Wednesday, November 4, 2009

JFK's Assassination: Is it That We NEED a Conspiracy Theory?

I have a minor hobby over the unexplainable, particularly in terms of crime (hence the whole Manson thing, and so on).

Perhaps the book that set off my love affair with books that explore alternate theories (at least, the first one I remember reading) was Jim Garrison's "On the Trail of the Assassins". I can remember finishing the book and thinking, "How could any rational person believe that a poor uneducated schmuck could singlehandedly--and with some mad gun skills the guy has no record of possessing--kill the president of the United States?"

A lot of time has passed since my first reading of Garrison's book. I've read a lot since then directly related to the assassination; the theories are many and varied. And oh, by the way, they're interesting too. Quite entertaining :)

So now I'm reading "Four Days in November" by Vincent Bugliosi, and it is so cut and dried that there doesn't seem to be any arguing with it. I mean, BAM, Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman, and here's how he did it. Mystery gone.

Obviously, there are those that disagree mightily with Bugliosi's work. When I read one of those, my internal pendulum will start swinging again.

So I have two questions I'd love to have your thoughts on. First, what do YOU think happened to President Kennedy? Was Oswald the lone gunman acting alone, or is the story juicier, with overtones of the mafia, Cuba, and even factions of the U.S. Government itself in on it?

Secondly, why is there still this preoccupation with what happened over forty years ago? Do we NEED to believe in the conspiracy because the thought of a president's murder being as simple as Bugliosi presents it ...