It's hard to choose where to begin describing all the things wrong with the above diatribe.

Conspiracy theories most certainly exist. Simply put, a conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, when other explanations are more probable. Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth. The very lack of evidence, it's argued, shows how sinister and all-powerful the conspiracy is. The existence of the conspiracy then becomes a matter of faith, rather than something that can be proved or disproved.

Those who are disinclined to believe in massive conspiracies are those who understand that history has shown that all such conspiracies have been quickly revealed, usually by the incompetence and overconfidence of the conspirators themselves. Witness Watergate and Iran-Contra. Both were actual conspiracies, but both came to light because the participants believed they were so powerful and clever that they had covered their tracks perfectly. This very overconfidence lead to their downfall. But these conspiracies involved only small numbers of participants. Compare this to the tens of thousands who would have to be involved in the imagined plot to "steal" a presidential election. Furthermore, Watergate and Iran-Contra produced solid documentary evidence, not nebulous allegations with not a shred of proof.

Nobody is "terrified" of these conspiracy theories, except for the self-deluding believers. We're amused by them and puzzled by the way otherwise-rational individuals can have a truly religious faith in theories with no evidence. This is especially strange when atheists take up the cry; one would think that an atheist, above all else, would demand hard evidence before lending credence to such claptrap. Sadly, it is not so. Under the banner of "free thought", some take license to believe anything.

Read Posner's "Case Closed" for an exhaustive study of the evidence showing that Oswald was the sole assassin in Dallas, as well as a debunking of the so-called "mysterious deaths" surrounding JFK, many of which had absolutely no connection to the assassination, but were ginned up by the conspiracy industry. (And it is an industry.)

As for MLK; there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other. Why would James Earl Ray have confessed to killing King if he did not do it? Loyd Jowers, who later claimed to have hired the killer, named several different people at different times as the shooter; this inconsistency makes him an unreliable source. His sister later claimed that Jowers fabricated the whole thing to make money selling the story, and she went along with it for a cut of the money. It's also inherently hard to believe Coretta Scott King's theory that the mafia, local, state, and federal agencies all conspired together to plan the assassination, especially without a single person speaking out since.

We are reluctant to believe that lone gunmen, of no character, can kill people of such import as JFK and MLK; and yet it is the truth. In a way, it's actually comforting to believe in the conspiracy theories. As I once read: "In the Holocaust, you had 6 million Jews murdered on one side, and the Nazi regime on the other. The great crime was balanced out by an equally great evil. But for President Kennedy to be killed by a malcontent like Oswald... the scales don't balance. We want a massive, evil conspiracy there. Otherwise, the world just doesn't make sense."

You seem pleasant...

@LisaLisa92806 thanks