Let's say that the two Kennedys would have been two big obstacles to the projects of certain technocrats behind the scenes.
It deals with a person who wanted the US to fight horrific wars in South East Asia (and the Kennedys wouldn't); a person who wanted to destroy the Socialist movements in South America (and he successfully did that through the Plan Condor). I guess you have understood who I am talking about.
I understand the factions which supported these actions and the kinds of people involved, such as McCarthy, Goldwater, Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover, the John Birch Society, and others of the ultra-patriotic, red-scaremongering ilk, who themselves saw conspiracies behind every bush. The entire Cold War was premised on a conspiracy theory.
I just see it as power politics at work in a world where geopolitical intrigue is the order of the day. It's the same basic principles and tactics which have been used for millennia, with slight variations due to improved technologies.
The details of intrigue might be obscured or remain hidden, so we may not ever be able to definitively prove "who did what," nor does it even really matter all that much in the grand scheme of things.
The only thing we can be certain about is the resulting consequences of what our government and politicians are publicly known to have done, said, or supported.
And we know about those horrific wars in Southeast Asia, along with the activities of our government in Latin America. The usual justification was that they did so to protect America from communism. Or it's sometimes put in terms of global economics and national interests. As Thomas Jefferson put it "Money, not morality, is the principle commerce of civilized nations."
But since Jefferson's time, we've developed into something different, where morality is important to enough people that government itself has had to change - or at least the image it presents to the public.
He was the patsy. He didn't fire the deadly shot. He would have said all the truth about how the Deep State hired him, in court.
They prevented him from doing it, by killing him.
It would have been an interesting trial, that's for sure.
The Church Committee suggested a possible conspiracy, but there wasn't enough evidence for them to make any conclusive statement about that.
I used to know a guy who was convinced that Howard Hunt was the shooter, as he showed a picture of some of the transients rounded up after the assassination from the railroad yard behind the grassy knoll. He believed that one of them bore a resemblance to Hunt. And then I recall hearing about Hunt making a deathbed confession, although I don't know if that was ever really verified. Hunt was also a key figure in the Watergate scandal, and the reason for the cover-up was not to cover up Watergate, per se, but to cover up all the other crooked things Hunt and his cohorts were involved in.
G. Gordon Liddy was another key player in Watergate, and I remember watching him speak at my university back in the early 1980s. It was actually kind of interesting, though he painted a rather bleak picture of the outside world and advocated a strong militaristic policy to deal with all the dangers we were facing at the time. The standard right-wing Cold Warrior militaristic viewpoint.
I've heard variations of the same argument from different people and different political backgrounds, but it all seems to revolve around a "dangerous world" that requires the US to maintain a strong global military presence and be ready to use it whenever deemed necessary.
It's the same Cold War mentality which seemed geared towards protecting America's national interests, protecting our nation, and "preserving our way of life." Even if it means the state has to do things which are considered unsavory or even immoral by most standards, even to the point of having to shroud it behind euphemisms like "deep state," there is an expected perception that it's "all for us" and for strictly patriotic, pro-American reasons - the "lesser of two evils." Just like those in the military might say they're protecting Americans' freedom.
Those who killed Caesar didn't hide; they were proud of what they did, as they thought it a noble and honorable act in defense of the Republic. But nowadays, politicians can't be quite so open about these things.
But again, we can look at the consequences and results of their actions and ask ourselves if it's all about freedom, democracy, or even America's economic interests. How has America fared since the death of the Kennedys (along with MLK and other Civil Rights leaders)? We had Nixon and Watergate, the collapse of South Vietnam, the Energy Crisis, runaway inflation, eventually leading us to Reagan and even more right-wing militarism, along with expansion of the intel and law enforcement communities to the point where police departments are militarized and armed to the teeth (and trigger-happy, too). Our economic situation has also stagnated and slowly declined, with crumbling infrastructure and governments bleeding red ink claiming they can't afford to fix it. Even though the Cold War ended, our government still had to find things for our military to do, as they continue to do to this day.
At the end of the day, I won't say that I don't care who killed the Kennedys, but I can't say that it has much relevance or any real bearing on my life in the here and now. At worst, it's a mystery that will never be solved, but life goes on, and the rest of us somehow manage to survive. As for conspiracies, I think that they're certainly possible.
However, if we're talking about typical power politics in action, presumably for the purpose of advancing the interests and well-being of a given nation-state (in this case, America), then I would say (by examining the results and consequences of where America stands in the here and now), any possible "conspirators" or abusers of state power have done a massively botched and incompetent job at it.
In the end, I don't really care all that much about their deep, dark secrets. I don't care what they're hiding at Area 51 or whether some banking cartel secretly runs things. Regardless of who runs it, the minimal expectation is that they do right by the people. Based on the results I see, they're not doing their job. That's all we really need to know at this point.