I don't generally wade in on the JFK stuff ... interesting as I find it to read the evidence and learn more about it. However, one thing jumps out at me, and there is a parallel here with the "911 Truth" stuff.
If there was a conspiracy, and they wanted to convince the world that the assassination was the work of one man, then there would be inherent risk in having more than one shooter. Imagine if there were two shooters, for example, both hit Kennedy from different angles, and the bullets remained in his body. Now you have clear evidence of two shooters and ballistics evidence showing clearly two different weapons fired from two different positions. Makes it kind of hard to argue a lone gunman.
If the conspiracy wants three shooters in three locations to make sure of the kill, then surely what you do is set up three patsies to take the fall for it. Or am I over-simplifying.
As I say, this just reminds me of the 911 stuff. If you want to convince the world that a jet airliner crashed into the world trade centre towers, why argue for missiles and hologram projections and all the other junk. Surely the conspirators (being powerful people and all) would just have found a way to crash jet airliners into the building.
Just like the airliners themselves are not proof that 911 was not a conspiracy, Oswald as lone assassin of JFK is not proof that there was no conspiracy there either. Surely anyone believing that either of these were conspiracies US government conspiracies has to begin their examination with an assumption that the established method by which the action was carried out is true, but the motivation and persons ultimately responsible are not as reported.
Everything else is just white noise until that can be put to bed.