Do JFKA CTs have a psychological need to believe it was a conspiracy?

[Dr Alan Howard Davis]

And your research says the conspirators were? Who exactly? You keep mentioning them but never telling us who they were.

It's 2025 not 1963 or '64. What national security threat or harm is there today if the government revealed that "X" killed JFK in 1963? Anyone who was involved is probably long dead. If they were in the 30s and 40s at the time they would be 90+ if even still alive. What would be revealed that injures the state, threatens US security? Besides, how have they kept it quiet all of these decades?

The question about a psychological need to believe in a conspiracy wasn't, as I understood it, just about you and your fellow researchers (whoever they are) or conspiracy activist types. It was a question about conspiracy theorists in general, those who think it wasn't Oswald alone.

I will reveal the conspirators- in time. What I am first doing is showing that the idea that the CIA/ FBI/ anti-Castro/Johnson theories do not hold up to close scrutiny, but have become the accepted narrative, set in stone, when they don't deserve to be. As a scientist, I would deem any study/ experiment conducted thousands of time without a fully plausible result, that doesn't account for all of the variables, is a failure. Time to revisit, re-examine, find another avenue of research that produces more plausible results.

[Michael Walton]

The answer is an emphatic NO as far as JFK's assassination is concerned! There was so obviously a cover-up after the assassination that the logical inference is there was a conspiracy. The conjecture since then has been about who the conspirators were. The problem is the conflation of those theories with other ridiculous claims such as a flat earth or bogus moon landings where the evidence speaks for itself.

Well said. There's nothing psychological about this case. It's just very obvious that the official report is a whitewash. The shooting sequence alone shows that there's no way that a shooter on the 6th floor of a building could have done the shooting with an old out-of-whack gun. The Zapruder film clearly shows this. The shooting starts immediately after you see him from the sign - the shots are almost at the same time, but not quite. The throat shot happens first and then the back shot right after it, which is why he's nudged forward. Connally is not even hit until a few seconds in between.

The head shot sequence then starts after a slight pause. Then the flurry of shells [not my words but from someone who was actually there, the SS guy driving]. There were reports that there was smoke in the air further down near the train tracks [per Pat Speer's website].

The autopsy photos also prove that nothing lines up the way they wrote it up. The back shot alone has no exit point.

Then we have the supposed assassin murdered in plain view of the entire world, with hoards of policemen standing around watching.

I really don't care who did it but will say this - Russia didn't do it, nor Cuba. My hunch is it was obviously some kind of inside job. Was it the Georgetown clique? We don't know. CIA? Same answer. I lean this way because the so-called assassin looks too connected. It wasn't just some nobody like Tim McVeigh. The guy "defected" to the hottest enemy during America's Cold War, then changes his mind and comes back with a hot Russian wife to boot. No questions asked.

He's seen handing out leftist papers on TV and then appears on a "debate" about it on TV and radio, almost as if he's reading a script. All of this a mere 3 months before the murder.

And as you mention above, there are too many kooks and crazies out there muddling everything up. His body was thrown down into the cargo hold; the SS was involved; and on and on and on. And it's not just this case. Go to any crime forum and you can see kooks there as well.