Instead of feeding the trolls, which is playing on their preferred turf and only eggs them on, I'd really like to see their feet held to the fire on the epistemological issues of "What the hell sense does any of that make???"
Since Michael and his merry band will not even attempt a coherent CT narrative, I've made a sincere attempt that I hope will at least provide food for thought:
What about this?
And what about that, huh?
What about this discrepancy?
And this one, too?
X said A and Y said B - what about that?
These two documents don't mesh - what about that?
Look at this!
And this, too!
You can't explain this!
Why wasn't everything done perfectly, the way we would have done it - huh, huh?
QED
And, therefore, Oswald was an innocent patsy who was framed.
And, therefore, rogue CIA agents with multiple three-man kill teams whacked JFK.
We don't have to prove anything.
It's your burden to prove it didn't happen that way.
Besides, you're just a loser and a pathetic WC shill anyway.
Not perfect, of course, but I think it captures the general idea.