My take on JFK Conspiracy Theories and Theorists. [View all]

[DanTex]

I'm by no means an expert on the JFK Assassination. In fact, I only really started reading about it two or so weeks ago, because the anniversary and discussions here and elsewhere piqued my interest. My original thinking was that it was probably Oswald alone, but who knows. But the more I read (from both sides), the more I become convinced of the near-absolute certainty of the lone nut gunman theory.

First, while some conspiracy authors are certainly intelligent, few come across as particularly credible or trustworthy. A case in point is Mark Lane, probably the most famous conspiracy theorist of all, who was widely believed to be a nut, and who among other things also worked as a lawyer for Jim Jones (mass murder/suicide cult leader) and alleged that there was a government conspiracy against his cult.

Of course, the fact that Mark Lane is a nut doesn't prove that the Warren Commission was right, but it is curious that very few conspiracy proponents bother to admit "yes, Mark Lane is a nut with no credibility, but there was still a conspiracy because of ..." Instead, the conspiracy community regards Lane highly, as a pioneer in exposing government deception.

Second, conspiracy theorists don't drop arguments or pieces of "evidence" after they are conclusively disproven. An example here is the fact that JFK's head jerked backwards after the fatal head shot. This, of course, proves absolutely nothing about the direction of the bullet, because in real life as opposed to the movies, the momentum of a bullet is not nearly enough to cause a human body to violently fly backwards. Especially when the bullet goes through the body, so most of the momentum isn't even transferred.

Still, how many conspiracy proponents are willing to admit "of course, the head movement means nothing, but there was still a conspiracy because of ..."? Very few. It almost gets to be a game, where instead of coming up with solid evidence, they go for quantity, and write volume after volume of every conceivable "inconsistency" in the Warren Commission's version of the story. If you look at any event in excruciating detail, you're going to find a bunch of odd facts about it.

I think any conspiracy theory has to start with the admission that Oswald and Oswald alone shot JFK. There is just too much evidence to deny that. OK, Oswald might have been working for the CIA/KGB/Mafia/Castro/Whatever (though from what I've seen, the evidence of any such link is pretty meager), but insisting on a second gunman -- or even worse, insisting that Oswald was not even one of the shooters -- at this point is silly and is a shot to the credibility of authors who make such claims.

Like I said, I'm not an expert, this is just my take on the subject after reading for just a few weeks. But my unfolding belief is that the case for conspiracy is even weaker than I had originally imagined.