If this was a conspiracy, it did go off without a hitch, insofar as Kennedy died, and nobody has ever been convicted of any wrongdoing. I think, however, that the reason we are talking about this 40 years later is because JFK was the President of the U.S., a beloved man, and his death is one of those “where were you when” moments.
I encourage and applaud skepticism. I think it should motivate us to look closely at the facts, and scrutinize as best we can. But I now see why some Dopers rolled their eyes at another JFK thread; when presented with lots of compelling evidence that LHO committed the crime, some people will just ignore it and throw out another “tidbit”. It’s an endless exercise in futility.
I’ve asked you several times to reconcile the totality of evidence suggesting Oswald was the shooter, and you’ve just ignored that and continued to identify new factoids. Now, George HW Bush and the CIA are involved? I don’t think you’ll say that, but you’ll just use that story to again say “we’ll just never know.”
Imagine, if you will, that you are on a jury in a murder trial (not of the president; just some random victim). The prosecutor places the defendant at the scene of the crime, demonstrates that the defendant owned the murder weapon, that he brought a bag that could have contained the weapon to work, that the weapon is found at his workplace, that his prints are on the weapon, that he has had sniper training, that the shot is possible, that he fled the scene, that he shot a police officer who approached him a little while later, that he has an erratic past, et al.
Would you still be the one to say, “but he once shot himself in the foot when he was a Marine,”, and “I heard that somebody in the government wanted details of the crime right after he was arrested” so “we’ll never know if he did it”? Or, do you so sincerely want to believe in a scandal that any tidbit that satsfies that craving becomes a compelling argument?