Assuming the CIA assassinated a president because at one point someone gave a command without being explicitly authorized from their superior is quite a leap, don't you think?
I have heard many different equally baseless conspiracy conspiracy theories about this by now, and they all have two things in common: They each conflict with the other theories and their adherents all sound utterly convinced they are right. Which tells you something about people and their theories.
> Assuming the CIA assassinated a president because at one point someone gave a command without being explicitly authorized from their superior is quite a leap, don't you think?
Indeed it would be, and that's not what I was doing in my post. I brought up the U-2/Eisenhower history only to establish that the CIA was already taking steps to make itself the final arbiter on policy, above and independent from the POTUS. Especially when it came to any potential rapprochement in the Cold War, toward which JFK was also making serious overtures just before he was killed.
You can go looking through the vast numbers of theories around JFK's killing and find absurd ones I'm sure, but lumping them all together into one big undifferentiated mass hardly makes for a good argument. In favor of the existence of a conspiracy, there are numerous witnesses and extensive documented and circumstantial evidence, and the motive for such a conspiracy is clear. It's one thing if you don't find that evidence persuasive but it's ridiculous to call it "baseless."
I have heard many different equally baseless conspiracy conspiracy theories about this by now, and they all have two things in common: They each conflict with the other theories and their adherents all sound utterly convinced they are right. Which tells you something about people and their theories.