Talk:Charles Rogers (murder suspect)

Untitled
Rogers is arguably a special case. For example, only two known photos of Rogers exist: one photo from his military service (boot camp) and one photo serving as a CIA officer in Vietnam. Another example: this author has information supplied to him under oath by a former CIA intelligence officer who knew Rogers, and who compiled a written dossier on him; unfortunately none of the foregoing information in my possession can be released publicly or on the Wiki for obvious reasons. Like many leads associated with the Kennedy killing, a great deal of information has been lost, deleted, suppressed, or even stolen. This highlights our frustration in documenting an individual like Charles Rogers: as a CIA operative, Rogers' life and crimes (whatever they may or may not be) were never intended (or permitted) to be made public.

In a more political context, it is unfortunate that a double standard is being applied: private individual researchers like myself are being shot down for failing to include references for statements and documents that can never be publicly divulged anyway, while the corporate-owned mainstream media propagandizes the public with lies about kids with chemicals in their underpants threatening the West with destruction. Okay so that in itself is a contentious statement, but instead of deleting the article, why not move it to sourcewatch instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montoya44 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia itself is, as Prof James Fetzer suggested, an intelligence operation, it isn't going to print any of those anyway. That is why there is always this "conspiracy theory" phrase, and an article with that title, but Wikipedia spews "coincidence theory" bullshit as fact, especially in regards to the murder of JFK, 9/11, OKC bombing, Pearl Harbor, the London Subway bombings and other false flag terrorist conspiracies. The last thing this CIA rag of a website wants is the truth being told. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.21.81 (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

So what qualifies as a "wildly implausible conspiracy theory" according to Wiki's editorial strutting martinets? The idea that Oswald was a lone nut? That is, as put forward by John McCone and J Edgar Hoover to the WC? And by the way, Rogers was declared deceased some years ago. This article is not wild speculation or a crazy conspiracy theory relating to anyone living. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montoya44 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Documented"
This is not a huge problem, but I suggest that the word "documented" be replaced with another verb, since the subsequent description of the book makes it clear that it is not based entirely on fact. Matuko (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)