There is no alternate narrative that can be proven.
No one is asking CTers to "prove" anything. Whether Oswald did or did not kill JFK, and who did if he didn't, can never be proven to a level of ontological certainty. The LN narrative is a rational, coherent, evidence-based, plausible explanation for what occurred. It isn't proof of what occurred. Even a trial and guilty verdict would not have been proof of what occurred. All we'd like to see from CTers is an equally (or at least reasonably) rational, coherent, evidence-based, plausible explanation.
The fact that CTers always decline to provide such an explanation is rather telling. "It isn't worth my time" ... "it couldn't be proven anyway" ... etc., etc. But endless sniping at the LN narrative
is worth your time? Why is that?
There could be (and is) some doubt about numerous aspects of the LN narrative without creating reasonable doubt about the narrative as a whole being the most plausible explanation for what occurred. To kill the LN narrative, CTers would need to unequivocally show that some critical link in the narrative is flat-out false or impossible. (This is called a defeater in philosophical terms.) Attempting to do this would be a legitimate objective for CTers, but after 60 years there has been no such defeater and likely never will be. If there is, I'll be the first to admit it.
The other avenue of attack would be to establish a more plausible CT-oriented explanation. Here, sniping at aspects of the LN narrative might be productive if the sniping would support the alternative explanation. This is what I attempted with this thread: How and where does the curtain rod story fit into a plausible CT narrative? Without a compelling alternative narrative, the problem areas - meaning Frazier's and Randle's statements about the length - do not seem to me sufficient even to create reasonable doubt about this aspect of the LN narrative (i.e., that Oswald was actually carrying the rifle).
Just flailing at every aspect of the LN narrative without a plausible alternative narrative really goes nowhere, or so it seems to me. That's why I call it the Oswald defense counsel approach. Defense counsel don't need any theory of the case. Nothing they say has to make sense or hang together coherently. They just have to fling mud and hope enough sticks to create reasonable doubt about guilt. There's some old joke about "My client wasn't even at the scene, and if he was at the scene he didn't pull the trigger, and if he did pull the trigger he didn't know the gun was loaded, and if he did know the gun was loaded he shot in self-defense, and if he didn't shoot in self-defense he was completely insane, and therefore, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you must acquit."
