Last updated: December 29, 2014


World News

A sea of conspiracy theories surround the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Are they for real?

Americans recall the moment they learned President John F. Kennedy was killed and re-examine what JFK and Jacqueline Kennedy mean to the country today. Produced by Nathan Frandino. Display (no reporter narration).

President Kennedy was shot in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

President Kennedy was shot in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Source: Supplied

WHAT does it take to bring down the leader of the free world? Surely a man larger than life - John F. Kennedy - would need a conspiracy of epic proportions in order to kill him? No.

It's an answer many find impossible to believe.

We know JFK was shot as his motorcade drove through the main streets of Dallas on November 22, 1963. The rest, it seems, is open to conjecture.

As most psychology students will tell you: There is no such thing as reality; only perception.

And, as our perceptions are shaped by our individual beliefs and biases, there is little surprise that conspiracy theories abound on all manner of subjects.

It can be fun.

The stories can be intriguing.

The sense of the "hunt"; exhilarating.

The sense of "discovery"; empowering.

 As a result of 50 years of much mind-crunching and minute examination of every detail, more than half of the population of the United States does not believe the official account of JFK's death.

Certainly, plenty of holes and questions exist. But enough to threaten the verdict "beyond reasonable doubt"?

Many believe so, and have gone to extraordinary lengths to present their cases.

Many simply defy belief.


Did the flowers conceal a loaded weapon? The idea that Jacqueline Kennedy did it lacks a smoking gun. Source: Supplied


 Jilted wife? Deep-undercover secret assassin? Blackmailed bimbo? All three have been put forward as motives as to why it was the President's wife, Jacqueline Kennedy, who shot him that day.

While the motives at a stretch may vaguely seem possible (but not plausible), why would she choose to kill her husband there, and then, in an open limousine in front of so many onlookers and cameras?

Let's check the assassin's guidebook: Witnesses? Fail. Easy escape route? Fail. Opportunity to hide evidence? Fail. Easiest, least complicated opportunity? Fail.

Apparently Jackie was able to conceal the gun among a 'lamb chop' puppet and a bundle of flowers. How she managed to stash the evidence afterwards tends to be overlooked.

While this is one of the more ridiculous of the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, it doesn't make it less prone to the usual trite argument rolled out in its support: The lack of evidence is evidence in itself that there is a conspiracy, right?


This is the second of two frames of film being used to justify the driver did it conspiracy theory. It purports to show the driver looking over his shoulder with the gun in his lap. Source: Supplied


 If the butler wasn't there to do it, who's the next obvious choice? The driver. This theory is based on one or two grainy frames from film footage of the moment Kennedy was shot. From it, a richly detailed conspiracy has grown.

The driver who must have been in cahoots with the Secret Service agent sitting in the passenger seat whips a gun back over his shoulder to shoot JFK in the head at point blank range. He then quickly slips it out of view. Two or three film frames quickly.

He achieved this without anybody noticing at the time. Nobody, unless you spend a lot of time staring at the blurry cloud of pixels in one or two particular frames. If you are looking for a gun, you'll probably find one.

The idea that the apparent flash could be the bright sun glinting off the agent's hair is a boring, but most likely, explanation.

The fact that no other film footage or still photographs of the moments surrounding the shooting show the driver doing anything other than holding the wheel and looking at the road and mirrors is once again definitive proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Right?


Accidental killer? Did one of the Secret Service agents travelling in the car behind Kennedy accidentally kill him? Why would you think so? Source: Supplied


Killing Kenny er Kennedy was all just a horrible mistake. The diligent, innocent cop who accidentally discharged his firearm would therefore deserve a massive task to doctor evidence and intimidate witnesses in order to protect his career. Right?

Perhaps he was just toying with his gun when the car hit a bump. Perhaps he was just lucky he didn't shoot himself in the foot. Whatever the case, notaries as high as Robert Kennedy himself are supposed to have intervened on his behalf.

No bullet-hole in his jacket. No hole in his pants. No hole in the seat or bodywork of the car he was travelling in. No corresponding hole in the car Kennedy was travelling in. Again, the lack of evidence is used to prove the idea of a conspiracy.

This story may appear to have a shred of credence because of one of its sources - a ballistics expert hired to help re-create the circumstances of the shooting for the official investigation.

The special agent who was supposed to have incompetently discharged his firearm naturally sued the authors of the book, Mortal Error, in which the accusation was made. It was settled under undisclosed terms.


A man carrying an umbrella is seen in several pictures of the moments before JFKs assassination. Was he trying to kill the President, or simply get his attention? Source: Supplied


With the massive conspiracy needed to conceal so much evidence after a shooting in a public place, you'd think they'd put some effort into the actual shooting itself, right?

This one delivers.

Footage and photos from the scene show a man lifting his black umbrella and pumping it open and closed as the President's motorcade drove past.

There was no rain. Therefore, it follows the umbrella must have concealed a poisoned dart or gun. Or perhaps he was signalling gunmen that the President had arrived (even though he was in plain sight).

So why would someone pulse an umbrella as a celebrity drives past? Surely not to attract attention? Unless you're an undercover killer, of course.


These three tramps were arrested immediately after the assassination. Their photographs have been used to justify a swathe of secret agent theories. Source: Supplied


 Homeless tramps in Dallas? Never! Which is probably why three homeless men were quickly arrested in a railway yard not far from where Kennedy was shot.

What better disguise for an assassin? And the homeless hobo's traditional rags are an ideal place to conceal an assassination weapon.

No photographs clearly place the men at the scene of the crime. Cover-up?

There are plenty of pictures of the men being led into the police station. Botched cover-up?

Were they really too clean-cut to be tramps? Was this an obvious giveaway that they were, in fact, undercover agents? And doesn't "matching" their faces with known agents prove the conspiracy?

The fact that all three had police records to substantiate their credentials is something of an inconvenience. Along with the fact two of them were quickly hunted down by journalists and interviewed. The third had died of 'natural causes'.

JFK That Awful Day

Seen through the foreground convertible's windshield, President John F. Kennedy's hand reaches toward his head as first lady Jacqueline Kennedy holds his forearm as the motorcade proceeds along Elm Street. Could a sniper at road level even see them? Source: Supplied


 So nobody saw the shooter. So where is a good place to hide? The stormwater drains!

And what better source for the truth of JFK's assassination in Dallas than a former New York gangster such as Tony Gambino.

There are a few technical problems.

First, from road level one would not have been able to see the President. Second, the bullet would also have to follow a curved trajectory to get around the bodywork and engines of the vehicles in order to reach said unseen President.

While the opportunity to use the storm drain as an escape route is somewhat more plausible, the grate on the road where the bullet was said to have come from was hardly hidden from roadside wellwishers.


Its a small patch of leaves in the shadows above a wall on the grassy knoll. Or is it? If you enhance the image enough (and add extra pixels and add colour) you can produce what looks to be a police officer shooting a gun. Source: Supplied


Never has a mound of turf been so notorious. So many conspiracy theories surround shooters hidden on the grassy knoll it is impossible to cover them all here.

But we'll use 'Badge Man' as an example as it uses elements common to many of these theories.

Again, the idea relies entirely on one photograph.

The image is distant. Blurry.

The cloud of shadows conceals a hidden sniper.

Don't see it?

Try harder.

In the same manner you can see an elephant floating in the sky above, you can see a police officer with a badge lying prone with a muzzle-flash coming out of a rifle.

If you need help, try the super-enhanced and colourised version.

Conclusive proof, huh?

Perhaps not if you regularly play the cloud-picture game with your children, or enjoy the perspective and mind-over-image tricks often presented to art classes.

The fact is, given a patchy enough picture, you can see whatever you want: A face on Mars. A Bigfoot. A Loch-Ness Monster. A shooter on the hill (or lots of them, as the case may be).

Then, in this instance, there is the small matter of scale. For a gunman of average size to be in those proportions at that position, he'd have to be floating about 1.5m above the ground roughly 10m behind the wall. A very difficult shot indeed.


The flag-draped casket of President John F. Kennedy lies in state in the East Room of the White House in Washington. Was he even

The flag-draped casket of President John F. Kennedy lies in state in the East Room of the White House in Washington. Was he even in it? have you seen JFK? Source: Supplied


Have your say

Skip to:
Read comments
Add comments

Add your comment on this story

Comments Form

1200 characters left

Your details