The CIA, JFK, and the Fiction Factory
My essay in Skeptic explores myth vs. fact on the latest conspiracy theory
What happens when viral mistrust meets congressional power? You get false JFK conspiracy claims that are amplified by a lazy media.
In an era of intense political polarization and weaponized narratives, there always seems to be a conspiracy du jour. From claims of a COVID-19 “plandemic” to endless speculation about Jeffrey Epstein, the frenzy often overshadows the enduring mother of all conspiracies: the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
That narrative has recently gained new life—not from an academic historian or investigative reporter, but from Florida Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, a MAGA-aligned freshman who now chairs an Oversight Committee investigation into JFK’s murder.
Luna had made up her mind long before the hearings. She declared publicly that Lee Harvey Oswald was “a patsy” and that “multiple shooters” were involved. On the eve of her committee’s first hearing, she posted on X: “This document confirms the CIA rejected the lone gun theory in the weeks after the JFK assassination. It's called the Donald Heath memo.”
Except—it doesn’t. The memo she cited does not contain a repudiation of the lone gunman theory. Rather, it documents a CIA directive to Donald Heath, an operative in Miami, to investigate possible links between Cuban exiles and the assassination. At that time, many groups were considered potential suspects: Castro’s Cuba, anti-Castro exiles angered by Kennedy’s perceived betrayal at the Bay of Pigs, and even the KGB.
The recent congressional hearings featured only voices that supported Rep. Luna’s preordained narrative—including filmmaker Oliver Stone. Absent were credible historians, forensic experts, or intelligence analysts who could challenge her assumptions.
Driving Luna’s outlook is a deep mistrust of government—specifically, the CIA and other intelligence agencies. This distrust now finds mainstream political expression. It’s not merely a suspicion that the CIA has made serious errors (as it did with 9/11 or WMDs in Iraq). It is a conviction that these agencies are not just incompetent but malevolent, actively working against the American public and its elected leaders.
What more damning proof, they ask, than the claim that the CIA orchestrated the assassination of a sitting U.S. president?
This fringe narrative might have remained at the margins if not for mainstream amplification. Hungry for scoops, legacy media too often elevate unvetted conspiracy theories. One need look no further than the Washington Post’s recent front-page headline: “Documents Show CIA had Connection with JFK’s Assassin.”
It was explosive, attention-grabbing—and profoundly misleading.
"It’s not merely a suspicion that the CIA has made serious errors (as it did with 9/11 or WMDs in Iraq)."
Serious errors? You've got to be kidding. We were attacked on 9/11 by Saudi nationals. We knew that right from the beginning. The US still attacked the wrong country. Why? Oil prices had been dropping for about a year and the US assault on Iraq started with the destruction of Iraq's oil infrastructure. Iraq is not part of OPEC, so their oil production interfered with OPEC's ability to successfully do price manipulation. As soon as the US attacked the wrong country, Iraq, oil prices went right back up. No doubt just a coincidence. Just an error, not a deliberate attempt to manipulate oil prices.
How did the US government pull off convincing the public that we should have an unconstitutional war in Iraq? Easy. Everyone who questioned the presence of WMDs was called racist. So clever to get a black guy to claim Iraq had WMDs because you were automatically racist if you questioned that justification for the war. We couldn't even get to the point in the discussion where we could determine the relevance of Hussein having WMDs. He didn't, but so what if he did? He didn't attack us. Iraqis didn't attack us. Saudis flew those planes into the twin towers.
And don't even get me started on how the third tower collapsed in the same manner as the first two even though there was no third plane flown into that building. Why did it also chunk down in a collapse that looked like floor by floor timed explosions? Don't tell me it didn't. I watched that third building go down.
"It is a conviction that these agencies are not just incompetent but malevolent, actively working against the American public and its elected leaders."
Really? You can't think of any time in history when rich, powerful people fooled the populace and got the government to do their bidding instead? You're smarter than that, Gerald.
What else did we get from those "errors?" The Patriot Act, a bill that has obviously been in the making for 20 years but somehow managed to be written and passed right after 9/11. I'm going with malevolent.
In your Skeptic article you wrote the following nonsense:
"In the real world of verifiable evidence and forensic science, Oswald was the lone gunman. He bought the rifle. His fingerprints were on it. He shot and killed a police officer after fleeing the scene. He acted on radical, personal motives. These facts have been reaffirmed by every credible investigation over the past six decades."
As Samuel L. Jackson said in Pulp Fiction: Allow me to retort.
> He bought the rifle.
The evidentiary basis for that claim is nonexistent. For example, the alleged money order's serial number way out of sequence, indicating that it was a blank forged later by the FBI. And most of the original documents were destroyed. Only the FBI's photographs remain. Those aren't evidence.
https://williamw.substack.com/p/oswald-did-not-purchase-a-rifle-from
> His fingerprints were on it.
Now Gerald, you know better. There were "no usable prints" on the rifle, according to Sebastian Latona, the FBI's top fingerprint man. Some guy posted a YouTube video claiming to have used modern techniques to identify Oswald's print on the trigger, but nobody else has taken up that cause. I guess you think your credulous readers haven't even studied the very basics of this case.
> He shot and killed a police officer
The Tippit case is a shambles, you'd never have gotten a conviction. Zero witnesses saw the shooting, unless you count hysterical Mrs. Markham, who famously said, "I didn't know nobody," when asked by the Warren commission if she had recognized anyone at the police lineup, which she was rushed through after passing out and being administered smelling salts. That's your star witness?
The so-called IDs of Oswald in the area afterward were obtained at lineups that were biased and legally faulty even by 1963 Texas standards. The shell casings were initialed by Officer Poe, but his markings disappeared by the time the casings were placed into evidence before the Warren commission. That shows evidence tampering by the DPD or FBI, not Oswald's supposed guilt. Some witnesses at the scene saw people nearby who weren't Oswald. Of course once again you know all this, but are hoping your readers don't.
> after fleeing the scene.
Oswald calmly left the TSBD, stopping long enough to tell newsman Robert MacNeil where he could find a pay phone inside. Then Oswald offered his cab to a woman who needed one. That's not "fleeing." That's leaving work after a cop pointed a gun at you.
> He acted on radical, personal motives.
Even the Warren commission could not attribute a motive to Oswald. He was a liberal who liked Kennedy. His "radical" reputation was arguably a front, as has been amply demonstrated. When he got arrested after his fight with Bringuier, he asked to speak to an FBI agent. The local office sent one over, who met privately with Oswald. Some commie!
> These facts have been reaffirmed by every credible investigation over the past six decades.
And debunked by hundreds of dedicated researchers who did NOT work for the government.
Gerald this Warrenite propaganda is beneath you.