The CTer "mind" can rarely entertain the concept of a single narrative. Those that do are easily exposed as the most deranged (body alterations, faked JFK death, SS agent accidental shooting). As a result, there often is no specific theory much less any agreed upon theory. There is simply a morass of information selectively nitpicked that lends itself to countless possibilities. Many cannot even concede that they are CTers because they refuse to acknowledge the consequences of their own doubts about Oswald's guilt having any validity. If not Oswald, then who or what? They don't care. They go into hysterics if asked to explain what they think happened if, for example, Oswald didn't own and possess the rifle found on the 6th floor. How did it get there, who possessed it etc.? What evidence exists to support these counter possibilities? There's no interest in addressing those issues that arise by direct implication if their concerns with "chain of evidence" or other nonsense have any validity. The most defensible CTer position is not to take one due the lack of supporting evidence and absurdity of any specific theory in the context of the known facts and evidence. Instead, it's just an endless defense attorney game to suggest false doubt. Repeated endlessly.
One would think that after 60+ years of this that the conspiracy explanation would narrow, be more streamlined, coalesce or converge around a single explanation. It only happened one way and after all of their work that one explanation, or something approximating it, should have been discovered and agreed to. "We agree of this and this but throw out that" sort of process.
That hasn't happened. Instead the reverse has taken place: we've seen their Rube Goldberg explanation become more complex and convoluted with more bells and whistles and more elements added over time. Nothing is thrown away; everything is added somewhere. It's no longer a single machine with a few elements but multiple ones with a dizzying array of parts and elements. It all collapses on its own inconsistencies. As in: the media has covered up what happened, i.e., Operation Mockingb**d and all that. But the same media exposed the abuses of the CIA and FBI. The "Family Jewels". So the media has both exposed the conspiracies and covered them up. Seymour Hersh said that when he told Oliver Stone that his theory was preposterous that Stone replied, "I always knew you were CIA." So Hersh is both the person who exposed the abuses of the CIA but is also covering them up. Whew.
The problem is that people simply can't believe that Oswald could change history so much. There has to be more. So the conspiracy arguments - as illogical and inconsistent as they are - satisfy that need, that desire for a greater explanation of events. All we have is some crank with a rifle. Which is more appealing?
