You repeatedly cite the primary/original sources - which is what any even semi-serious researcher should do - and the conspiracists simply don't like it. Not all (you're a good test case to separate the responsible from the irresponsible ones), but those who respond to your work by calling you a disinformation agent or a CIA apologist or, heaven forbid, a lone nutter and Warren Commission apologist. That crowd.Let's assume for the argument that you are, that you're a government agent (Trudeau was a lone nutter?): that's not answering your work, refuting your research. It's old fashioned poisoning of the well, attacking you but not what you find. In their defense, at this point it's all they have. Like the earth riding on the backs of turtles, it's conspiracies all of the way down.
