Anyone with a quarter of a brain who has looked into the JFK assassination for even half a second and isn't a government shill (hello Bill O'Reilly) knows JFK was assassinated as the result of a conspiracy. This is one conspiracy theory that is actually true. What are the best pieces of evidence proving this fact? I'll start, over 50, thats five-zero, witnesses in Dealey Plaza said they saw and heard shots from the grassy knoll. Shots from there mean conspiracy. The Warren Commission dismissed all 50 of them as 'not credible' based on nothing. Can you imagine another murder case where the testimony of over 50 witnesses was simply dismissed as it didn't fit the narrative they wanted? Staggering. Edited to add - the 56 witnesses who said shots came from the grassy knoll represented more than half of the 104 witnesses total, can you imagine that? The biggest murder case in US history and they dismissed the testimony of more than half the witnesses? Amazing.
Great way to showcase your argument beginning with insults and a blizzard of bogus numbers...going downhill from there.
I'm sorry, according to the WC 38 witnesses said shots came from the grassy knoll, out of 104 interviewed, according to Dallas police records over 50. Were they all mistaken? In total there were estimated to be 400-600 witnesses in Dealey Plaza, but most were not interviewed. Why do you think these people said they heard shots, saw a figure shooting, smelled gunpowder and saw the impact of shots from the grassy knoll?
No they smelled gunpowder, many said that including some in the motorcade including two of the motorcycle police, some also reported seeing a figure holding something elongated, many others saw smoke coming from the knoll. - - - Updated - - - What have I made up then? This is all a matter of historical record, easy to find a conspiracy...if there was actually a conspiracy.
George Bush sr. killed J.F.K. didn't actually pull the trigger but set it all up. There really wasn't a trigger to pull more like a push of a button just check it out you'll see.
Yeah, that's what they said in their police interviews. Have you read them? I have. I won't be responding to you again, I have no time for ignorance from people who have done no research into the subject.
Ignoring people who have no clue what they're talking about, the next best bit of evidence is the doctors who attended to Kennedy on the day. Here is the transcript of a press conference given by one of them on the day, where he repeatedly refers to the throat wound as an entrance wound, meaning conspiracy as Oswald and the TSBD obviously were behind the car not in front of it. Dr Malcolm Perry - Mr Hawks : Let me have your attention, please. You wanted to talk to some of the attending physicians. I have two of them here, Dr Malcolm Perry, an attending surgeon here at the Parkland Memorial Hospital. He will talk to you first, and then Dr Kemp Clark, the chief neurosurgeon here at the hospital. He will tell you what he knows about it. Dr Perry. Questioner : Were you in attendance when the President died? Questioner : Let him tell his story. Dr Perry : I was summoned to the Emergency Room shortly after the President was brought in, on an emergency basis, immediately after the President’s arrival. Upon reaching his side, I noted that he was in critical condition from a wound of the neck and of the head. Immediate resuscitative measures — Questioner : Would you go slower? Dr Perry : I noted he was in a critical condition from the wound in the neck and the head. Questioner : Could that be done by one shot? Dr Perry : I cannot conjecture. I don’t know. Questioner : A wound of the neck and of the — Dr Perry : — of the head. Immediate resuscitative measures were undertaken, and Dr Kemp Clark, Professor of Neurosurgery, was summoned, along with several other members of the surgical and medical staff. They arrived immediately, but at this point the President’s condition did not allow complete resuscitation. Questioner : What do you mean by “complete resuscitation”? Dr Perry : He was critically ill and moribund at the time these measures were begun. Questioner : Completely ill and what? Dr Perry : Moribund. Questioner : What does that mean? Dr Perry : Near death. Questioner : What was the word you used? Dr Perry : Moribund. Dr Clark arrived thereafter, immediately. Questioner : Could you tell us what resuscitative measures were attempted? Dr Perry : Assisted respiration. Questioner : What is that? Questioner : With what? Dr Perry : Assisted respiration with oxygen and an anesthesia machine, passage of an endotracheal tube. Questioner : Does that mean you stick it in? Dr Perry : Yes, place it in his trachea. Questioner : Spell it for us, please. Dr Perry : E–n–d–o–t–r–a–c–h–e–a–l. A tracheostomy. Questioner : They did perform a tracheostomy? Dr Perry : Yes. Questioner : Would you spell it? Dr Perry : T–r–a–c–h–e–o–s–t–o–m–y. Questioner : Was there a priest in the room at this time, Doctor? Mr Hawks : The doctor is just telling you about the operation. Dr Perry : Blood and fluids were also given, and an electrocardiograph monitor was attached to record any heart beat that might be present. At this point, Dr Clark was also in attendance. Questioner : What is his name? Dr Perry : Dr Kemp Clark. And Dr Charles Baxter. Dr Kemp Clark : I was called by Dr Perry because the President — Questioner : You are Dr Clark? Dr Clark : I am Dr Clark. — because the President had sustained a brain wound. On my arrival, the resuscitative efforts, the tracheostomy, the administration of chest tubes to relieve any possible — Questioner : Could you slow down a little bit, Doctor, please? Dr Clark : — to relieve any possibility of air being in the pleural space, the electrocardiogram had been hooked up, blood and fluids were being administered by Dr Perry and Dr Baxter. It was apparent that the President had sustained a lethal wound. A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue. Shortly after I arrived, the patient, the President, lost his heart action by the electrocardiogram, his heart then had stopped. We attempted resuscitative measures of his heart, including closed chest cardiac massage, but to no avail. Questioner : That was closed chest? Dr Clark : Yes. Questioner : Does that mean external, Doctor, closed? Dr Clark : Yes, We were able to obtain palpable pulses by this method, but, again, to no avail. Questioner : What is palpable? Mr Hawks : What did you ask? Questioner : Palpable? Dr Clark : Palpable. Questioner : Palpable what? Dr Clark : Pulses. Questioner : Doctor, how many doctors were in attendance at the time of the President’s death? Questioner : Doctor, can you tell us how long after he arrived on the Emergency table before he expired? In other words, how long was he living while in the hospital? Dr Clark : 40 minutes, perhaps. Dr Perry : I was far too busy to tell. I didn’t even look at the watch. Dr Clark : I would guess about 40 minutes. Questioner : Doctor, can you describe the course of the wound through the head? Dr Clark : We were too busy to be absolutely sure of the track, but the back of his head. Questioner : And through the neck? Dr Clark : Principally on his right side, towards the right side. Questioner : What was the exact time of death, doctor? Dr Clark : That is very difficult to say. We were very busy, and in answer to someone else’s question, we had a lot of people in attendance. We elected to make this at 1300. Questioner : You elected? Questioner : What, sir? Dr Clark : We pronounced him at 1300 hours. Questioner : Thirteen of? Mr Hawks : 1:00 o’clock. Questioner : Can you describe his neck wound? Dr Clark : I was busy with his head wound. I would like to ask the people who took care of that part to describe that to you. Questioner : What was the question? Dr Perry : The neck wound, as visible on the patient, revealed a bullet hole almost in the mid line. Questioner : Would you demonstrate? Dr Perry : In the lower portion of the neck, in front. Questioner : Can you demonstrate, Doctor, on your own neck? Dr Perry : Approximately here (indicating). Questioner : Below the Adam’s apple? Dr Perry : Below the Adam’s apple. Questioner : Doctor, is it the assumption that it went through the head? Dr Perry : That would be on conjecture on my part. There are two wounds, as Dr Clark noted, one of the neck and one of the head. Whether they are directly related or related to two bullets, I cannot say. Questioner : What was the entrance wound? Dr Perry : There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one in the head, I cannot say. Questioner : Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him? Dr Perry : It appeared to be coming at him. Questioner : And the one behind? Dr Perry : The nature of the wound defies the ability to describe whether it went through it from either side. I cannot tell you that. Can you, Dr Clark? Dr Clark : The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue. Questioner : That was the immediate cause of death — the head wound? Dr Clark : I assume so; yes. Questioner : There is a rumor that Lyndon Johnson had a heart attack, and I would like to check that out. Dr Clark : I have no information. Mr Hawks : I don’t believe these gentlemen were in attendance with the Vice President. Questioner : Where was he when this was going on? Mr Hawks : That is not the question you should put to this doctor. Questioner : Can you tell us where he is? Mr Hawks : I can’t now, but Mr Kilduff will be available later and we will take those details then. Questioner : We can’t hear you. Mr Hawks : They are asking where the Vice President was, but I don’t know at the moment. That is not the proper question to put to these gentlemen. They were busy with the President at the time. Questioner : Where is Mrs Kennedy? Mr Hawks : I don’t know that detail either. As you might suspect, we were all busy around here. Questioner : Can’t we clear this up just a little more? In your estimation, was there one or two wounds? Just give us something. Dr Perry : I don’t know. From the injury, it is conceivable that it could have been caused by one wound, but there could have been two just as well if the second bullet struck the head in addition to striking the neck, and I cannot tell you that due to the nature of the wound. There is no way for me to tell. Questioner : Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front in the throat? Dr Perry : The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don’t know. It could have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the head. There was not time to determine this at the particular instant. Questioner : Would the bullet have had to travel up from the neck wound to exit through the back? Dr Perry : Unless it was deviated from its course by striking bone or some other object. Questioner : Doctor, can you give us your ages, please? Dr Perry : I am 34. Questioner : You are Doctor who? Dr Perry : Perry. Mr Hawks : This is Dr Malcolm Perry, attending surgeon, and this is Dr Kemp Clark, chief of neurosurgery at this hospital. Questioner : How old are you, sir? Dr Clark : 38. Questioner : Is that C–l–a–r–k? Dr Clark : Yes. Questioner : Can you tell us whether the autopsy will be performed here or elsewhere? Dr Perry : I do not have that information. Mr Hawks : I don’t know either. Questioner : Will there be one? Mr Hawks : I don’t know that. Questioner : Where is the President’s body? Mr Hawks : I couldn’t tell you. Questioner : Was the President ever conscious after the bullet struck him? Dr Perry : No, not while I was in attendance. Questioner : How much blood was used? Dr Perry : I don’t know. There was considerable bleeding. Questioner : How soon did you see him after he got in? Questioner : Did you have to send for blood? Dr Perry : Blood was sent for and obtained; yes. Questioner : Where? Dr Perry : From our Blood Bank. Questioner : Here in the hospital? Dr Perry : Here in the hospital. Questioner : How much was used? Dr Perry : I can’t tell you that. Questioner : How much blood? Dr Perry : I don’t know. Questioner : Doctor, were the last rites performed in the Emergency Room? Dr Perry : Yes. Questioner : Yes, they were? Mr Hawks : Yes, they said they were. Kilduff told you, too. Questioner : Which room was this? What is the room like? Dr Perry : Emergency Operating Room No. 1. Questioner : How far from the door is that, and which way? Dr Clark : Straight in from the Emergency Room entrance, at the back of the hospital, approximately 40 feet. Questioner : Approximately what? Mr Hawks : Forty feet from the emergency entrance. Questioner : The first floor? Dr Clark : The ground floor. Questioner : How many doctors and nurses were in attendance at the time of death? Dr Perry : There were at least eight or ten physicians at that time. Questioner : At least eight or ten physicians? Dr Perry : Yes. Questioner : Did you think him mortally wounded at the time you first examined him, or did you think there was no possibility of saving his life at that point? Dr Perry : No, I did not. Dr Clark : No, sir. Questioner : Did you say there were eight or ten doctors or doctors and nurses? Dr Clark : Eight or ten doctors. Questioner : Can we get that straight, Doctor? Did you say you did not think there was any possibility of saving his life when you first looked at him? Dr Clark : That is what I said; yes. Questioner : How long had he been in before you saw him, sir? Dr Clark : This I don’t know because I was not looking at my watch. Questioner : Who was the first doctor who saw him, and how long before he got there? Dr Clark : Just a matter of a few seconds. Dr Perry : I arrived there shortly after his admission. I can’t tell you the exact time because I went immediately and he had just been admitted and I walked in the room. I don’t know the exact time. I was in quite a hurry. Questioner : Were any members of the family or others in the room besides the doctors, in the Emergency Room? Dr Perry : I am afraid I was not aware of that. I was quite too busy to notice. Mr Hawks : We will have to get those details from Mac. Questioner : Do you have any new details about our plans, what you are going to do? Mr Hawks : I can’t until I get a reading from you fellows. For instance, you have a new President. Questioner : Do we? Was he sworn in? Mr Hawks : Well, he went somewhere to get sworn in. I assume he is sworn in at this time, but I wasn’t in attendance. Obviously, you are going to have a new President. Let’s put it that way. Questioner : Where is he going to be? Mr Hawks : That is what I am trying to find out. Mac is with him, trying to get the details, and he will call me or come in here. We will try to find out. Dr Perry : Can we go now? The Press : Thank you, Doctors. Mr Hawks : Your plans, what do you want to do? Questioner : First, is there anything more about Mrs Kennedy? Mr Hawks : Let’s do some “supposing” because we need some planning for your press plans. Questioner : How about Mrs Kennedy? Has she gone back to Washington, or is she going? Mr Hawks : That is what Mac is trying to find out now. This takes a lot of doing. Questioner : Can we stay here with the new President? Mr Hawks : If you want to stay here with the new President, if he stays here. I don’t know that he is going to stay here. That is why I want to “suppose” here for a minute. Questioner : Let’s put it on the basis of what the new President does. If he stays, we stay; and if he goes, we go. Mr Hawks : Suppose the body goes back and the new President stays? Do some of you want to stay, or go? Questioner : Stay with the new President. Mr Hawks : All right, that is what I wanted to find out. You know, there are buses and planes and things like that. Questioner : I know I won’t be going back in any case. Can I get my luggage back here? How do we get luggage on the press plane off of there? Mr Hawks : If we decide to spend the night here, we will get the luggage here. Don’t worry about it. Questioner : We have luggage in the wire car, but God knows where it is. Questioner : Where will the next briefing be, here or where? Mr Hawks : Right here, as far as I know. This is where Mac said he could come back to. And here is an interview with another one, Dr Robert McLelland, who was stood at Kennedy's head in the operating room. He uniquivocally states there was a massive EXIT wound in the back of JFK's head. [video=youtube;6Q1lYifmUXA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q1lYifmUXA[/video] [video=youtube;VxC7YduICBY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxC7YduICBY[/video] [video=youtube;7HyoitsPlnk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HyoitsPlnk[/video] This sort of stuff is irrefutable. If you want to argue with trained medical professionals who were on scene at the time examining and working on the president, then best of luck to you, but don't expect me to take you seriously.
So, lets recap, we know from these two pieces of evidence, 100% without any shadow of a doubt Kennedy was hit at least twice from the front. Once in the throat, once in the head causing a large exit wound in the right-rear of the head. On their own these are irrefutable proof of conspiracy and at least two shooters.
I can't help if you read more into the testimony than was said.....but keep on insulting those who call you on your fabrications.... Makes you look like a horses rear end.
JFK was just another establishment President. I don't see the justification for assassinating him. Johnson took his policies to their logical conclusions. JFK's biggest achievement is being shot in the head. That says a lot about his Presidency. If he hadn't been assassinated he'd be just another President. Nothing cements your place in history like a good assassination.
The term government shill means someone smarter than you who has actual true evidence. This is a typical cop out and ploy used by conspiracy theorists when their claims are ruined. Sorry but you are wrong and anyone who has studied the assassination in detail knows better than to claim there is evidence of a conspiracy. You are quite wrong about these witnesses. The vast majority of witnesses heard the shots coming from the vicinity of Oswald's nest in the TSBD. Few ( less than 10 ) heard the shots coming from the grassy knoll. No one SAW any shots coming from anywhere. You should understand that bullets travel to fast to be seen with the naked eye and not one witness saw a man shoot a gun. This destroys any claim of a shooter on the grassy knoll which had witnesses all over and nothing more than a few bushes, trees and a fence to hide behind. Witnesses behind the fence such as Lee Bowers were looking right at the spot where a shooter would have fired from and saw .... nothing. On the other hand Oswald had a perfectly concealed position and superior post to fire from and was alone on the sixth floor. The few witnesses who heard shots coming from somewhere other than the Texas School Book Depository were discounted NOT because of a cover up but simply because they were wrong. This is normal in any investigation into any event where multiple witnesses are involved. Whenever their are multiple witnesses to any event or incident there will always be conflicting and contradictory testimony from different people. People always see, hear, remember and describe things differently. Therefore there are always some who will be discounted. In this incident the vast majority of witnesses remembered the event in synch with ALL of the physical evidence which proves Oswald fired the only shots. No evidence proves he had any accomplices or assistance or was working with others. Your claim that over fifty witnesses heard the shots from the knoll is false. Today such witnesses can be counted because many of them have changed their story after prompting and persuasion by conspiracy theorists attempting to write a book or make a movie. But their original testimony is in synch with the evidence. An example of this is Jean Hill who initially gave no testimony of hearing any shots from the knoll but later altered and changed significant and important details when prompted by theorists such as David Lifton and Mark Lane. Unfortunately she was caught on the Zapruder film which proves she lied in later testimony. for example she is seen on film doing nothing as the motorcade sped by but later claimed to have run across the street and was nearly run over by other vehicles in the motorcade. Many of the s called witnesses who conspiracy theorists quote fall into this category. They change their story as needed and milk every opportunity to extend their fame and popularity with theorists so they can see themselves portrayed in movies and written about in books. If they change their story their credibility is shot. On the other hand the physical evidence stands and does not need such witnesses. The physical evidence flat out crushes any conspiracy theory
JFK was not going along with the plan to escalate the Vietnam war. He also had challenged the Federal Reserve by ordering interest free US Treasury notes to be issued much like Lincoln did during the Civil War. I still have some of them. As soon as Kennedy was taken out, Johnson escalated the Vietnam war from a police action to a full blown war at the behest of his sponsors at Brown and Root and all of the interest free Treasury notes were recalled. Kennedy was assassinated because he had the balls to go against the power brokers. It would not surprise me if that scumbag GHW Bush, then a Jr CIA (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) was involved? Kennedy had just fired one of the biggest ********s in US history, Allen Dulles and threatened to break the corrupt scumbag CIA into 1000 pieces. Anyone who believes that some lone nut Killed the President is not very bright. Had JFK not been assassinated and his vision for America and the world had been realized, this would be a very different and much better world today.
Wrong the WC recorded no such number of witnesses who heard shots coming from the knoll. The 38 number refers to the number of people who heard shots coming from somewhere OTHER than the texas school book depository. Only a few of these 38 heard them coming from the knoll. Others heard the hots coming from above the triple underpass of below it. Or they heard the shots coming from across the street from the TSBD. OR from the Dal Tex building which was behind the TSBD. Or from the storm drain near the limo. Or from within the limo itself. Before claiming what the WC said you should read the WC report which you obviously have not done. What you are doing is repeating what conspiracy theorists have told you without checking their accuracy. No witness saw a figure shooting no one saw impact of shots from the knoll. They saw the damage done to the president and governor Connally but not where they came from. The smell of gun smoke is irrelevant. People will often imagine smelling it when they hear shots - - - Updated - - - No it is not it is made up
This had been done to death and has been proven false over and over again. the doctors gave opinion and testimony about what they did they did not lie. However nothing they said supports a conspiracy. These were emergency room doctors working to save a mans life they were not working to determine the details of the manner in which he was shot. Such examinations to determine the facts of how a murder victim is shot are always done at an AUTOPSY. Emergency room doctors are not trained or equipped to determine such facts or details. Sure they have opinion but it is no more certain than a laymans opinion. The autopsy doctors were experienced experts who determined WITH EVIDENCE that all the bullet wounds entered from above and behind consistent with Oswald's proven position. No wound entered from the front. They had the time and the means and the expertise to find such evidence and determine the conclusion based on that evidence. The emergency room doctors often quoted by conspiracy theorists had no such time , means or expertise to make such determinations. The emergency room doctors were occupied exclusively with trying to save the victim's life and that is all. There fore the evidence lies not with the carefully selected testimony of these ER doctors but with the pathologists who performed the autopsy - - - Updated - - - Wrong your evidence is false and all evidence proves the opposite - - - Updated - - - Yes in fact he was going to escalate the Vietnam war. LBJ increased advisory troop presence in Vietnam in accordance with JFKs established policies he did not change or alter those policies. Opposing the fed or being at odds with the CIA is not evidence of a conspiracy. Sorry but opposing an organization does not promise your death even if you are president and that is that. Bush was not a CIA agent at the time he was appointed to director of the CIA long after Kennedy was dead and the director of CIA is not an agent or spy but a political appointee and administrative figure head. To claim someone other than Oswald assassinated Kennedy requires evidence and you have none
There is ample evidence of Conspiracy involved in the JFK assassination. One of the actual members of the shooting teams, Howard Hunt admitted it before he died. There is also tons of evidence suggesting that Oswald was a CIA asset. Just because Internet hacks like you who seem to jump in any time that ANY type of conspiracy which is denied by so called "official sources" refuse to acknowledge the obvious evidence doesn't magically make it disappear. Your usual claims that the real evidence supports the load of crap that the rigged Warren Report churned out are laughable. The slime bag that was probably one of the main forces behind the assassination Allen Dulles was on that farcical commission. It was as Jim Garrison clearly proved, a thinly veiled cover up which only an imbecile would believe. On a more positive note, the only people who I have ever talked to about the assassination and there have been thousands over the years, know full well that President Kennedy was taken out by greedy war profiteering slime bags along with their gangster friends. The only time I have ever heard of someone actually supporting the official story is on government sponsored TV shows and from internet trolls like you.
Yes over 100 idiots like hunt have made confessions that they were the other shooter. None of them including Hunt who died a very sick man with dementia had any evidence supporting such claims. It is nonsensical and he was proven to have been far away from the assassination when it happened. even his own family knew he was not near the event. There has never been any evidence that Oswald was a Cia " asset ". He was not CIa material and would never have been recruited by them. One could make a connection based on geography since he was stationed in Japan which was used by all branches of the military and by the CIA which had their own sealed off compound but tens of thousands of other service members were stationed at the same base with no other connection to the CIA. Oswald's life is too well studied and documented to allow for a CIA connection we actually know more about his life than most of the people alive at the time and he was never connected to the CIA. The evidence does not support you making you the real hack and naive, gullible sucker who falls for anyone with a fictitious theory. There is no evidence that the Warren Commission was rigged and calling it rigged does not make it so. They conducted the most exhaustive and comprehensive criminal investigation in US history and their evidence is publically available. The evidence you claim is fictitious and ludicrous. Jim Garrison proved no such thing in fact he failed miserably to prove any sort of conspiracy. Maybe you missed the part in the fictitious movie where Clay Shaw was acquitted which means Garrison BLEW IT and LOST. That was one of the few accurate details of the movie. Most of the movie was complete fiction dreamed up out of thin air. Just because you ignore evidence and people of differing opinions does not make you correct and the evidence proves you wrong and that is irrefutable fact.
Like I said champ. All the real people I have met don't buy the lone shooter crap at all. And I have talked to people from all political spectrums and all ages. The only time I have run up against someone who actually believes the official story is on the internet. All of the information is out there. Thousands of people have spoken out and given testimony of pre knowledge of this hit. Many people have been murdered as a result of speaking up about it. Same with the murder of RFK.
Wrong you simply have a tiny circle of like minded people you talk to while ignoring the bigger wider world. Much like surprised when a candidate wins a election and they say " no one I know voted for him ". This is one confuses their selective little world view for a snap shot of the wider world. the evidence does not support your claim period and all of it proves you wrong. Yes all of the information is out their and the information based on evidence proves Oswald acted alone. the evidence based on grandiose theories claims a conspiracy ( without evidence ) No one has ever given testimony about pre knowledge of the assassination including nostrodamus. No one has ever been murdered after speaking up. In fact all of the zany witnesses who alter and change their story to support whatever conspiracy theory they support lived on for years such as Jean Hill, or Beverly Oliver or Jack Martin. In fact none of the conspiracy theorists met untimely deaths such as Fletcher Prouty or Jim Garrison or Jim Marrs etc. Sorry but you still have nothing but empty claims which have been proven false.
Wrong again. An overwhelming percentage of people do not believe that Oswald acted alone. Especially worldwide. Despite all of the money that has been spent trying to prop up the official lies over the past 50+ years with BS television specials and books, the majority still don't believe what they are spewing.
Consensus is irrelevant. Evidence is not. You mis - interpret the information concerning what people believe many of them for example admit they are intrigued but know nothing about it or simply think that there are some unanswered mysteries or questions ( there are not really ). This does not equal belief in a conspiracy theory but they are lumped in to create a n image of greater numbers. Either way it is irrelevant because truth is not determined by majority opinion or consensus. So consensus or majority opinion is not evidence of reality or accuracy. The evidence proves that Oswald acted alone regardless of how many disagree and in fact you cannot refute that WITH EVIDENCE. There is no proof of official lies. There has never been government sponsored tv shows claiming Oswald acted alone or not. You have to offer evidence and you fall flat because you cannot do so
I don't know how you can believe that absolutely. It was so convenient for him to be the patsy, as he was troubled and disturbed. I just don't get why he would focus his problems all on Kennedy. I believe it was the Federal Reserve Bank, even if they coaxed him to do it.
