I think there is enough evidence to say there was at least one other shooter...having said that I have no time for Oliver Stone style fantasies. There are hardcore PaulBots that say Bush and the CIA were involved, whatever. All I can say is if you look at history in a fuller scope and understand the people of that time, it appears to me the obvious question as to "who did it?" can be narrowed if not specified to persons. The big question is of course "who benefited"? To me that answer is obviously "the progressives". People like to say JFK was this big lefty hero, wanted us out of Vietnam blah blah blah. It's all BS. JFK was still a Truman democrat that believed in a strong America both in terms of military stature and economic power combined with that essential do-gooder democrat ethos and old school birthright elitism. Today JFK would be more at home as a moderate (predominate) republican. If JFK was going to keep us out of Vietnam (and the evidence is not conclusive one way or the other) it would only be because he saw no compelling reason for the US to be there. In terms of economics and capitalism JFK would be considered a reluctant classical Keynesian at worst, a supply-side radical at best. The progressives killed Kennedy, used the Vietnam War to stimulate the economy to pay for their massive welfare expansion and the bloating government behemoth getting deeper and deeper into every aspect of our lives became unstoppable. It is clear that some sort of Star Chamber has to be calling the shots and keeping the players in line and continuing the progressive march. When you ask yourself "Why didn't so and so do this, that, or the other thing?" it is because if they did they would be snuffed. What else could explain Obama's continued good health?