Kennedy conspiracy ideas dip according to new poll

Color me surprised. But the levels are still high.

Gallup: Belief in Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory falls to new low | TheHill.

The number of people who believe the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 was part of a conspiracy has dropped to its lowest level in nearly 50 years, according to a new poll.

A Gallup poll released Friday still found 61 percent of people believe the assassination was part of a larger conspiracy, rather than the work of a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald. Another 30 percent believe Oswald acted alone.

The poll coincides with the 50th anniversary of his death next Friday.

For most of the last 50 years, more than 70 percent of people consistently said the Kennedy assassination was part of a larger conspiracy.

So the numbers are down which actually surprises me. The article notes that soon after the even, the level was 52% and went as high as 80%. One thought is that the older people who were around and may have been most affected by the event have passed away replaced by those who were too young to know the details or be impacted. Also, as is the case with polls, the use of certain worlds or phrasing can impact the results. For example, what KIND of conspiracy?

I would assume that the numbers would be very high after the blitz of media that is occurring in memorium of the event. I’d be curious to see. Why DO people believe this stuff? Still trying to figure out that difficult answer.

  5 comments for “Kennedy conspiracy ideas dip according to new poll

  1. November 15, 2013 at 1:57 PM

    Thom Hartmann co-authored the 2009 book, “Legacy of Secrecy: The Long Shadow of the JFK Assassination”

    I haven’t read it, but in this interview on Democracy Now he makes a fairly good case that the mafia was involved. At least it sounds credible to me.

    Excerpt: “The House Committee on Assassinations did an exhaustive look at this, and they concluded not only, you know, that Oswald did not act alone, but that all the evidence indicated that there was a conspiracy, and that, in all probability, Carlos Marcello and Santo Trafficante, the two big mob bosses that Bobby was aggressively prosecuting, had the motive, means and opportunity—phrase of the House Select Committee—to have committed the crime. So, you have that. Secondly, you have—you know, naval intelligence did an exhaustive look at Lee Oswald, specifically, after all this, and concluded that there was no possibility that he could have been the shooter.”

    Hartmann goes on to explain why the Warren Commission made the finding it did that Oswald was the shooter and acted alone.

  2. Lagaya1
    November 15, 2013 at 3:32 PM

    I think the drop in conspiracy believers will continue with the aging of the population. Those of us who were alive during that time (I was 10), can remember the days, months, and years of questions as to why something like that could happen. The real reason just didn’t satisfy. Particularly since Oswald was also killed before we knew much of anything about him. It was a strange time when no one knew anything. So the gaps got filled in with junk.

    The younger generations have much more information, and less excuses to believe crazy stuff. And I think there’s a lot more understanding that sometimes people just do violent, inexplicable things for no good reason.

  3. spookyparadigm
    November 15, 2013 at 9:21 PM

    “One thought is that the older people who were around and may have been most affected by the event have passed away replaced by those who were too young to know the details or be impacted.”

    This, pretty much. I teach millennials, and while they have a lot of good points, their interest in anything before their lifetimes (or older than ten years, really) is in my experience very very small. I was shocked this morning how many of them knew about the Rwanda genocide, so I say that in all fairness. But going back past the fall of the Soviet Bloc? Good luck.

  4. Arjen
    November 19, 2013 at 10:46 AM

    I have such a hard time with knowing what the conspiracy is in this case. I believe it is very unhelpful to throw around that term anyway, because it makes the average reader disregard the theory right away. We all know that officials can lie a lot of the time, so we have to approach everything critically. To me, the case that Oswald was the lone shooter is pretty unconvincing. It totally makes sense to me that radical groups wanted to take him out, because he was elected on a platform of the “red scare” and supposedly drastically changed his mind on all that nonsense after he was elected, which was too threatening for people who wanted to build the American empire. This is for me not just a case of the lone crazy guy taking him out, but who do you believe when you are not investigating the scene yourself?

  5. Ron
    November 23, 2013 at 7:56 AM

    Oswald did it. It was a good shot, but hardly a great or impossible shot. Perhaps he did it at the behest of the Kremlin or at the bidding of mafia bosses, ( though this seems unlikely considering the cooperation during the Bay of Pigs, which also nullifies the CIA angle to an extent.) But does it matter why he did it? The fact is that it was done. Johnson did not run for re-election, which takes out that angle. The configuration and varying heights of the seating in the car, as well as the fact that Newton’s Laws and reflexes can easily account for the motion of the president’s head at the time of impact nullifies the magic bullet. ( I shot a deer in the chest with a .30 caliber and the bullet grazed it’s breast bone and exited straight up in the middle of it’s back, severing the spine. Clearly a bullet’s trajectory can be drastically changed upon contact with bone) Oswald did it. A small man used a weapon to take out a great man. The mind seeks to balance the scales, refusing to believe that a nobody can change the course of history will a pull of the trigger.It is as hard to swallow now as it was when the French nobility sought to parley with the English to get the English to ban the longbow in battle. The reason: Peasants and yeomen were killing knights with the longbow. For a commoner to kill a noble was unimaginable, and in some ways, our minds still think that way.
    Oswald did it all right. And if Ruby would not have killed him we may have found out if he was driven by unseen masters to do the deed. But one thing would not change. Oswald acted alone.

Comments are closed.