I am currently undergoing the deepest experience of self-doubt I’ve ever known. This may well be the last post I ever write — period! As I’ve grown older, my concern with trying to be responsible, and to avoid leading people astray has grown stronger. Now, I find myself in the position of sharing and writing things that I suddenly question. If I have been deceived, that’s one thing. But, if I have caused others to fall into deception, as well… Well, I cannot tolerate even the thought of that possibility. But I feel I owe readers a detailed explanation as to why I believe (believed?) the things I’ve shared on my blogs for close to fifteen years now. So, with that said, here we go.
Whenever you want people to take you seriously when you try to discuss something that goes against everything they have ever been told by the authorities they trust, it is good practice to not only start by accurately explaining what those authorities have said, but by using the strongest argument those authorities have made. Therefore, I’d like to start with an alleged ‘conspiracy theory’ by posting an article that claims to explain everything away.
OK, let me start by acknowledging that, on the surface, this article seems to definitively put the whole CIA-Kennedy-‘conspiracy theory‘ issue to bed. It shows that there are two versions of the theory. The first version says the CIA invented the term and weaponized it to silence people. The article shows how this can be easily proven to be false. The article then explains that the second version claims the CIA admitted to the ‘conspiracy theory’ argument in official documents. The article then posts those documents, which do not support the claim, and concludes that both versions of the CIA-Kennedy–‘conspiracy theory’ are not only false, but that it is easy to prove it. So, case closed: the whole matter of the CIA-Kennedy-‘conspiracy theory‘ conspiracy theory has been debunked — or has it?
Let’s take a closer look at this article. What it states is partially true; there are several versions of the story. And, yes, the claim that the CIA invented the term, ‘conspiracy theory,’ is false and that can be easily proven. But it is not so easy to prove the CIA did not weaponize the notion of ‘conspiracy theory’ (stick a pin in this thought, we’ll be coming back to it). And, yes, another version of the story is that the CIA tried to deflect scrutiny away from the Warren Commission’s report on Kennedy’s assassination. But the document the article offers is not the document that the people who really know what is going on with the CIA reference. What this means is that the author(s) of this article presented the weakest conspiracy theory arguments on the CIA’s role in the Kennedy assassination cover-up. This is called straw man, and it’s a fallacy. It’s also part of how the CIA actually did weaponize the whole concept of ‘conspiracy theory.’
At this point, let me state that I happen to believe the CIA did use the notion of ‘conspiracy theory’ to deflect the investigation into the conflicting and factually questionable findings in the Warren report. Let me also say that I do not believe this has anything to do with the CIA inventing the term, nor do I care about the document presented in the article. However, I do care about the evidence that this article left out.
First, the CIA admitted to conducting something known as Operation Mocking Bird. You will find one page of the CIA ‘admission’ in this link:
Please note the dates, and the subject of the investigation: classified information being leaked to reporters. Now, please read the following link about Operation/Project Mocking Bird:
Did you see the links to the two CIA documents on Project Mocking Bird? Did you read through them? Did you notice that, in one case, the CIA admitted to a document some 700 pages long, but disclosed only a few pages and then, with redactions? Have you started to notice how far-ranging Project Mocking Bird was, and how evasive the CIA has always been when answering questions about this subject? Please, I know it may sound like I am rambling here, but I’m not. I am trying to give you the dots so I can connect them for you at the end. So, here is another dot:
Did you catch the part where the lawyers who wrote this article said it is illegal for the CIA to operate on U.S. soil — especially to spy on American citizens? But didn’t the CIA admit they spied on Americans in the documents that were presented in the links above? Which means that Project Mocking Bird was real, and illegal. Here is the next dot:
Did you see the title of this story? “Media Control.” And did you watch the video, and how the CIA witness did not want to discuss the issue in public? Here, read just a little more:
Did you see what Mocking Bird is really all about? Spying on Americans, and giving information to reports to plant or manipulate stories. OK, now, time to take out my ‘conspiracy‘ hat and start connecting dots for you.
The Warren Commission findings are false! I know how they have been explained by ‘experts’ until the whole world can tell the official story in its sleep, but there are too many factual anomalies that contradict the official report, and too many factual details to this story you were never told to accept the official findings. Hold on to this, it is another point to be connected. My focus right now is on the CIA and the role of ‘conspiracy theory.’
After reading all the links I just posted, many of which contain official government documents and/or live footage of the CIA testifying before Congress; as well as citing news paper articles exposing the illegal operations of the CIA in planting and manipulating stories in the U.S. media; it should be an established fact that Mocking Bird was real. I would also point out that these links also confirm that the CIA admitted that Mocking Bird was highly effective. So, why wouldn’t the CIA use Mocking Bird to alter the stories being reported about the Kennedy assassination? Never mind, I don’t want you to answer that. I just want you to be intellectually honest and admit that, if the CIA had some reason to deceive the public concerning the details of the Kennedy assassination, they could have easily done so. Will you give me that much?
OK, now, about the Warren Commission’s official report: it is a lie! Here, have a read (and note that most all of this is well documented fact — note the source):
Some points of fact to note:
— Earl Warren suppressed key evidence from the Commission[NOTE: Notice how I didn’t bother with the discrepancies surrounding how poor of a shooter Oswald was; how hard his shot was; how bad the weapon he supposedly used was; the problems with the time line; problems with the locations of key players at specific times; problems with the sound recordings indicating two shooters; or that Oswald denied shooting Kennedy, or that Ruby assassinating him is perfectly in line with killing your patsy in an operation such as this. Instead, I stuck to other details that have actually been demonstrated to be factual, and not just curiosities.]
— The FBI and CIA intentionally mislead the Commission
— No Motive was ever established
— Both LBJ and the Kennedy family disagreed with the report
— A second government investigation came to an entirely different conclusion
— The Dr. who performed it admitted the official autopsy document currently in the government records is not the original copy
— The woman who processed the official autopsy pictures says that the pictures currently in the government records are not the pictures she processed
Now, before I connect the dots for you, let me point you to the conclusion that was drawn by Mr. Gunn:
So what’s the truth about the assassination?
“For me, it’s quite simple,” Gunn says. I don’t know what happened. There is substantial evidence that points toward Oswald and incriminates Oswald,” he says, “and the only person we can name where there is evidence is Oswald. But there’s also rather important exculpatory evidence for Oswald, suggesting he didn’t do it, and that he was framed.”
And with that conclusion, Mr. Jeremy Gunn officially slips into the realm of a ‘conspiracy theorist.’ It’s sad, because his logic is sound: based on everything he knows and can actually prove, the best conclusion he can draw is that he doesn’t know what happened. But, in today’s world, this is all it takes to be labeled a ‘conspiracy theorist.’ Unless you accept the ‘official’ version of all such stories as this, you are labeled a ‘conspiracy theorist‘ and dismissed as a cook.
OK, now we connect a few dots. If you know the details that were left out, and you know that there are many oddities connected to the assassination that have been testified to or actually proven to be true, you can’t reasonably accept the findings of the Warren Commission. Don’ bother guessing as to what really happened, or why. Just acknowledge that there is reasonable doubt as to the truth of those official findings — because I just demonstrated that the doubt exists. Rather, speculate as to how t[so many people might have been convinced that the report was factually accurate and that it should not be questioned. Have we seen anyone or any organization that might have been able to influence the media to report the story in a way that would cause most people to accept it as fact? Well, yes: the CIA and Operation Mocking Bird!
Now, ask yourself another question, and be honest with yourself: If the CIA admitted Mocking Bird was so successful, and had gotten away with illegally using it against Americans, why would they ever stop using it? And, if they never stopped using it, then how easily would it be to standardize the practice of using the media to shape the narrative, then accuse anyone who questions that narrative of being a ‘conspiracy theorist‘ and dismiss them as crazy? I’m not asking you to determine that is what happened with the Kennedy assassination. I am asking you to decide whether or not it is possible, or even likely. If you are being intellectually honest, you should see that it is — at the very least — possible.
This would leave us with one last question: Why would the CIA do anything like deceive America about the Kennedy assassination? Well, I honestly don’t know. I have a theory, but that’s all, and I’ve never asserted it as fact. but I do know this is a fact: the CIA is no friend to the American people:
Oh, I have another question: Given that the CIA has been overthrowing national governments and manipulating elections in foreign countries for years, why wouldn’t they do it here, in and to the United States? What’s to stop them?
You see, if all things were equal surrounding the details of the Kennedy assassination, I might be willing to accept the government story. But all things are not equal, so Occam’s Razor does not apply. And, when you start sorting the hard data points from all the chaff (false or fake stuff), the data points start to align. When they align, they create a data vector. When they create a data vector that points to a better, more plausible explanation (I did not say more agreeable explanation), then that is the explanation Occam’s Razor says we should accept. In the case of the Kennedy assassination, Occam’s Razor says that the simplest explanation is that the Warren Report is wrong, and we still do not know for sure who killed Kennedy. It also says that, if it was involved, the CIA could easily have used Mocking Bird to label people questioning that report as ‘conspiracy theorists‘ and dismissing them as cooks and the majority of the population would agree — because that is the story the media fed them for the CIA.
And that is an example of how I have become a ‘conspiracy theorist:’ Because I have done so much research, I now know about the mountain of data points that undermine many ‘official’ story lines explaining a multitude of questionable events in our world. I am not telling people I know the truth. Heck, I know I don’t know the truth about most of the things I question. All I am saying is I know the version of the ‘truth’ we are often given is usually wrong, and I can prove it. if that makes me a kook, then I accept the slur.
MORE ON MOCKING BIRD