I was going to quote/argue several points but I think I'll just nutshell it instead because, at the end of the day, we're not that far apart.
I realize that it's not so much the Warren Comm report that I take issue with as it is with people who don't care enough to educate themselves a little (at least enough to be able to see the flaws in the document). I go to Dealy every few years and stand where Zapruder stood and then out in the center of the plaza and up behind the fence. It's always fascinated me (well at least since Geraldo aired the Zapruder film for the first time and it became such a thing of consternation). Without fail I overhear people say things like it doesn't matter now, it happened a long time ago etc.
To me, this assassination, and the coverage thereof, represents the time where government became hyper aware of the power of media (and the burgeoning television audience) and began to use it for the purposes of spinning events.
The Warren Commission had some of the best minds of the time and their only job was to unravel this thing.
I think your comment:
I think, for a lot of conspiracy theorists, the questions is not "did this happen?" but "do I trust the powers that be?"
... hits dead center on one of the many themes I find troubling. If the public can see (without having all of the evidence available) that basic things like the shots don't add up, the story doesn't match witness testimony (even their own experts), important witnesses were not interviewed, protocols for handling evidence were ignored and on and on. Many of these witnesses aren't Joe off the street either - they're Dallas cops, government agents of one sort or another, doctors from the hospital where JFK was taken - it's a long list. With so many glaring inconsistencies it becomes hard to trust the official document especially when the authors won't concede any of those points. That kind of 'shut up and believe it' attitude doesn't serve the people.
I've spent the last 10 years down this rabbit hole, lol. I don't think there's a book I haven't read on the subject or a film or documentary I haven't seen. Most focus on proving one or more points are possible but usually outside of the context of the event in its entirety.
One interesting thing I did was to collect all of the films from the day (Zapruder wasn't the only one with a camera rolling) and then plot those locations on a map of the plaza so I could see angles etc. One of the more recent (90's) theories to come out is that the Zapruder film was doctored during the time it left his hands and ended up at Time Magazine. There's a documentary that shows an interview with the man who was the lab manager at the place where the film was developed. He says the one Geraldo shows is different and points out some weird stuff like cars in the background not matching and the infamous Amoeba Man:
Several witnesses said the limo stopped in the middle of the street and that is why it was necessary for the film to be altered. Certainly there are visible cuts even in the official version. Perhaps some creative zooming and painting can explain the presence of our friend above in the Z film.
Didn't mean to go so long.
I don't think the Warren Commission members are all nefarious men serving the illuminati. I think some had the power to push things through (perhaps even for the sake of expedience) and they made some serious errors and many of those errors are alluded to in their own documents.
I think in general it's become en-vogue to refer to anyone who questions the official story of any major event as a tin foil hatter, no matter how much evidence exists to the contrary.
Maybe most of the folk are right. The world spins, life goes on. For some reason these things bother me enough to dig in.
Now pray no one starts a 9-11 thread.