Did JFK help fake the moon-landing? Why do so many unanswered questions still remain unasked?

[grantcart]

88. There is a much greater chance of a conpiracy with James Earl Ray.

LBJ was filled with conflicted psychological baggage after the attack. Robert Kennedy was deeply affected by JFK's murder. Teddy accepted the results and also gave this rather ominous report of Robert's mental state after the assassination:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/kennedy-memoir-talks-of-chappaquiddick-jfk-and-other-presidents/?_r=1

In the 532-page book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Kennedy also said he has always accepted the official findings of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, an event that he said left family members fearing for the emotional health of his brother, Robert F. Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy that he often thought of one brother’s deep grief over the loss of another and said it “veered close to being a tragedy within a tragedy.”

Yes a solid majority believe that it was a conspiracy and it is evenly split between all of the various multitudes of conspiracies, including people in the left who think it was done by rightist elements and people in the left who think that it was orchestrated by communists, and others mafia, etc.

In fact the theory of the murder that has by far the greatest number of people subscribing to it is the theory that Oswald did it. After that the percent of people that believe in a particular theory drops way off. I don't see how it adds to the credibility of the idea that some conspiracy existed when after 50 years the split between the theories remains virtually unchanged and almost completely determined by a persons' personal point of view rather than any emerging evidence.

Actually after Bugliosi's comprehensive treatment of all the different theories in "Reclaiming History" Oswald's role has become the overwhelming view of academics, government officials and journalists, especially those that don't have a vested financial interest in continuing the controversy.

We have a place for people to have stream of consciousness break through on such key issues as to where George Bush was on 11/23. To continue to allow it in GD simply undermines its value.

I understand the basic sympathy for not accepting the established version from a government that would a few months later serve us the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The headline screams conspiracy. Disturbed communist who renounced citizenship and returned to the US shoots the President and is killed by a Mafia key figure.

The problem is in the details. Oswald was the shooter and he tried to kill Walker before. He is a disturbed person with a narcissistic megalomaniac ego. He leaves the depository rushes home and puts 4 bullets into officer Tippi and when he is arrested a few minutes later pulls out the gun and tries to shoot Detective Brewer. As he is led out of the theater, just a few minutes after killing one policeman and attempting to murder another he is overheard by many people in the theater saying that he is a victim of "police brutality" even though everyone in the theater has seen the facts.

Ruby was a gad fly with dreams of grandeur. How well planned was his attack? Well before committing the crime 'ordered by mafia bosses' he stops to send some money by Western Union to one of his stripper employees who is having money problems on a trip. There is an operational problem at the Western Union and he is delayed by about 30 minutes. At the time Dallas Police Chief Fritz lets one of his buddies, a postal Inspector talk with Oswald and so Oswald's movement is delayed and Ruby's arrives late but still has a chance to shoot Oswald. Does it make any sense to anyone that if Ruby was part of a real plot that he would go to Western Union to send money to a stripper minutes before shooting Oswald?

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/11/the-only-person-who-knew-both-kennedy-and-his-killer/281712/

Its fine to have CT for this stuff but we should move it out of GD. It communicates the idea that the standards for reasonable discussion in GD is very low.