Who orchestrated JFK's assassination?
172
1.9K
15K
2030
84%
Lee Harvey Oswald (acting alone)
10%
CIA

Resolves to the rough consensus among non-US-state-affiliated scholars, researchers, and historians of the identity of the final orchestrator of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy at the start of 2030 (or N/A if no such consensus exists).

"Final orchestrator" means the entity most responsible for directly initiating the chain of events that led to the assasination. If the CIA enlisted the mafia to help with the assassination, this will resolve 100% CIA. If the CIA and mafia are co-equal partners in carrying out the assasination, this will resolve 50% CIA, 50% mafia, etc.

Get Ṁ200 play money
Sort by:

What new evidence is coming out between now and 2030? lol

bought Ṁ1 of Lee Harvey Oswald (a... YES

The CIA did it, but scholars, researchers, and historians will never admit it.

bought Ṁ0 of Lee Harvey Oswald (a... YES

@mistersplice that's a lot of words for someone not betting

bought Ṁ6 of CIA YES

@Joshua I have a position, but with this question it’s basically like throwing mana away

@ersatz If only there were a plausible way this market would be resolved, I would happily put a ton on it. The odds that it was the CIA are certainly less than 1%.

@SemioticRivalry Simply not true.

@SemioticRivalry Where did you get that near absolute certainty?

bought Ṁ0 of Lee Harvey Oswald (a... YES

@NicoDelon the prior is extremely low, no compelling evidence has come out in 60 years, and the sequence of events required makes it much more unlikely. The lemmino video I think did a good job at laying out how many coincidences were required to get oswald into Texas school book depository, and how it'd be near impossible for someone to plan.

@SemioticRivalry Thanks. That doesn’t quite move it below one percent for me. Priors are weird entities. How do you estimate those in a nation that wasn’t even two centuries old, at the height of the cold war, with an unusual president who nearly caused a nuclear war and is partly responsible for the Vietnam war?

@NicoDelon I think that other liberal democracies are a valid reference class for the United States, and as far as I am aware nothing similar has happened there, which gives us a fairly large sample.

@SemioticRivalry Fair enough.

@Noit It will not.

I say that before reading it, because I know how these things work.

@DavidBolin To me it seems very minor, though I’m not a Kennedy historian. But as time moves on we’re going to see less and less new evidence, so it’s kind of interesting to see what it’d take to move the needle.

Oswald being so low is baffling

@SemioticRivalry 60% isn't low. I think the CIA was oddly low (it was at like 6% before)

Non-oswald jfk assasination theories are enormously popular, oswald is low for the same reason election prediction markets are often mispriced, there are just a lot of people who are enthusiastic about other options

@jacksonpolack Most Americans believe that Oswald didn't act alone. I think the main plausible alternative is CIA, all the other theories have been debunked. Given most Americans think it was more than one person involved then the real question is why is oswald alone trading so HIGH?

Given most Americans think it was more than one person involved then the real question is why is oswald alone trading so HIGH?

Most Americans want to lower taxes and increase government spending. They believe all sorts of things.

bought Ṁ5 of CIA YES

@jacksonpolack You can do that if you borrow money and the inflate the debt away or even just grow enough that the debt/gdp ratio remains under control

2030 seems too soon for this, or really for any conspiracy theories.

It might take superintelligence to judge conspiracy theories without bias.

bought Ṁ5 of Cuban exiles (anti-C... YES

@DavidBolin Is it a conspiracy theory though...at least for the CIA. Historians have admitted the CIA doing it is plausible.

@ShadowyZephyr I agree it is plausible enough to merit investigation (and I find the opinion "it was investigated and found to be false" to be ridiculous, on the grounds that no one has investigated it who both had a real ability to investigate it and was not biased in favor of a specific conclusion.)

I don't advocate reserving "conspiracy theory" to theories that you should automatically reject out of hand, however, so I don't agree that this is a reason to say it isn't a conspiracy theory.

@ShadowyZephyr An example of one that is intrinsically plausible but where I agree with the response "it was investigated and found to be false" is the Obama birth certificate conspiracy. That is also intrinsically plausible, in the sense that if a presidential campaign discovered during the process that their candidate was not legally eligible for presidency, it is absolutely a fact that they would try to cover it up if they could.

That said, in that case it has been sufficiently investigated and clearly he was born in the US.

@DavidBolin Okay, fair enough.