Elusive Memories of the Past (Memory dust)

 

I'm sure most people have these kinds of things. Things from their past they encounter and half remember, but which remain elusive. The following are some from my past. Mostly from my time at Dellview Elementary School (ages 5 to 9).

1. There was a book I was read to me back at Dellview. The teacher read it to us. It gave me the creeps. It was about a kid who was scared of the dark or something. Wandering through and old dark house. I vaguely remember a part where he saw an image and it scared him but it turned out to be his own image in a mirror. Things like that.

2. I remember a show I saw as a kid where there was a shadowy figure running around inside a house. I thought it was an episode of Marcus Welby MD, but no such episode exists, as far as I can tell.

3. Back at Dellview we had our daily readers. I think one had a Tiger and one had a Dinosaur. I liked them. I would like to see them again for old time sake, but I have no recollection of titles or anything else.

4. There was an educational thing back in Dellview that had generic super heroes. They looked cool. It was very unique. I remember I was very enamored with it. But for the life of me I can't remember anything else about it.

5. There was a pirate book I really liked. But I don't recall anything other than that. I found it in a classroom library in some random class at Dellview.

6. My mom (and dad) had an educational set. It had records in it. It taught ABC's and numbers and stuff. When I was 5, my mom would sit me down and make me listen to these little records. It would be cool to see it now, but for the life of me I can't recall any details of it.

7. I have the vaguest memory of some time in my distant past. I was possibly a baby. I just recall the most vaguest feelings an impressions of what occurred. To the best of my memory I was in a place sitting on the floor. I was crying. Upset. I was lifted. I was carried into another place. I recall the color blue and many faces. Interpreting my thoughts (over years) I think I was taken to a church, put into a child care class, freaked out, and they took my to my mother who was in the sanctuary. This is a very early memory. I was maybe less than two because I was unable to walk.

8. I recall joining my dad on a trip to meet with a guy named "Tommy Reynolds". Amazingly, my dad was drinking a beer. He almost never drank. But he let me taste it. It tasted nasty. I must have been about 4 or 5. This was the early 70's when having a brewski behind the wheel wasn't a cardinal sin. Weird times. Anyway, we also saw a field. And visited some other guy with vitiligo. The vitiligo guy baffled me. I have no idea what the hell was going on.

9. I have several sketchy memories of my Dad's time at the CinemaTex Theatre (working for Tommy Reynolds). It would have been around 1972 or so. Reynolds was basically a scam artist/business man.

10. There was a cartoon I saw as a kid (early 1970's) which I thought was super cool. It showed two heroes from (representing) different cultures (Arab, and Russian?) who eventually had a showdown. A big fight. Try as I might I can't find any info on that particular cartoon. I remember I liked it a lot. I know it exists, because I remember it.

In some ways its like having your own personal "Mandela Effect". You think you remember it. But then it remains elusive so you can't confirm it.

Creepy magazine (Warren Publications)

 

I like those old magazines called "Creepy". Several of them can be found here:

https://archive.org/details/creepy_warren

-Mike

The Joys of Hiking

 

The Joys of Hiking

by Mike Walk

Hiking, in its most innocent definition, is the act of walking through nature for pleasure, which sounds simple enough until you realize that “nature” is largely composed of things actively trying to kill you. I do not say this as a critic of the outdoors. On the contrary, I admire nature deeply, particularly when I am viewing it through a reinforced window while holding a cold beverage.

The experienced hiker—recognizable by a backpack roughly the size of a compact refrigerator—will tell you that hiking is “invigorating.” This is a polite term meaning “you will sweat in places you did not previously know contained sweat glands.” These individuals speak reverently of “the trail,” as though it were a benevolent entity, when in fact the trail is a narrow dirt suggestion that leads uphill at an angle normally associated with ladders.

Preparation for hiking is a ritual of great complexity. One must acquire specialized equipment, including boots designed to withstand tectonic activity, socks engineered by NASA, and a water bottle capable of sustaining a small village. There are also trekking poles, which are essentially sticks, except they cost $79.95 and come with instructions. The poles are useful for maintaining balance, particularly when you realize halfway up a mountain that you have made a series of life choices leading directly to this humiliating moment.

Once on the trail, the hiker encounters wildlife. This is often presented as a charming feature of the experience. “You might see deer!” enthusiasts say. What they do not emphasize is that you might also see creatures that regard you as either a threat or a potential meal. Even the less intimidating animals contribute to the general atmosphere of unease. Squirrels, for example, will stare at you with an expression that clearly communicates, “You are not from here, and we have discussed this.”

Then there are the insects. Insects do not merely inhabit the outdoors; they have formed a coalition. Mosquitoes, in particular, operate with military precision, locating exposed skin with technology that suggests significant research funding. The hiker, armed with repellent that smells like industrial solvent, applies it liberally, thereby ensuring that he will not be bitten, but also will not be welcomed in polite society for the foreseeable future.

Despite these challenges, hikers insist there are rewards. Chief among them is “the view,” which is indeed impressive, assuming you survive the ascent and can see clearly through the perspiration. At this point, you are encouraged to feel a profound connection with nature. This connection is typically interrupted by the realization that you must now descend, a process that involves persuading your knees to continue functioning despite their strong objections, and trying not to "descend" at 236 miles per hour.

In fairness, hiking does offer moments of genuine beauty. There is a quietness in the wilderness that is difficult to replicate elsewhere, a sense that the world is larger and older than one’s daily concerns. It is in these moments—usually just before tripping over a rock—that one understands why people are drawn to the experience.

I recall a trip to take a hike in Government Canyon Wilderness Area here in San Antonio Texas, which luckily is more rural and beautiful than the name suggests. This turned out to be pretty taxing as I managed to "hike" so much it felt like I was walking to Cleveland. The whole time I kept thinking that at any moment a mountain lion (puma, cougar, catamount) was going to attack me from behind and strip my scalp off, and dine on my entrails. I made it out. I was exhausted and glad. I need to return there someday, if I ever feel like cheating death.

It is important to approach hiking with a clear understanding of its fundamental nature. It is, at its core, a voluntary decision to go somewhere difficult to reach, become temporarily uncomfortable, and then return home with photographs intended to persuade people that you enjoyed yourself. And perhaps you did. Or perhaps, like many hikers, you are already planning your next excursion, having forgotten the mosquitoes entirely, which suggests that nature’s most powerful force is not its terrain or its wildlife, but its ability to make us believe, against all evidence, that this was a good idea.

My Most Influential Books #63 (Droofus The Dragon)

 

I really liked this book when I was a kid. One of my favorites. 

The Bear Incident (fictional story)

 

[NOTE: This story is not true. It is entirely fictional, and beyond that, I made the whole thing up]

The Bear Incident: A Solo Camping Adventure That Went Horribly, Hilariously Wrong

So there I was, channeling my inner Les Stroud (minus the survival skills, physical fitness, and basic common sense), embarking on what I had confidently described to my wife as a "solo wilderness adventure." This is the same woman who once watched me struggle for twenty minutes to open a jar of pickles, so naturally, she responded with the kind of supportive enthusiasm typically reserved for watching someone attempt to juggle flaming chainsaws while riding a unicycle.

"You're going camping," she said. "Alone. In bear country?"

"It's called communing with nature," I replied, loading my SUV with enough gear to supply a small military expedition. Because nothing says "rugged outdoorsman" like seventeen different types of camp chairs and a portable espresso machine.

The first sign that this trip had the potential for legendary disaster status came when I realized I had packed food that was, in retrospect, a gathering of items that might as well have been labeled "BEAR BAIT: PREMIUM SELECTION." We're talking honey-glazed ham, maple syrup pancake mix, and enough bacon to make a vegetarian weep with conflicted desire. It was a delicious menu of items that made my mouth water, and would function similarly for any bear on Earth, especially the super huge and desperately hungry ones.

I set up camp in what the guidebook optimistically called a "pristine wilderness setting," which is outdoor-speak for "the middle of absolutely nowhere, where your cell phone has about as much signal as a mime at a heavy metal concert." My tent – a marvel of modern engineering that claimed to be "bear-resistant" (a term I would later learn is roughly equivalent to calling a paper airplane "missile-resistant") – went up with only moderate cursing and three complete do-overs.

That's when I met Bruno.

Now, I don't actually know if the bear's name was Bruno, but he had the kind of presence that demanded a name, preferably something that sounded like a nightclub bouncer from New Jersey. Bruno emerged from the woods with the casual confidence of someone who had just received an engraved invitation to an all-you-can-eat buffet.

He was enormous. I'm talking Volkswagen Beetle with fur and an attitude problem enormous. And he was staring at my cooler with the kind of focused intensity a teenage boy reserves for pizza.

"Shoo!" I said, because apparently my brain had temporarily reverted to the intellectual capacity of a newel post. "Go away! Bad bear!"

Bruno looked at me with what I can only describe as amused contempt, then proceeded to demonstrate why they don't make coolers with bear-proof locks as a standard feature. Watching a 400-pound bear open a cooler is like watching a toddler open a juice box – there's a lot of fumbling around, some frustrated grunting, and then suddenly everything explodes everywhere.

My beautiful honey-glazed ham went flying through the air like a delicious, spiral-thrown football. The maple syrup bottle exploded against a tree, creating what looked like a crime scene from a pancake murder mystery. Bruno, meanwhile, was having the time of his life, making sounds that I can only describe as "bear laughter."

That's when I made my first tactical error. I decided to defend my territory.

"HEY!" I shouted, waving my arms like an inflatable tube man at a used car lot. —“That is MY bacon!” I finished, with the moral authority of a man who had already lost every possible negotiation.

There was a pause.

Bruno looked at me. I looked at Bruno. Somewhere in the distance, a bird made a noise that sounded suspiciously like, “Oh no.”

Then Bruno did something I will never forget as long as I live, or at least as long as I continue to pay off the therapy bills: he picked up an entire package of bacon, held it delicately between two claws, and sat down.

Not in a threatening way. Not in an aggressive way.

In a picnic way.

He sat.

He looked at me.

And then—this is the part that haunts me—he gestured. Not with menace, but with what can only be described as polite expectation. A small, courteous wave of the paw. The universal sign for: “Well? Are you going to join me or not?”

At this point, I would like to tell you that I stood my ground as a proud representative of the human species. That I asserted dominance. That I deployed sophisticated wilderness survival strategies learned from years of watching television.

What I actually did was sit down.

Because when a 400-pound bear invites you to a bacon-based social gathering, you do not decline. You attend. Promptly.

So there we were: Bruno and I, two mammals from very different walks of life (and sizes), sharing a quiet meal in the woods. He handled the ham. I stuck to the items that had not yet been drooled on, which narrowed my options to approximately one slightly dented granola bar and a deep sense of regret.

We ate in silence for a while.

At one point, Bruno let out a satisfied grunt, lay back slightly, and placed a syrup-coated paw on his stomach in the universal gesture of “that hit the spot.” Then he looked at me again—long, contemplative—and I swear on everything I hold dear, he gave a slow nod. The kind of nod you give someone when you respect them. Or at least their snack choices.

And then he stood up, ambled back toward the woods, and disappeared—taking with him my dignity, my provisions, and approximately $300 worth of artisanal camping cuisine.

I, meanwhile, remained seated, sticky, stunned, and now technically the proud owner of the world’s most expensive, least effective outdoor dining experience.

Later, when I returned home—smelling faintly of maple syrup and poor decisions—my wife asked, “So, how was your ‘wilderness adventure’?”

I considered telling her the truth: that I had bonded with nature, faced my fears, and shared a meal with a creature of immense power and surprisingly good table manners.

Instead, I said, “We’re going to need a new cooler.”

And possibly a pet bear.

Because honestly, he was better company than some people I know.

The Impacted Wisdom Tooth (a week of agony)

 

Starting on February 28th 2026, I became afflicted with an impacted, infected wisdom tooth. I'm here to tell you it hurts like you would not believe. Pain, radiating, agonizing, incessant, unremitting pain radiated from the tooth into the surrounding gum area. This in turn affected my jaw. Also my throat. It causes me to have the worst sore throat I have ever had. Swallowing is a painful ordeal. Eating food is a torment. Drinking liquid is uncomfortable. 

As I write this on March the 5th (6 days in) I am still in pain. Though it has somewhat diminished. I'd say it has gone from an 8 to a 7 (on a ten point pain scale). The tooth area hurts. My gum area hurts. My jaw hurts. My throat hurts.  It's really bad. I am holding out for Spring Break. During Spring Break I will probably go to a dentist. The infection is really horrible.

The other night I got woke up in the middle of the night. I noticed it was 2:30 in the morning. It was 2:30 ("tooth hurty"). I smiled through the pain.

I have been taking more pain reliever that I probably should, all in an effort to minimize this pain. Funny thing is, the pain reliever does not completely relieve the pain. It only minimizes it. So for the last 5 days I have been in, more or less, constant pain. 

It sucks.

I still have all my wisdom teeth and usually it doesn't hurt this bad. Over the years I've had flare ups here and there. Usually a bit of localized gum discomfort. But this is a full on assault on my mouth. The best way I can describe this is it's kind of like when you eat something cold and your teeth hurt real bad for a moment. It's sort of like that but imagine that moment of pain being stretched out over days. That's kind of what I'm dealing with.

I have not been sleeping too well. At this stage its the throat that hurts, mostly.

Anyway, I can't believe I'm having to deal with this @#$%&.

Update: March 18, 2026

I'm fine now. About 7 days in, the pain went away. I had to take a steady load of Aleve and prescription level ibuprofen. But I made it through. Very painful.

55 Questions For The JFK Conspiracy Crowd (New and Improved)

 

(President John Fitzgerald Kennedy)

55 Questions for JFK Conspiracists

Recently all the files having to do with the JFK assassination were released (thanks Donald Trump). We were told that the truth would finally be found out. Now we could figure things out. Problem is, the files dump shed no new light on anything. If anything, all it did was prove, once again, what we already figured out years ago. A lone nut (who may or may not have been motivated by others) killed the President.

So in honor of the files dump, I re-release my epic masterpiece, 55 Questions For The JFK Conspiracy Crowd. Let's go...

Most people today enjoy thinking that JFK was killed as a result of huge conspiracy. Unfortunately, the evidence in the case that claims to "prove" this is made up of old documents, hear-say, pure disinformation, things taken out of context, and questionable sources. The ever expanding conspiracy threatens to engulf every aspect of, not just all significant events in the 60's, but also our modern life.

To a conspiracy buff, it is impossible that Kennedy could have died for such banal reasons as proposed by the Warren Commission. He MUST have died as the result of something major, epic, huge, massive, out-of-control... but sadly, he wasn't. Bill Manchester said it best:

". . . if you put the murdered President of the United States on one side of a scale and that wretched waif Oswald on the other side, it doesn't balance. You want to add something weightier to Oswald. It would invest the President's death with meaning, endowing him with martyrdom. He would have died for something. . . . A conspiracy would, of course, do the job nicely." — William Manchester.

Yes, it was a criminally insane man driven by his own inner demons that did the deed, for reasons known only to himself. Somehow two of Oswald's bullets found their mark. The first one would not have been fatal. Unfortunately, the second one was devastatingly so. The evidence proves all this. Still, many people ASSUME there had to be a conspiracy. Like I've heard it said, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Same thing with the conspiracy crowd. They see what they want to see.

Here, then, are some questions for the conspiracy crowd. The ones who believe that hundreds (if not thousands) of people and dozens of organizations were responsible for Kennedy's tragic death.

******** **************** **************** **************** ********

01. If a shooter shot Kennedy in his right front temple from a position in his front right, why was there no damage to the left rear of his head? Also it has been conclusively demonstrated by dozens of ballistics experts that it is impossible for small arms fire to propel an object. Given this fact, and the fact that Kennedy's head moves forward for a split second before going backwards (see below), why can't conspiracists admit that the president's "back and to the left" head movement (such as it is) is primarily due to a spasmodic neuromuscular response (a death spasm) the president experienced upon having his brain suddenly and violently destroyed?

Notice Kennedy's head moving FORWARD slightly at impact, not backwards! This proves a shot from behind. You will also notice the brain spray goes forward to the president's front right. Again, this indicates a shot from behind.(sorry for the disturbing image)

(Zabruder frames 312 and 313 scrolled back and forth showing head moving forward on impact)

02. The conspiracists want to believe that Kennedy and Connally were shot by different people using different bullets. If so, where did these other bullets go? A bullet passed through Kennedy. (Remember, he didn't have a bullet lodged in his body, meaning it definitely went through). Also, no bullet was lodged in Connally's body either. Also, neither man had bullet fragments in their body (other than some small grams of lead in Connally's wrist). So where are all these other bullets? If more than one gun man was involved, how is it that only the evidence (bullets, casings, fingerprints, etc.) connected to Oswald was ultimately recovered?

03. Why is it that each one of the myriad conspiracy theories can be "proven" as well as any other one?

04. Just how vast is the conspiracy? Is every police officer in Texas, every federal government employee (past or present) and everyone who believes the Lone Assassin point of view in on it? Am I part of the conspiracy and cover-up?

05. Ted Kennedy was around in the senate for 45+ years and had considerable power. Was he also part of the cover-up? Why did he not spear-head an investigation into his brother's assassination? If there was a cover-up, why wasn't he killed too? Did the conspirators somehow know he would spend almost 50 years in office and yet not be suspicious?

(Photo of ol' Ted Kennedy)

06. Couldn't the minor disparity in earwitness reports of the number of shots in Dealey Plaza be due to the fact that echo is a huge factor in such an urban surrounding?

(arial photo of Dealey Plaza)

07. What is the police's incentive for covering up the crime? Why would they NOT arrest anyone who might be connected by evidence to one of the greatest crimes in history? What is their motive? Furthermore, how can you expect us to believe they were bumbling "Keystone cops" but also sophisticated enough to suppress evidence that anticipated decades of scrutiny.

08. If the so-called "magic bullet" was a plant, why didn't the conspirators use a more convincing bullet?

This is the so-called "magic bullet" found on Gov. Connally's cot. Sure, it seems "pristine" from this view...

...but is far from "pristine". Here you can see it is actually quite badly damaged.

(photos showing side and end on view of the so-called "magic bullet")

09. How can one explain the key-hole shaped entrance wound on Connally's back? Doesn't this point to a tumbling bullet? Say, one that had passed through another object (like the president's neck for instance)?

(illustration showing the tumbling nature of the bullet that hit Kennedy and Connally)

10. They had several miles of route in which to set up an assassination. So why did the conspirators wait until Dealey Plaza to kill the president? Wasn't there better spots in which to shoot the president?

(map of motorcade route published in the Dallas Paper)

11. How does one explain away the fact that two men standing in the window just below the sixth floor window heard three shots from above their heads, and heard shell casings hitting the floor? Were there any such witnesses in the other buildings?

This photo was snapped within 30 seconds of the shooting. Note the two men in the window, still in their location when the shots rang out from the window just above their heads.

12. If the "magic bullet" shot is so outlandish, how is it that it can be repeated and reproduced forensically? It has been shown numerous times to be possible, not IMpossible.

This diagram shows the single bullet trajectory to be consistent.

(illustration showing a direct line from 6th floor window through Kennedy into Connally. No magic needed)

Notice in these frames from the Zapruder film that both men are reacting simultaneously to some trauma. This would have been when the bullet hit both Kennedy and Connally.

(segment of the Zapruder film showing Kennedy and Connally reacting at the same moment)

13. How many shooters would satisfy the conspiracists? One, two? If two were arrested, they would have wanted three. Etc.. If the conspiracy involves hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, how many would we have to prosecute?

14. If Oswald was an innocent man, why is it that he was the only TSBD employee to leave the building early (immediately after the shooting) that day? Did he have foreknowledge that he was being set up?

15. In "JFK" (the movie) every effort was made to indict the CIA, FBI, Lyndon Johnson, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, J. Edgar Hoover, and many others, except... the one man who is tied by overwhelming evidence to the crime (LHO). Not one scene is dedicated to the possibility that Oswald did it. In fact every effort is made to exonerate him. So, why are most conspiracists also very pro-Oswald? In fact, some claim that he is a completely innocent victim?

16. Many conspiracists claim Oswald had no motive to kill Kennedy. Ignoring for a moment the fact that crazy people don't need a logical motive, could Kennedy's anti-Communist, anti-Castro stance provide a possible motive for the pro-communist, pro-Castro Oswald?

17. There have been four investigations into the assassination and all have concluded that Oswald shot the president from behind. The HSCA concluded there may have been another shot based on a dictabelt recording. But modern technology has now discredited the dictabelt recording, which was inconclusive anyway. Why do conspiracists still cling to outdated and discredited evidence to prove their theory?

18. Why do most JFK conspiracists also believe in conspiracies involving MLK, RFK, the moon landings, and 9/11?

19. If Ruby was contracted to silence Oswald, who was contracted to silence Ruby? Ruby lived for four years following the assassination. He issued a deathbed statement saying he was not part of a conspiracy. Why do conspiracists choose to ignore all this?

20. If Oswald was innocent why did he openly lie during his arrest?

21. If Oswald's statements were fabricated by the police as part of a huge conspiracy, why didn't they simply say that he confessed to the murders?

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

22. If Ruby was hired to silence Oswald, how did he know that Oswald had not spilled his guts already during the 2 days he was in custody? For all Ruby knew, Oswald had told investigators everything.

23. Why do many conspiracists portray Oswald as an innocent victim, when evidence proves he had already attempted (and failed) to assassinate General Edwin Walker only seven months prior to the Kennedy assassination?

(Edwin Walker - The other guy Oswald shot at)

24. Why did Oswald say "This is it" or "Well, it's all over now." when he was arrested, if he was innocent?

25. Given that Oswald was definitely inside the TSBD building at the time of the shooting, and given that several witnesses saw a man fitting his description in the sixth floor window with a gun at or around the time of the assassination, and given that Oswald then left the building immediately following the assassination (the only TSBD building employee to do so), why is it that he is considered "innocent" by many conspiracists?

26. If Oswald was part of a huge organized plot, why did he flee the scene on foot, then on a bus, then in a cab? They couldn't arrange a get away car for him?

27. If Ruby was out to silence Oswald, why not a head shot? Oswald could have survived a gunshot to the body.

28. If LBJ masterminded the whole thing, wasn't he concerned that Bobby Kennedy, who was the Attorney general at the time, would find out about the plot? Or was Bobby in on the plot too?

29. Why do conspiracists attempt to discredit every Warren Commission (hereafter WC) witness, yet are apologists for any witness spouting conspiracy-friendly testimony? Do you notice a double standard?

30. The WC was chronologically closer to the event. Therefore the WC benefitted from fresh witness recollections and available fresh evidence.

31. Why is it that most, if not all "new evidence" of a conspiracy is in the form of "secret documents" and/or hear-say witness testimony?

32. If it is so obvious that there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza that day, why do so few earwitnesses claim they heard the shots from two or more sources? (only around 6% of witnesses claim they heard shot from multiple directions)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8637832/

Most earwitnesses agree that three shots were fired. Variations can be attributed to echo effect and acoustics in Dealey plaza.

33. The entire event took only a few seconds. Also, it was a very traumatic thing to experience. Is it possible some of the "grassy knoll" earwitnesses misinterpreted echoes as shots coming from the fence area? And supposedly people saw smoke coming from there. What type of modern rifle expels a giant puff of smoke? Was the assassin near the grassy knoll using a blunderbuss? Could cigarette smoke be a better explanation for the smoke supposedly seen there?

34. Is it possible that the first wave of people seen running toward the picket fence area were actually seeking, not the assassin, but cover? Is it possible that the second and third wave of people running toward the knoll area assumed the first wave were chasing a shooter? Do unarmed civilians usually pursue armed assassins?

35. If similar evidence to that which was found in the sixth floor of the TSBD building, was found in, say, the Dal-Tex building, would conspiracists be so quick to dismiss it?

36. Since incredible tragedies often produce conspiracy claims, could many of the conspiracists be emotionally motivated? Or financially motivated?

38. Most people standing near the TSBD building instinctively assumed the shots came from that building, up high. Nearly everyone assumed it was either firecrackers, or a car backfire. By the time most of the witnesses realized it was gunshots being fired, the assassination was already over. Still, within only 30 seconds, press photographers (incl. Dillard) photographed the 6th floor window. If this was not the source of the bullets, why did much of the focus immediately go there?

Tom Dillard's famous photo taken only seconds after the last bullet was fired.

39. Could many of the conspiracists also be driven by a profit motive? (Book sales!)

40. Most older conspiracy related books are supplanted by each new book, which proposes to present "new" evidence, relegating old conspiracy books and theories to be considered outdated, or inferior to the new books. So, therefore, which conspiracy book tells the definitive truth? Which book presents the true conspiracy plot, in full, and able to withstand scrutiny? Will this book be supplanted by another new book, providing new evidence, in the future?

41. The WC report is just as compelling today, as when it was released 47 years ago. Are any of the various conspiracy books still credible after 47 years of similar relentless scrutiny?

42. If LBJ had wanted to kill Kennedy, couldn't he have just poisoned his coffee in the Oval Office or something? Why do it in front of hundreds of witnesses, in your own home state, in broad daylight, in front of friends and family, and involving hundreds of co-conspirators?

43. If LBJ had planned the whole thing, do you really think he would have arranged for his long time buddy John Connally to be sitting in the line of fire?

(photo of LBJ and Connolly showing how chummy they are)

44. If the claim is that "most witnesses have died mysteriously" why did so many of them die of natural causes, or are still alive, or at least lived long after the assassination? Most Kennedy witnesses died after testifying, so why would they have been killed? Wouldn't killing these people be pointless if done after the fact?

45. If Oswald really thought he had been betrayed as a "patsy", why didn't he just start naming names?

46. Why was Oswald not out watching the parade like most everyone else? Why didn't Oswald go outside and try to find out what all the hubbub was about? Why would he be casually having lunch inside, when right outside the window the President himself was passing by?

47. If part of a huge plot, when he was cornered in the Texas theatre, why didn't Oswald just commit suicide?

48. Did Oswald kill Tippett? If not, then who did? If he did, then isn't that pretty much an admission of guilt? If he didn't, then who did? Would the police let some guy who killed one of their fellow officers get off Scott-free?

49. Why would Tippett stop to question a man who didn't fit Oswald's description? Why would this non-suspect then gun him down?

50. Why would the majority of Tippett murder witnesses describe a man matching the description of Oswald? What is their incentive to lie? Because Oswald was seen in the sixth floor window, and then subsequently went missing from the TSBD building, he became a suspect. His description was then sent out over dispatch. How did Tippett already have a detailed description of Oswald less than 45 minutes after the assassination if this were not so?

51. Every aspect of the WC shooting scenario has been proven to be plausible forensically (even the so-called "magic bullet"). Why is this fact insignificant to conspiracists?

52. Why would all of the people that comprised the WC (or indeed the subsequent Clark panel, Rockefeller Commission, Church committee, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations) all stake their reputations on a cover-up? Were all of these people in on the plot too? What was their incentive?

53. Will you at least concede that, in your opinion, the "lone assassin" scenario is possible?

54. Oswald simply decided to kill Kennedy through selfish ambition, a warped sense of vengeance, and a deluded sense of self worth. Who else, known to be in Dealey Plaza that day, had the motive, opportunity, and means to shoot Kennedy that day? Oswald had all of that, AND he was already an attempted (albeit failed) assassin?

55. Who transported Oswald's rifle to the TSBD building that day if not Oswald? It certainly got there somehow. It was missing from his home, and found in the 6th floor of the TSBD. Is it a coincidence that Oswald's weapon was found, AND he himself was reported to have been seen firing a weapon?

This is a photo of the inside of the 6th floor window sniper's nest. Notice, someone was a busy little man, working hard to make a nice cozy little sniper's nest.

This satirical newspaper headline shows the ridiculousness of all these myriad conspiracy theories...



My Conclusion: OSWALD DID IT!

What follows is my olive branch to the conspiracy crowd. 

In assessing the assassination of John F. Kennedy, I take what might be called a restrained lone-shooter position. The available historical record strongly supports the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the rifle from the Texas School Book Depository and carried out the murder. The forensic trajectory analysis, eyewitness testimony placing him in the building, his rifle linked to the scene, and his flight afterward all point in a consistent direction. In that sense, I believe Oswald did it. He pulled the trigger. He bears direct responsibility for the act itself. In my mind, that's case closed.

At the same time, acknowledging Oswald as the gunman does not require intellectual rigidity about every surrounding possibility. Oswald was a volatile, attention-seeking figure with a history of ideological grandstanding, including his defection to the Soviet Union and erratic political posturing upon his return. Such a personality could, at least in theory, have been nudged, encouraged, or subtly manipulated by individuals who recognized his instability and grievances. That does not mean there was a grand, tightly coordinated conspiracy directing every movement. It simply means that manipulation—psychological, ideological, or even through informal suggestion—cannot be ruled out with absolute certainty.

This distinction matters. Saying Oswald acted alone in the physical commission of the crime is not the same as claiming he existed in a vacuum of influence. History is full of individuals who commit violent acts independently yet are influenced, radicalized, or steered by others who never appear on the stage. My position does not insist that such manipulation occurred; rather, it concedes that human events are complex and that opportunistic actors sometimes exploit unstable individuals.

In short, Oswald fired the shots and carried out the assassination. That remains the most defensible conclusion. But leaving a narrow door open to the possibility of prior encouragement or subtle exploitation does not weaken that conclusion—it reflects a careful, sober assessment of how human motives and political violence often intersect.

Thank you for reading.