Oswald Acted Alone Is The Most Popular Theory

[Bill Brown]

Let's say that 65% of the public believe Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy and 35% believe Oswald acted alone.

Let's say of the 65%, there are a dozen different conspiracy theories.  Splitting it up evenly and we have each of the dozen conspiracy theories taking up about 5% to 6% of those polled.

Now, we have the idea that Oswald acted alone taking up 35% of those polled.

Therefore, the idea that Oswald acted alone is the most popular theory.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

If only any of the conspiracy theories were honestly subjected to the over-the-top degree of proof that the Oswald lone-assassin finding. Through another conspiracy theory, they blame the mass media for not mindlessly spreading their theories, rather than the critics acknowledging their theories are to blame.

Is this an American thing? Do other countries have anything similar to the obsession over the JFK assassination? For example, in the UK, Jack the Ripper, while quite intriguing, never got this out of hand.

BTW, the British recently endured a conspiracy, in the form of the Post Office Scandal.

It's a baby boomer fixation (each anniversary the attention diminishes); the Kennedys were viewed as American royalty (Camelot and all of that); and people want to believe that the horrors of the Sixties, Vietnam and the deaths of RFK and King and other upheavals, would have been avoided if JFK survived. Add all of the other ingredients - spies and Cold War intrigue, a blurry film as sort of Holy Grail, interesting characters, JFK as King Arthur - and you get this almost mythological level of interest.

I would imagine the closest parallel today (but not real close) would be the death of Lady Di. It's remarkable how obsessed the British were over that.

Conspiracy theorists once asked good, fair, legitimate questions - even though their answers were wrong (to his credit, Epstein didn't try). Certainly at that time and maybe up through the 1980s. But now some 60 years later these are no longer good faith questions. This is Jim Garrison type paranoid nonsense. How many times do the backyard photos have to be authenticated? And they still don't believe it? The idea that people, real human beings, in the fractured, divided, split American government - federal and state and local bureaucracies with all of the divisions and conflicts - could plan this all out, execute it, and cover it up (even today!!) is preposterous. Worse than preposterous there's not credible evidence for it (where and when was this planned?)

[Dan O'meara]

Let's say that 65% of the public believe Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy and 35% believe Oswald acted alone.

Let's say of the 65%, there are a dozen different conspiracy theories.  Splitting it up evenly and we have each of the dozen conspiracy theories taking up about 5% to 6% of those polled.

Now, we have the idea that Oswald acted alone taking up 35% of those polled.

Therefore, the idea that Oswald acted alone is the most popular theory.

Therefore, the idea that Oswald acted alone is the most popular theory.

It's important to recognise that Oswald acting alone is indeed a theory.
There are LNers who are every bit as fanatical as the most ardent tinfoil CTers, who believe they are dealing in facts when they are dealing with a narrative.
That said, the strength of the LN position has always been it's narrative.
It is easy to pick holes in any narrative, it is another thing to offer up a competing narrative that can withstand the same amount of scrutiny.

[Charles Collins]

If only any of the conspiracy theories were honestly subjected to the over-the-top degree of proof that the Oswald lone-assassin finding. Through another conspiracy theory, they blame the mass media for not mindlessly spreading their theories, rather than the critics acknowledging their theories are to blame.

Is this an American thing? Do other countries have anything similar to the obsession over the JFK assassination? For example, in the UK, Jack the Ripper, while quite intriguing, never got this out of hand.

BTW, the British recently endured a conspiracy, in the form of the Post Office Scandal.

Is this an American thing? Do other countries have anything similar to the obsession over the JFK assassination?


One never speaks of this assassination without making reckless judgments…The absurdity of the accusations, the total lack of evidence, nothing stops them…One must read everything with mistrust. —Voltaire, speaking about the incredible stories and conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination of King Henri IV of France1

“Reclaiming History” Vincent Bugliosi page 1280

[Richard Smith]

Therefore, the idea that Oswald acted alone is the most popular theory.

It's important to recognise that Oswald acting alone is indeed a theory.
There are LNers who are every bit as fanatical as the most ardent tinfoil CTers, who believe they are dealing in facts when they are dealing with a narrative.
That said, the strength of the LN position has always been it's narrative.
It is easy to pick holes in any narrative, it is another thing to offer up a competing narrative that can withstand the same amount of scrutiny.

All facts are based upon a "theory."  That alone doesn't make the conclusion suspect. The facts and evidence are used to support certain theories and reject others.  It is not "fanatical" to conclude that the world is round because the facts support that "narrative."  Just because some unreasonable people refuse to accept the facts doesn't cast doubt on the conclusion to be drawn from them or force intelligent people to entertain doubt.  The evidence against Oswald is overwhelming.   There is zero credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else at six decades and counting.

[Richard Smith]

Let's say that 65% of the public believe Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy and 35% believe Oswald acted alone.

Let's say of the 65%, there are a dozen different conspiracy theories.  Splitting it up evenly and we have each of the dozen conspiracy theories taking up about 5% to 6% of those polled.

Now, we have the idea that Oswald acted alone taking up 35% of those polled.

Therefore, the idea that Oswald acted alone is the most popular theory.

There are polls that indicate that many people believe in bigfoot, ghosts, and UFOs etc.  Do the majority of people believe in all this nonsense or is it just more fun to claim do so?  I think it is mostly the latter.  In addition, 95% of the public doesn't know the first thing about the JFK assassination.  So their opinion is largely based on ignorance of the evidence.  The truth is ultimately determined by the facts and evidence and not by what anyone believes.  And the facts and evidence link Oswald to the JFK and Tippit murders beyond any doubt.  I don't have any bias against a conspiracy conclusion.  I accept that there have been many conspiracies in history including some relating to assassinations (e.g. Lincoln).  Rather, it is the facts and evidence that support the conclusion that Oswald committed these acts. 

[Dan O'meara]

All facts are based upon a "theory."  That alone doesn't make the conclusion suspect. The facts and evidence are used to support certain theories and reject others.  It is not "fanatical" to conclude that the world is round because the facts support that "narrative."  Just because some unreasonable people refuse to accept the facts doesn't cast doubt on the conclusion to be drawn from them or force intelligent people to entertain doubt.  The evidence against Oswald is overwhelming.   There is zero credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else at six decades and counting.

All facts are based upon a "theory."

I might be wrong, but I think what you're trying to say here is that all theories/narratives are based on facts.
If you're actually saying that all facts are based upon a theory then I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
The LNer narrative is a story that tries to encompass as many of the known facts about this case as possible and it is clearly an effective narrative. As I say, the strength of the LNer position is the narrative even if, on closer inspection, it is a lot more fragile than it first appears.
The bottom line is that no competing narrative has successfully challenged it.
It is easy to pick away at individual elements of the LNer narrative but it doesn't mean anything. The narrative is greater than the sum of it's parts.

It is not "fanatical" to conclude that the world is round because the facts support that "narrative."

But it is fanatical to insist that the world is flat and to refuse to engage in any kind of debate or arguments about the facts. Just to blindly insist over and over "No, it's flat and that's that."
It is particularly fanatical if this is something a person hasn't worked out for themselves. They've been told what to believe and have zero interest in anything that in any way disturbs that belief.

The evidence against Oswald is overwhelming. There is zero credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else at six decades and counting.

The evidence that Oswald was involved in the assassination may be overwhelming but there is zero credible evidence that Oswald was in the SN taking the shots.
Just to reiterate that - THERE IS ZERO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT OSWALD WAS IN THE SN TAKING THE SHOTS AT THE TIME OF THE ASSASSINATION.
You believe that he was there so much you confuse it with a fact - now that is fanatical.
Nearly every piece of the meagre collection of evidence that exists regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald or contradicts the LNer narrative - that is a fact.

[Richard Smith]

All facts are based upon a "theory."

I might be wrong, but I think what you're trying to say here is that all theories/narratives are based on facts.
If you're actually saying that all facts are based upon a theory then I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
The LNer narrative is a story that tries to encompass as many of the known facts about this case as possible and it is clearly an effective narrative. As I say, the strength of the LNer position is the narrative even if, on closer inspection, it is a lot more fragile than it first appears.
The bottom line is that no competing narrative has successfully challenged it.
It is easy to pick away at individual elements of the LNer narrative but it doesn't mean anything. The narrative is greater than the sum of it's parts.

It is not "fanatical" to conclude that the world is round because the facts support that "narrative."

But it is fanatical to insist that the world is flat and to refuse to engage in any kind of debate or arguments about the facts. Just to blindly insist over and over "No, it's flat and that's that."
It is particularly fanatical if this is something a person hasn't worked out for themselves. They've been told what to believe and have zero interest in anything that in any way disturbs that belief.

The evidence against Oswald is overwhelming. There is zero credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else at six decades and counting.

The evidence that Oswald was involved in the assassination may be overwhelming but there is zero credible evidence that Oswald was in the SN taking the shots.
Just to reiterate that - THERE IS ZERO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT OSWALD WAS IN THE SN TAKING THE SHOTS AT THE TIME OF THE ASSASSINATION.
You believe that he was there so much you confuse it with a fact - now that is fanatical.
Nearly every piece of the meagre collection of evidence that exists regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald or contradicts the LNer narrative - that is a fact.

All theories and narratives are based on facts?  LOL.  What a psychological insight.  Many children have a theory that a fat man lives at the North Pole and works with his elves to make their Christman presents.  I'm not aware of any facts that this theory is based upon.  You have to have theories and a hypothesis to test with facts.   Otherwise you are in a state of ignorant bliss not only not knowing the answers but not even suspecting the questions.   Bottom line.   Oswald did it.  The evidence supports this conclusion.  Not every nut has to be convinced of this for it to be deemed an established fact.  Writing nonsense like there is "zero credible evidence that Oswald was in the SN taking the shots at the time of the assassination" demonstrates your complete lack of seriousness.  Oswald's rifle was found at the scene of the crime.  Fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found by the very window from which witnesses confirm the shots were fired.  Oswald provided no explanation for the presence of his rifle to be at the crime scene - his place of employment.  Instead he lies about ownership of the rifle that prints, photos, documents, and testimony link to him.   His prints are found on the SN boxes.  Imagine any other case in history where this is deemed "zero credible evidence."  What you are effectively suggesting is that in the absence of a time machine no such crime can ever be solved.  I can't even contemplate how there could be any more evidence than exists that links Oswald to this crime.