Help I'm Pro-Conspiracy!
conspiracy n. an evil, unlawful plot
Common sense dictates there were and probably are, at any given point in time, conspiracies brewing to kill high profile political leaders. i.e. After Abraham Lincolns assassination four of the plotters were executed by hanging on July 7, 1865.Two Puerto Rican nationals were killed attempting to storm Blair House to assassinate President Harry Truman on November 1, 1950.
Specific to John F. Kennedy
Joseph Milteer was a functionary with the Georgia chapter of the National States Rights Party. Government records show the Miami police and Dade County Sheriffs office had an informant named William Somerset "planted" within Milteers organization. On November 9, 1963 Somerset taped a conversation in which Milteer detailed the plans for the assassination. He claimed a group of conspirators planned to kill Kennedy on or about November 18th. Kennedy was traveling to Miami, Fl. to make a speech at the Orange Bowl. Kennedy was to be killed during the Presidential motorcade by having an assassin fire a high powered rifle from the window of an office building. On November 12, 1963 local law enforcement officials met with the Secret Service and provided a complete transcript. The motorcade was canceled and Kennedy took a helicopter to the stadium. The complete transcript appears in Harold Weisbergs Frame-Up. (pp. 468-475)
"Based on the committees entire investigation, it concluded that the Secret Service, FBI, and CIA were not involved in the assassination. The committee concluded that it is probable that the President was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy." (Emphasis mine) From the New York Times reprint of selected portions of the Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations. (pg. 288)
"Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President." (New York Times reprint of selected portions of the Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations, pg. 63)
So we actually know there was at least one active conspiracy to kill Kennedy in November, 1963 and moreover the Federal Government through the HSCA is on the historical record "that it is probable that the President was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."
Unfortunately, the disagreement between pro and anti-conspiracy groups and within pro-conspiracy groups themselves is not over the potential link between Oswald and any conspiratorial group or other individual. Instead there is endless debate over real, invented or imagined "evidence."
Adding to the confusion:
For some strange reason many pro-conspiracy proponents refuse to discuss or follow up on the recommendations of either the HSCA and the Records Review Board. All debate focuses around the findings of the Warren Commission. Its as if the HSCA never existed.
Writers and authors be they pro or anti-conspiracy in some cases fail to use common sense, logic or the laws of physics when discussing the assassination. Theories are presented using selective sources, disseminated as fact and eventually become "truth."
I guess the facts shouldnt get in the way of a good story!
Excerpt From a Symposium
Master of Ceremonies: "Our next guest, (insert name here), has spent years studying the (insert name of film or photo here). (His/Her) presentation will astound you."
Speaker: "Thank you (insert Master of Ceremonies name here) I'm pleased to have this opportunity to address this sophisticated group. After careful and painstaking research using computer modeling techniques unheard of a few years ago I can definitely say the (insert name of film or photo here) is a fake!" Audience gasps. A thirty to forty minute presentation follows replete with second and third generation slides, some covered with dust spots, of the (insert name of film or photo here). "Are there any questions or comments?"
Audience member #1: "I've listened to your presentation and in my view this is all baloney!"
Audience member #2: "No it isn't."
Audience member #3: "Yes it is"
Audience member #4: "We all know (insert audience member #1 name here) is a disinformation specialist!!! Now (insert audience member #1 name here) sit down and shut up!"
Audience member #3: "No you (insert audience member #4 name here) sit down and shut up you're the government plant not (insert audience member #1 name here).
< Presentation concludes >
Master of Ceremonies: "Our next guest (insert name here) has spent years studying the Dallas police tapes. (His/Her) presentation will astound you."
My "OK What Do We Do Next" Philosophy
Lately there has been much, no actually a lot of, discussion of the faking of various films and photographs such as Moorman, Nix and Zapruder. Rather than getting involved in these long winded diatribes I prefer to apply the following test.
Researcher: "Dave I have positive proof the Zapruder film was forged."
Dave: "OK I grant you the possibility, in fact I'll agree with you. So what should we do we do next?"
If the answer is nothing better than "I intend continue to argue with and call my critics names in various news groups", I say it's time to move on.
Think of the possibilities:
Researcher: "Beverly Oliver was definitely in Dealey Plaza!" "OK what should we do we do next?"
Researcher: "Jim Files says he killed Kennedy!" "OK what should we do we do next?"
Researcher: "That rifle doesn't have the swivel in the right place!" "OK what should we do we do next?"
Of course this approach would have a most negative effect on the news groups. People would be forced to discuss rather than argue the merits of a specific claim. The groups would actually take on the aura of respectability. Whoa hold on a minute. Who the heck wants to be bothered with that?
Dave Perry 2/98