• We know of one particular incident less than two weeks before the assassination:

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. It’s 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."

• Anti-conspiracy author Gerald Posner in his book Case Closed changed bullet velocities within ten pages. He used 2,000+ fps to prove spinal cord injury then changed to 1,700 to 1,800 fps to support the magic bullet theory. (pp. 328 & 338)

• Pro-conspiracy author Robert Groden’s claim in The Killing Of A President that Joseph Milteer was in Dealey Plaza to observe the assassination. Historians know exactly were Milteer was at the time of the shooting. (pg. 196)

• Geraldo Rivera’s contention on his now defunct series Now It Can Be Told that Lee Bowers was killed because of what he saw and that his death certificate and autopsy report are missing.  His "mysterious death" is a unvarnished fabrication which was created and is still maintained as truthful by various "researchers." I have a copy of the death certificate. The Justice of the Peace felt an autopsy unnecessary. (The show aired in the Dallas/Fort Worth area on May 6, 1992)

• Ray "Tex" Brown’s claim in his 1996 paperback Broken Silence that he taught both Ruby and Oswald how to shoot. See my review of the book.

• A "researcher" from the New York City area maintains that the Dallas police officer killed that day, JD Tippit, was shot so his brain could be swapped with that of Kennedy.

• Various authors and writers have named at least 68 people, including actor Woody Harrelson’s father, Charles Harrelson and Franklin Foley, the drummer in Frank Sinatra’s band, as being in Dealey Plaza as part of an assassination plot.

I guess the facts shouldn’t 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?"