JFK: THE CASE FOR CONSPIRACY

[William Seger]

4. The witnesses don't agree with each other

... which is fairly common, since perceptions and memories are both fallible. Conspiracists have an easy way to resolve that: They simply assume that anyone who supports the "official story" is wrong or lying while anyone who says anything different must be telling the real truth. But the conventional way of resolving conflicting witness testimony is to favor that which is supported by the evidence. The Zapruder film, the autopsy photos and the X-rays all support a hit from behind -- no massive exit wound on the rear of the head and no wound at all on the left side where a shot from the grassy knoll would have exited. On the other hand, no physical or documentary evidence supports a second shooter, anywhere. This forces conspiracists to further assume that the evidence we have must have been faked, somehow, while all the "real" evidence must have been covered up. How plausible is that, really, and how plausible is it that the "real perps" were too stupid to come up with a plot that didn't require all that fake evidence and cover-up in the first place?

I don't claim to "know for a fact" that there wasn't a conspiracy, but I do claim that evidence-based reasoning says Oswald shot JFK, beyond reasonable doubt, and that there is no good reason to believe there was a second shooter.