[gordian-not]

This is very close to my feeling on the matter, and if I remember correctly there was even a case of cover up related to the fact that he visited the embassies (which can also be interpreted as not wanting to divulge their intelligence sources).

However, it seems like the well known facts about Oswald (the communist background) weren't a major issue at the time (at least from what I gathered), so maybe there wasn't anything to cover up

Anyway, if the US government doesn't want to stir the cold war issues around the assassination, is it a conspiracy or just common sense statesmanship?

[edit]: I think I misread you, I do not think the soviets were involved, I think this is an extremely risky move no one would do. I do think there were probably fears it would be perceived as a foreign assassination which drove some actions in the US government.

[JohnBooty]

    I do not think the soviets were involved, I think this 
    is an extremely risky move no one would do. I do think 
    there were probably fears it would be perceived as a 
    foreign assassination which drove some actions in the 
    US government. 

I was vague on that because my post was overlong already and I don't have a clue or guess about who (if anybody) was involved besides Oswald.

But I agree with you: I cannot imagine that Khrushchev or the leadership of the USSR wanted open war. For the same reasons the USA didn't.

There is definitely a middle ground sort of possibility, where Oswald was involved with the USSR to some extent (informant, or whatever) but they truly had no idea he was going to shoot JFK. That seems completely possible.

Of course, the Soviet government was enormous and not monolithic. Maybe some within it wanted war, maybe some thought that they could prod Oswald into an assassination without getting "caught."

Seems possible, but zero idea how likely that is.

The simplest scenario is: Oswald worked in tandem with a second rando guy who had a rifle and wanted the president dead. No shortage of those in America, a land with cheap rifles and ~16 million WWII vets who were trained to use them.

    Anyway, if the US government doesn't want to 
    stir the cold war issues around the assassination, 
    is it a conspiracy or just common sense statesmanship?

Definitely common sense statesmanship.

Arguably a conspiracy as well but that depends on our definition of "conspiracy."

The only thing I'm really sure of is that it was in the US government's best interests to sell the idea that Oswald was a lone crazy guy. That was the least-bad scenario for America.

[gordian-not]

Can’t say I believe there was another gunman.

There may be forensics technicalities that are hard to explain but it seems that in any event that is highly ‘investigated’ people find too many patterns in the noise (9/11 for example)

Like most of those Cold War events, these cover ups look more like protecting intelligence sources and blunders than some large overarching cabal

[JohnBooty]

I think the 9/11 and JFK conspiracy theories are dissimilar, almost opposite.

The official explanation for 9/11 is also the simplest possible explanation: terrorists carried out a very low tech and plausible hijacking attack that exploited some rather obvious holes in our airline security.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are orders of magnitude more complex than this official narrative.

I don't think the JFK "second gunman" theory is more complex than the official truth. In it's simplest form (Oswald worked with another gunman, but there was no overarching conspiracy involving Russia or Martians or lizardmen or whatever pulling the strings) I would argue it's simpler than the official narrative.

[bluGill]

While it is possible Oswald worked with another gunman, there is no reason for him to do that. Everything done is something anyone with basic gun knowledge could have done alone.

As I said elsewhere, the only evidence of a second gunman is we know Oswald was a good shot with a gun and so needing 3 shots (with a scoped rifle at close range - less than 100 meters) is something to question. But in the end it seems more likely he would have pulled the trigger himself and thus not needed help.

[rusk]

> Arguably a conspiracy as well but that depends on our definition of "conspiracy."

Not a conspiracy in the more surreptitious sense that most people consider. It would bear all the same hallmarks though, and I guess that’s what sets off people’s radars