about it by SSAs), that probably went on to the manhole cover in the infield S side of Elm
            -from NGK, center of Elm in front of limo that probably went on to hit S curb of Main and send debris into the right side of James Tague’s face, just like the 1st shot did to the right side of JFK’s face
            (this one is third, before Jean Hill’s, but I ain’t retyping it)

            At least 6 shots in the limo:
            -from SGK, in JFK’s throat, through top of right lung, out back between spine and right scapula, about T3-4 level
            -from TSBD, Lee Oswald in 4th or 5th window W of ‘sniper’s nest’ — in JBC’s back near right armpit, out under right nipple — LHO couldn’t stop the assassination of that rare good president, so he was gonna put a hurtin on the Judas on the ground who helped make it all possible
            -ibid TSBD, in JBC’s TOP right wrist, out underside, fragment going into his thigh, fragment denting lower left corner of the chrome plate around ashtray on back of front seat — maybe the most suppressed evidence, or tied with Stemmons sign
            =from low floor of Dal-Tex or hungover George Hickey waving his AR-15 around like a maniac, perhaps glancing blow to JFK right parietal (if that part of Zapruder isn’t manufactured), going on to BIG ding in chrome windshield frame, back of rearview mirror, crack windshield
            -from SGK, in JFK left temple (seen by Father Huber and Dr. Jenkins at Parkland and morticians at Gawler’s, plugged with wax), then blew out right occiput
            -from NGK, a frangible in right temple, out nowhere

            P.[sic] B.: I’m onto you playing Devil’s (or Angel’s?) Advocate to elicit info for some undeclared purpose. I can’t be, indefinitely, your phenomena-explaining servant. How about a little contribution from YOU?

          1. Roy W Kornbluth

            Charles, I have It or pretty close. It came to me on a flaming pie while I was listening to your good mate Paul McCartney’s album of the same name. Instead of Conspiracy Theory…. Cabal Exposee, acute accent on the last e. From now on when someone asks me what I do in my spare time, I’ll say, “I expose cabals. I’m a Cabal Exposer. I used to be a poser, but now I’m an ex-poser, an Exposer.” Deposer may work also; it has legal ring to it. We can use that title when we’re interrogating witnesses; e.g., “So, Mr. Dulles, your desk diary says you were home in D. C. the weekend before Thanksgiving 1963. But where were you REALLY?!”

            Also, the abbreviation CE is gold, reminiscent of Common Era. The plural, CEs, elides to “sees” as in “Man, that Kornbluth really sees what’s going on.” CD is good too, like the audio format, very musical.

            Your professional opinion?

          2. Roy W Kornbluth

            PS Charles, Curious historical note about the word cabal — it comes from Latin through the French of course, and it came into favour in GB during the Restoration under Charles II, one of your namesakes. The funny part is that it’s also an acronym of five of his leading ministers.

            So we can do a Judo flip with the crappy meaning of whatever the Restoration was, I think it’s bad, and turn it into a good thing. Like turning a curse into a blessing. Like changing “A pox on their house” to “A pAx on their house.”

          3. Roy W Kornbluth

            pps Charles, Yes of course you are a master of disguise. I will never reveal your name (though if YOU did it would lend some cachet to this site) because, one, it wouldn’t be right and, two, I am still, and always will be, scared of your sisters, especially the singer-songwriter-tax expert-pro athlete. In me dotage, I can no longer outrun her and, to rip off David Bowie, “She can kick like a mule; it’s a real mean scene.” So I like to stay in her good graces.

  8. This is a criticism I have read from several commenters lately, and it influences me to wonder, “compared to what?”

    What can we do that would keep it real? My back is not itchy, and I doubt Jeff’s is either. Believe it or not, Jeff and I do what we
    do here, independently. I’ve never selected or suggested a topic other than “Comment of the week,” which is the only content
    related responsibility Jeff proposed that I initiate. This is the 14th “Comment of the week,” and Jeff has not proposed any
    comment as “Comment of the week”. My vision for this website, influenced by the state of JFK Assassination articles on Wikipedia
    and the presentation of JFK Assassination facts vs. assumptions by journalists and their editors, and my experiences visiting other websites and participating on a few of them is for this to be a place where vetted information from competing sources is to be found, if it indeed exists. Many of you are familiar with Jeff’s opinions about this, and he did select me as comments editor.

    Trust the facts. Easy to say, but what are they? Everyone who comments here has their own opinions, standards of evidence, and their own methodology.

    Is there too much emphasis here on facts, evidence, or not enough, or is that not the point?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top