# Conspiracy Buffs: Why Kill JFK? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 28, 2015, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832 "2015-02-28T05:26:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2015, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832/82 "2015-03-29T07:45:39Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > You, uh, still haven’t responded with the “one fact which he believes is at odds with the official story of JFK’s death” that was requested about a week ago. 😕 Let me, uh, unconfuse you. 1. I said I’m not going to debate on this thread. Giving ‘one fact’, to be impeached then rebutted, would be, unless I am greatly deceived, a debate. 2. I haven’t said that the WC had invented ‘material facts’. My theme has always/mainly been that their interpretation and presentation of what they had was deliberately flawed, as part of a/the conspiracy. The slavish subservience to the WCR, and the virulent traducing of CTers, is a result of misplaced confidence in a governmental agency/Commission/etc. 3. When I vaguely point to the public domain, in re: the Assassination, it is because I’m confident that many have heard the evidences w/o even considering it, and being to ready to attack the CTers. My audience for that already has heard, but, hasn’t listened, because their ears perk up like a fox, their noses twitch, and they are off to sink their teeth into the first CT rabbit that they can find. 4. My purpose, in re: a debate, is to get the ones who have heard the evidences to consider what they have at hand, without the howling and spittle. That is all. A difference of opinion is welcomed, by me. Tiresome cackling is not. And, said debate will not happen here. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2015, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832/83 "2015-03-29T08:30:56Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > Sorry HH, but the Internet Intellectual Death Penalty is sparsely applied… Case in point. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2015, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832/84 "2015-03-29T12:23:06Z")
> [@handsomeharry](#): > > Let me, uh, unconfuse you. > > 1. I said I’m not going to debate on this thread. Giving ‘one fact’, to be impeached then rebutted, would be, unless I am greatly deceived, a debate. > 2. I haven’t said that the WC had invented ‘material facts’. My theme has always/mainly been that their interpretation and presentation of what they had was deliberately flawed, as part of a/the conspiracy. The slavish subservience to the WCR, and the virulent traducing of CTers, is a result of misplaced confidence in a governmental agency/Commission/etc. > 3. When I vaguely point to the public domain, in re: the Assassination, it is because I’m confident that many have heard the evidences w/o even considering it, and being to ready to attack the CTers. My audience for that already has heard, but, hasn’t listened, because their ears perk up like a fox, their noses twitch, and they are off to sink their teeth into the first CT rabbit that they can find. > 4. My purpose, in re: a debate, is to get the ones who have heard the evidences to consider what they have at hand, without the howling and spittle. That is all. A difference of opinion is welcomed, by me. Tiresome cackling is not. > > And, said debate will not happen here. So, your debate strategy is something along the lines of “by not debating people who disagree with me, I automatically win”? Or is it more “personality flaws inherent within those who disagree with me are the reason I choose not to engage them… and all who disagree with me exhibit these flaws”? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2015, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832/85 "2015-03-29T12:25:53Z")
> [@handsomeharry](#): > > Case in point. You don’t really get what I was referring to, do you? ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2015, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832/86 "2015-03-29T13:56:22Z")
> [@handsomeharry](#): > > 1. I said I’m not going to debate on this thread. > […] > And, said debate will not happen here. Can we put you down thusly for all JFK-related threads, then? ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2015, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832/87 "2015-03-29T18:37:26Z")
> [@The\_Winkler](#): > > I think the motive was that killing JFK was somehow good for communism. Somehow? John F. Kennedy was a known anti-communist. The assassin couldn’t know who would be tougher on communism, Kennedy or Johnson, several years into the future. But, everyone who read newspapers, in 1963, did know that Kennedy was an influential and powerful anti-communist. Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t like that. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832/88 "2015-03-30T13:43:26Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > You, uh, still haven’t responded with the “one fact which he believes is at odds with the official story of JFK’s death” that was requested about a week ago. 😕 Really **Handsonharry** , can’t toss one out as a personal favor to us?? Pretty please? You may think you’re convincing us that you are taking some moral high ground here. But we’ve been around the block ourselves. If you can’t give us one of your litany of examples based on your extensive expertise in this field, we you know you’re full of it. Frankly we think you are now, but why remove all doubt? ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832/89 "2015-03-30T14:16:50Z")
Yeah. "I know the Truth but… [ul] [li]…I don’t have the time…[/li][li]…I don’t feel like arguing…[/li][li]…you would just dismiss it…[/li][li]…it’s out there if you know where to look…[/li][li]…it’s out there if you aren’t too stupid to look…[/li][li]…it’s out there if you aren’t too lazy to look…[/li][li]…it’s out there if you aren’t too programmed to look…[/li][li]…it’s out there if you aren’t too COINTELPRO to look…[/li][li]…“they” will come after me if I tell…[/li][li]…my group is working on the big bombshell release…[/li][li]…I have better things to do…[/li][/ul] …so I’m not going to tell you about it." (The exit argument for every woo and nonsense purveyor I’ve ever encountered.) ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832/90 "2015-03-30T16:12:50Z")
> [@handsomeharry](#): > > I don’t see how you cannot understand that the entire point of my post in re: the ‘jokes’ isn’t an objection to jokes-it is the fact that the topics get derailed. > Even that could be forgiven, if not for the fact that the ‘jokes’ are all overused, and, you can often smell the posters that have no idea of any of the facts of the issue, but, they just want to make a noise. You can easily skim past those posts that are making jokes. You don’t even have to respond to them! > [@](#): > > I just checked out that thread…you have mischaracterized my participation in it. Unless I missed something, I answered anything that I, myself posited. Wait…huh? **You** answered everything that **you** raised, and that qualifies as participating in a discussion?! We are truly through the looking glass here. Just so you know, there are other posters here; it isn’t just your blog. > [@](#): > > Since you are so busy looking up my posting history, find the one where somebody started derailing the post where I referenced Mark Lane. Somebody brought in some obscure statement, which I later found, IIRC, was incomplete, and giving a false sense of what had transpired. I tried to reason with him, but, he kept carping on about it. De-railing my point. That type of behavior, in toto, is why I won’t go into the Conspiracy, again, in this forum. I looked up your posting history because I was trying to find this vaunted thread where you did go into details about the “Conspiracy”, which you continually reference. I was truly interested in discovering your theories. After a search, I couldn’t find it. Please do enlighten me, since I don’t see what you see. > [@](#): > > A site with a name like “Washington Decoded” fills me with confidence. > Your calling Lane a profiteer does not constitute an argument. It is ad hominem. (Sorry, AB!) Worse than that, it is irrelevant. I thought you weren’t going to debate me. If that website (and its citations) isn’t worth your time, would it help if I quote the House Select Committee on Assassination’s opinion of Mark Lane and his predilection to find conspiracies whenever they suit him: “Many of the allegations of conspiracy that the committee investigated were first raised by Mark Lane … [A]s has been noted, the facts were often at variance with Lane’s assertions … Lane was willing to advocate conspiracy theories publicly without having checked the factual basis for them … Lane’s conduct resulted in public misperception about the assassination of Dr. King and must be condemned.” You call such criticisms irrelevant and ad hominem. I wouldn’t have to attack the messenger if you would just relay the message. As long as you are relying on an appeal to authority, it is quite relevant to discuss why the authority is unreliable. > [@](#): > > I said I’m not going to debate on this thread. Giving ‘one fact’, to be impeached then rebutted, would be, unless I am greatly deceived, a debate. Why are you posting in Great Debates? > [@](#): > > I haven’t said that the WC had invented ‘material facts’. My theme has always/mainly been that their interpretation and presentation of what they had was deliberately flawed, as part of a/the conspiracy. The slavish subservience to the WCR, and the virulent traducing of CTers, is a result of misplaced confidence in a governmental agency/Commission/etc. You keep going back to this strawman, wherein everyone who believes in the veracity of the Warren Commission is a naïve sycophant of the U.S. Government. It’s not so, and your insistence that it is comes across as petulant. > [@](#): > > When I vaguely point to the public domain, in re: the Assassination, it is because I’m confident that many have heard the evidences w/o even considering it, and being to ready to attack the CTers. My audience for that already has heard, but, hasn’t listened, because their ears perk up like a fox, their noses twitch, and they are off to sink their teeth into the first CT rabbit that they can find. You really do fear rebuttal, don’t you? If you are suggesting that you have already presented your conspiracy theory on these boards, but people failed to “listen”, then I again ask for a link to that thread. I haven’t seen it, despite looking. > [@](#): > > My purpose, in re: a debate, is to get the ones who have heard the evidences to consider what they have at hand, without the howling and spittle. That is all. A difference of opinion is welcomed, by me. Tiresome cackling is not. Again with the thin skin. Please do show where people refuse to engage in a debate with you, and instead resort to ‘tiresome cackling’, because you have painted the members of this board with a mighty broad brush. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832/91 "2015-03-31T02:02:39Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > So, your debate strategy is something along the lines of “by not debating people who disagree with me, I automatically win”? Or is it more “personality flaws inherent within those who disagree with me are the reason I choose not to engage them… and all who disagree with me exhibit these flaws”? So your debate strategy is something along the lines of making up quotes, attributing them to me, and posting these quotes? ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832/92 "2015-03-31T02:04:37Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Yeah. "I know the Truth but… > > [ul] > [li]…I don’t have the time…[/li][li]…I don’t feel like arguing…[/li][li]…you would just dismiss it…[/li][li]…it’s out there if you know where to look…[/li][li]…it’s out there if you aren’t too stupid to look…[/li][li]…it’s out there if you aren’t too lazy to look…[/li][li]…it’s out there if you aren’t too programmed to look…[/li][li]…it’s out there if you aren’t too COINTELPRO to look…[/li][li]…“they” will come after me if I tell…[/li][li]…my group is working on the big bombshell release…[/li][li]…I have better things to do…[/li][/ul] > …so I’m not going to tell you about it." > (The exit argument for every woo and nonsense purveyor I’ve ever encountered.) Making up quotes and attributing them to somebody else… The exit argument for people who confuse issues and facts deliberately. And, worse. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832/93 "2015-03-31T02:05:40Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > You don’t really get what I was referring to, do you? Apparently not…I apologize, \*\*Mr. Miskatonic. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832/94 "2015-03-31T02:07:24Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > You can easily skim past those posts that are making jokes. You don’t even have to respond to them! > > Wait…huh? **You** answered everything that **you** raised, and that qualifies as participating in a discussion?! We are truly through the looking glass here. Just so you know, there are other posters here; it isn’t just your blog. > > I looked up your posting history because I was trying to find this vaunted thread where you did go into details about the “Conspiracy”, which you continually reference. I was truly interested in discovering your theories. After a search, I couldn’t find it. Please do enlighten me, since I don’t see what you see. > > I thought you weren’t going to debate me. If that website (and its citations) isn’t worth your time, would it help if I quote the House Select Committee on Assassination’s opinion of Mark Lane and his predilection to find conspiracies whenever they suit him: > “Many of the allegations of conspiracy that the committee investigated were first raised by Mark Lane … [A]s has been noted, the facts were often at variance with Lane’s assertions … Lane was willing to advocate conspiracy theories publicly without having checked the factual basis for them … Lane’s conduct resulted in public misperception about the assassination of Dr. King and must be condemned.” > You call such criticisms irrelevant and ad hominem. I wouldn’t have to attack the messenger if you would just relay the message. As long as you are relying on an appeal to authority, it is quite relevant to discuss why the authority is unreliable. > > Why are you posting in Great Debates? > > You keep going back to this strawman, wherein everyone who believes in the veracity of the Warren Commission is a naïve sycophant of the U.S. Government. It’s not so, and your insistence that it is comes across as petulant. > > You really do fear rebuttal, don’t you? If you are suggesting that you have already presented your conspiracy theory on these boards, but people failed to “listen”, then I again ask for a link to that thread. I haven’t seen it, despite looking. > > Again with the thin skin. Please do show where people refuse to engage in a debate with you, and instead resort to ‘tiresome cackling’, because you have painted the members of this board with a mighty broad brush. Wow, you actually came close to getting me into a debate, with this post. Not really! Psyche! _Finis_ ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832/95 "2015-03-31T03:28:59Z")
So that’s how that board feature works… nice. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832/96 "2015-03-31T15:00:48Z")
**Conspiracy Buffs: Why Kill JFK?** I’m not a buff, but I did hear an entertaining reason proposed as a possible answer to that question. It was one of those “Aliens are everywhere” show, possibly on the history channel. They were discussing President Eisenhower’s meeting with “aliens” in 1954 at an Air Force base a few hours from Palm Springs. Of course, the government denied this. But Kennedy apparently wanted to get to the bottom of it, and pushed the matter. The government wasn’t cooperating with his presidential efforts. So of course, they had him killed because UFOs are super secret, need to know, etc. No, I don’t believe it, but I found it entertaining to listen to. Now, if it involved a rabid chupacabra, Marilyn Monroe and a moonless night, I’d have bought into it. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832/97 "2015-03-31T18:17:54Z")
Chupacabra’s have _no_ morals. None. As to what ethos a **rabid** chupacabra has… I shudder to contemplate. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Winkler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/82dd89/32.png) [@The\_Winkler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Winkler)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832/98 "2015-04-01T05:50:55Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Somehow? > > John F. Kennedy was a known anti-communist. > > The assassin couldn’t know who would be tougher on communism, Kennedy or Johnson, several years into the future. But, everyone who read newspapers, in 1963, did know that Kennedy was an influential and powerful anti-communist. > > Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t like that. We know that Oswald supported Communism from his trip to the USSR and the statements he made, both to the press and to people he knew. I really think that in Oslwald’s mind, killing Kennedy was his contribution to the Communist revolution that he so badly wanted. Regarding Lyndon Johnson, I don’t think Oswald thought it through that far. He was going to show the communist world his worth by killing the president. He may have been trying to escape to Mexico and then on to Cuba where Castro - in Oswald’s mind - would give him a hero’s welcome. It fits Oswald’s psychological profile to be delusional enough to think Fidel Castro would suddenly open his arms to JFK’s assassin. Once he was arrested by Dallas police I believe he thought he had no choice but to deny everything. (He wanted notoriety in the communist world for killing JFK.) Oswald didn’t expect to be arrested and he didn’t want to go to prison. I think he may have actually been crazy enough to believe that somehow he would make his way into Cuba. (They wouldn’t deny him entry this time. Not to the man who killed communisms biggest enemy.) All theory, of course. But I think the motive behind the assassination is that Oswald somehow saw this act as advancing communism and establishing himself as a hero to Castro and the USSR. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832/99 "2015-04-01T06:32:44Z")
> [@handsomeharry](#): > > Let me, uh, unconfuse you. > > 1. I said I’m not going to debate on this thread. Giving ‘one fact’, to be impeached then rebutted, would be, unless I am greatly deceived, a debate. > 2. I haven’t said that the WC had invented ‘material facts’. My theme has always/mainly been that their interpretation and presentation of what they had was deliberately flawed, as part of a/the conspiracy. The slavish subservience to the WCR, and the virulent traducing of CTers, is a result of misplaced confidence in a governmental agency/Commission/etc. > 3. When I vaguely point to the public domain, in re: the Assassination, it is because I’m confident that many have heard the evidences w/o even considering it, and being to ready to attack the CTers. My audience for that already has heard, but, hasn’t listened, because their ears perk up like a fox, their noses twitch, and they are off to sink their teeth into the first CT rabbit that they can find. > 4. My purpose, in re: a debate, is to get the ones who have heard the evidences to consider what they have at hand, without the howling and spittle. That is all. A difference of opinion is welcomed, by me. Tiresome cackling is not. > > And, said debate will not happen here. So, you got nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832/100 "2015-04-01T13:33:35Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > Was there any realistic chance of Oswald escaping? Because if the assassination was a suicide mission anyway, did the 1960s secret service have a way to prevent assassins with bomb vests? I’m wondering if the favored middle eastern form of attack might actually be a sound, effective strategy. > > In the Zapruder film, weren’t many of the crowd members within the kill radius of a bomb vest, near Kennedy’s open topped car? Heck, almost two years earlier, Richard Paul Pavlick had sticks of dynamite ready to go and was preparing to ram his vehicle into then-President-Elect Kennedy and kill everyone, including himself. Pavlick relented when he saw Jackie and the two kids and was arrested before he could get in position for another attempt. In his memoirs, U.E. Baughman (Secret Service Chief 1948-1961) admits Pavlick could easily have succeeded had he followed through. Personally, I figure if Oswald could have gotten away at least temporarily, but he was probably expecting to be arrested or killed on the spot. Had he planned ahead, bought some bus or train tickets, prepared a few changes of clothing or basic disguises, maybe he could at least have gotten out of Dallas instead of just wandering around like a schmuck. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832/101 "2015-04-01T15:52:22Z")
> [@The\_Winkler](#): > > I really think that in Oslwald’s mind, killing Kennedy was his contribution to the Communist revolution that he so badly wanted. I agree completely. > [@](#): > > He may have been trying to escape to Mexico and then on to Cuba where Castro - in Oswald’s mind - would give him a hero’s welcome. Maybe, but I think it’s more likely that he hadn’t thought that far ahead. He was so focused on his contribution to communism that he didn’t care too much what came next. If he had planned anything, he would have slunk back into the crowd and gotten himself away - instead he wandered around Oak Cliff like a schmuck (as Bryan said), apparently not trying to hide, but not knowing what to do with himself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-buffs-why-kill-jfk/713832.md?page=6)