It is November, and the JFK anniversary is fast approaching. What will happen this year? I predict: very little; that is: very little coverage. I won't be surprised if some news outlets don't mention it at all. And among those that do, I assure you that all they are going to say about the controversy (if anything) is that some Americans still don't accept that Oswald acted alone, implying, of course, that no one doubts that he acted.
And that, of course, is a bold-faced lie because the vast majority of those who dispute the JFK assassination do so on the basis of Oswald being innocent. And of course, he was innocent; he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots.
But, here's a piece of irony: There are a lot of newscasters, and they're Americans too. So, if 60% of Americans dispute the official story of the JFK assassination, then why shouldn't some of them be newscasters? In other words, some newscaster may spew the party line but not believing a word of it. And when he gets to the part about some Americans doubting that Oswald acted alone, his own conviction may be that Oswald didn't act at all. But, he gets paid to say the things they want him to say; so he says them. He's got to make a living.
It is plainly and visibly true that the JFK assassination is the second-most disputed event in American history. You know very well what number one is: 9/11. And please note the term I used: disputed piece of history. I used that term instead of "conspiracy." I don't like the term "conspiracy" and I never refer to myself as a "conspiracy theorist." That term is a derogatory one invented by the CIA in the 1960s. And the ridiculous thing is that they refer to 9/11 truthers as "conspiracy theorists" even though the official story is just as much a conspiracy.
But regarding JFK, what I suggest you do is what I do: If someone calls me a "conspiracy theorist" I respond by saying that I am not one; that I am am an "Oswald defender." That's my preferred term. Oswald innocence is what interests me and drives me. I don't mind discussing who was really behind the JFK assassination, but it is not my cardinal interest. My cardinal interest is in exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald.
So, regardless of who committed the JFK assassination, Oswald was innocent. And by innocent, I mean completely and totally innocent. I don't mean that he was working with the conspirators but just not as a shooter. I don't mean that he lied to the police by telling them that he knew nothing when he really knew everything. And I don't mean that he had foreknowledge of the assassination. He did not. He did not go to work that morning knowing that JFK was going to be gunned down in Dealey Plaza. He did not even know that JFK's motorcade would be passing his place of work. He really didn't. He asked James Jarman why people were congregating on the sidewalk that morning. He really didn't know.