In conspiracy world anything is possible. As Hofstadter said, the conspiracy view "Believes it is up against an enemy who is as infallibly rational as he is totally evil, and it seeks to match his imputed total competence with its own, leaving nothing unexplained and comprehending all of reality in one overreaching consistent theory."
Again: "imputed total competence."
Conspirators are not always competent. See Watergate and Iran Contra for famous examples of conspiracies exposed by incompetence.
But there are other examples of competent and successful conspiracies. Many of those examples involve organized crime. Some involve terrorists. The CIA had a number of successful conspiracy plots in other countries before the Bay of Pigs and other well publicized failures. The FBI almost got away with their COINTELPRO conspiracies.
When it comes to conspiracies, I’m generally a skeptic believe it or not. I don’t believe 9/11 was an inside job. I don’t believe Trump “colluded” with Putin in 2016. I don’t believe Hillary intentionally let Americans die in Benghazi.
The JFK assassination is different to me because of the overwhelming number of strange coincidences, inconclusive and inconsistent evidence, and continued secrecy by our national security state. In other words, it seems perfectly reasonable for people to speculate that there might have been a conspiracy based on the things that continue to be debated and remain inconclusive.
So I don’t understand your relentless attempts to paint people who speculate about conspiracies in the Kennedy assassination as “Tin foil hat” people. Granted, some in the JFK assassination research community fall into that category but most people (myself included) honestly don’t find the official narrative to be convincing and are still searching for the truth.