When visiting the 6th Floor Museum, a memorial to the life and death of John F Kennedy, I was stunned to learn that 70% of Americans don't believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of Kennedy. (The same survey also found that over 60% of Americans did not want yet another investigation into his death.) I don't know how much these numbers were influenced by the poorly done (from an historical and logical perspective) Oliver Stone movie, JFK. In this paper, I won't seek to refute individual conspiracy theories or explain evidence that seems to implicate more than one gunman. These tasks have been admirably handled by others. I wish to present the general case against conspiracy theories.

It seems strange that even though there are many who believe in conspiracy theories, they have not found enough evidence to support any one theory. It is difficult to disprove a theory that constantly morphs into something else. Conspiracy theorists don't spend time arguing with each other to reach a consensus, even though their theories are mutually incompatible. This is because the particulars of their theories are not that important to them. If any conspiracy can be shown, they would all take it as vindication of having been "right." What they want is a grand cause behind a momentous effect. They cannot accept the fact that an insignificant man and six seconds can shake the world.

Nearly all conspiracy theories assume some large, powerful force was behind the JFK assassination--a "grand cause." Conspiring forces include the CIA, Mafia, Russian government, Cuban government, or some combination thereof. It can not be proven that these entities weren't involved; which is not a reason to believe they were. We can't prove the girl scouts, American Medical Association, Scotland Yard, etc. weren't involved in the assassination either. These latter groups would likely have less motivation to want JFK gone, but the former groups would have risked a lot more had they been identified as active participants. (It quite possibly would have been the end of the CIA and Mafia as they existed and most likely would have led to a war with Russia or Cuba if any of them participated and was identified as a participant). Any of these groups smart enough to kill a President and not be fingered shortly thereafter would have been too smart to risk that much.

If an intelligent organization were involved in a conspiracy, they would not have used an incompetent man such as Lee Harvey Oswald who killed a police officer shortly after the assassination and got himself caught within two hours. The police had him in custody for a couple of days during which time co-conspirators could have been uncovered. No. If you were going to use an ignorant man as a pawn, you would erase him moments after he shot the President. No one would have objected to such a shooting. Indeed, a killer of Oswald at that point would have been regarded as a hero.

Would a "grand cause" have enlisted Oswald in the off-chance that he would have been in a position to shoot Kennedy? It was only hours before the motorcade was to commence (as the weather was clearing up) that Kennedy himself ordered his limousine's protective bubble removed. Assuming Kennedy was not involved in his own assassination, conspirators would have been foiled from killing the President because of the bubble. A "grand cause" would have created their own lose cannon (having a priori negotiated an assassination attempt with Oswald) on the off-chance that he could have become the fall guy in Dallas. He is not the type of individual one hires as an assassin who follows and studies his prey looking for an opportunity. Happenstance put him in a place at a time where he could kill Kennedy. He could have easily been thwarted by other circumstances (bad weather, changing route for the motorcade, someone investigating the brown bag carrying his rifle, greater security precautions, etc.). There were far too many risks for a "grand cause" to assume in order to use a barely competent killer. And how was Oswald to benefit from complicity with a "grand cause"? Oswald received little help in the assassination; he used his own weapon and his own place of employment to kill Kennedy and he (poorly) planned his own escape.

If anyone were to conspire with Oswald and be so dumb as to let him leave the scene of the crime and be caught by the police, it would be another ignorant person--a friend or relative of Oswald's--who would be the conspirator. But conspiracy buffs would not be satisfied with that answer. They want a grand cause behind a momentous effect. Having Kennedy assassinated by a team of insignificant people would not satisfy their real desire.

To posit that there was a conspiracy which included a second gunman, but that Oswald was not part of that conspiracy (as no self-respecting organization capable of presidential assassination would want to dirty its hands with the likes of him), then one must believe in the huge coincidence of two independent assassins happening to be after Kennedy on the same day, in the same place of the same motorcade, at the same time (within 2-3 seconds). On its surface this is more suspect than any supposed evidence that undermines the "independently acting Oswald was the lone gunman" theory.

After nearly forty years, there is still no substantive evidence linking any group to the JFK assassination. During this same time other assassination plots (some successful some not) in which the CIA, Mafia, and/or JFK himself was involved have come to light. It seems incredibly unlikely that a juicy story such as a JFK assassination plot could stay a secret this long. (For JFK assassination plots for which there is substantial evidence, see Curt's notes on Seymour Hersh's book, The Dark Side of Camelot. Hersch's book describes plots in which JFK was on the planning side of a conspiracy to kill foreign leaders, not on the target side.)

If one wishes to believe, against the evidence and without evidence, in Santa Claus, gods, and JFK assassination conspiracy theories, one can do so; hopefully finding more value in the comfort of such a belief than discomfort in the loss of intellectual integrity. But recognize that even if one refuses to believe it happened in this case, accept that it is possible for a minor force to cause a great event. Nearly anyone in any crowd near Kennedy had an opportunity to kill him (and not everyone acts as part of a conspiracy.) His death would have been a great event no matter how minor the initiating force. In our own lives, apparently minor choices we make or actions we take may have significant long-term impact in our lives or the lives of others. Our responsibility is to recognize the possible imbalance between the perceived importance of a cause and its effect, and choose and act with that awareness.

© 2000 frantzml@juno.com