Lance, I'm going to give a summary comment on the Tippit case and I would like you to explain if you classify it as "lunatic fringe" and say why. But first, a comment on the real issue you raise of what is the difference between a legitimate differing argument or interpretation of evidence, and "wacky" territory. I have an analogy here you might find instructive. It appears in a book I wrote a couple decades ago, "Showdown at Big Sandy", about a Bible college in east Texas I attended for two years in the 1970s. I was discussing the phenomenon of "cults", which is in some ways parallel to the definitional questions you raise here. What is the difference between a religion one does not personally believe, but which one does not regard it sociologically as a "cult"? At the time I wrote the book, one of the leading (supposedly) authorities on cults was Walter Martin, who wrote a book called "Kingdom of the Cults". He wrote from a conservative Christian perspective, and detailed an encyclopedic taxonomy of all sorts of various offbeat and idiosyncratic religious groups with which American history has been filled, part of America's claim to fame.   

The problem was in among the extensive cult listings in his book, Kingdom of the Cults, he listed Unitarians. Unitarians?? I found that odd. As I noted at the time, Unitarians have produced four American presidents and too many famous scientists to count--how on earth did he have them defined as a "cult"? Well, he gave his reasons, three reasons. Here is what, in his view, made Unitarians a "cult", and I am not making this up: Unitarians do not believe in the Trinity, they do not believe in hell, and they replace the authority of the Bible with reason. Those three things, said Martin, quite logically make Unitarians a "cult". Obviously Unitarians in America are not a "cult", and it is clear what was going with Martin: he was confusing his definition of "heresy" categories (beliefs different from what he considered correct historic Christian doctrines) with a sociological/behaviorial phenomenon, "cultism", not the same thing, a category confusion.

Greg, give me a bit of time to attempt to respond more thoughtfully to your Tippit scenario. It's 4:30 AM here, and I have six cats yapping for their food.

I have SO MUCH background in religion, and so much evolution of my own beliefs, that the "cult" label is one of my pet peeves. Insofar as what I think the actual Jesus was actually talking about, which I think had way more to do with how you live than what you believe, I have the highest respect for the supposed "cults" of Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. I think some of their history and beliefs are "not exactly believable," but I also find it hard to believe that the Creator of the universe gives a crap about "correct doctrine." Ditto with the Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants - much that is "not exactly believable." That's why I stopped going to church many years ago; there is literally NO branch of the faith that doesn't require me to at least give lip service to major doctrines that I regard as "not exactly believable." The old saying that one man's ceiling is another man's floor can certainly be adapted in the vein of one man's religion is another man's cult. As Justice Stewart said about obscenity, I know a cult when I see one. (Scientology? Now THAT'S a cult!)

I remember you dodging it many times. I don't recall you addressing it even once. "I've already answered that" was a favorite dodge of Tony Marsh's on John McAdams' forum. He resorted to it whenever presented with inconvenient facts. He would invariably follow it with "Learn to Google".
Dr. Cyril Wecht scoffed at the theory presented by David Lifton. I can't find the exact quote but it essentially said that you could take a team of the best surgeons in the world and they couldn't perform post-mortem surgery that wouldn't be instantly recognizable by a first year medical student.

In addition to my previous reply to these comments, I should add that I notice that you snipped and ignored the facts I presented regarding the tie knot and the SBT. Just to refresh your memory:

The SBT foundationally requires that the supposed magic bullet at least nicked the left edge of the tie knot.

Even the WC acknowledged that the tie knot was positioned directly over the shirt slits. So, if a bullet exited the shirt slits, as claimed by the SBT, it would have had to tear through the tie knot. This is why the FBI produced an evidence photo of the tie knot that gave the false impression that there was a hole in the knot.

If this bullet did not tear through the tie knot, then it would have had to at least nick the knot's left edge, which is what the WC claimed, but (1) the nick was not on the knot's left edge, and (2) the knot was centered squarely in the middle of the shirt's collar band before and during the motorcade, as we know from numerous photos.

I've documented all of these facts in "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing

It's interesting: You claim that the WC gave us "the definitive account" of the assassination, but you contradict what the WC said on this issue because you've done so little reading on the JFK case.

Also, it cannot be emphasized enough that the SBT collapsed the moment we learned that the tie had no hole through it, not through the knot and not through any other part of the tie. The FBI doggedly resisted allowing researchers to view or obtain high-quality images of the tie.

As mentioned, at one point the FBI produced a misleading evidence photo that showed the knot twisted in such a way as to make it appear that the nick was in the middle of the knot in order to lead the viewer to think that a bullet had gone through the knot and had exited in the middle of it.

As my above-linked article proves, abundant photographic evidence shows that Kennedy's tie knot was squarely centered in the middle of the collar band before and during the motorcade. Thus, any bullet that exited the shirt slits could not have avoided tearing through the middle part of the knot.

The SBT also collapsed when it was established that the nick on the tie knot was not on the edge of the knot but was visibly inward from the knot's left edge. This makes perfect sense because we have known for years that the nick was made by one of the Parkland ER nurses while the nurses hurriedly cut away JFK's clothing. Dr. Carrico noted that he saw no nick in the tie or slits in the shirt below the collar band when the nurses began to cut away Kennedy's clothing.

Of course, the fact that no bullet could have exited the shirt slits without tearing a hole through the tie also makes perfect sense in light of the ARRB and other disclosures that reveal that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point and that men around the autopsy table could see the back-wound probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity.

Dr. Finck, a board-certified forensic pathologist, did the probing. The idea that he ram-rodded the probe so hard and so ineptly that he tore a false passage to the lining of the chest cavity, as one WC apologist has speculated, is beyond absurd. The probe had a blunt end, a rounded end. It was not sharp at all. Even if Finck had blunderingly pushed the probe with all of his strength, it is doubtful he could have torn such a passage, even if he had been trying to do so. Moreover, as James Jenkins noted, the probe was pushing up against the chest-cavity lining at a point well below the throat wound.

These facts have been known for many years, but once again you guys simply refuse to face them because they destroy the preposterous SBT myth.

Are you ever going to address the facts I present in my article "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible"?

There is certainly no body of evidence of sufficient integrity to convict Oswald beyond reasonable doubt
of firing shots from a TSBD sixth floor window at President Kennedy inside the time frame laid out in the government's
case.

A ridiculous claim that makes the rest of your diatribe not worth responding to. When one looks at the forensic evidence alone, there should be zero doubt that Oswald was the assassin. Never mind that he immediately fled the scene and about 45 minutes later gunned down a Dallas cop.

Those who defend the obvious lies of the Warren Commission Report need some kind of mental inspection.
It is very possible that you are some kind of extreme lunatic with whom any kind of rational debate is impossible.
Has that ever occurred to you?
Remember - you are like a little child who has had their opinions provided for them. You haven't thought for yourself. You've just swallowed down what you've been told to swallow down.
I've worked for my knowledge and insights.

It's possible that you are just a gigantic loser.

Anyone who can look at the evidence and not conclude Oswald was the assassin ought not to be casting aspersions on the mental capacities of others.

You've been duped by conspiracy proponents over the years into believing myths. You are completely lacking in common sense.

This is so you in my mind.
I still don't have a f%cking clue what you actually think.
I don't know if this helps - the Warren Commission Report is a childishly obvious tissue of lies.
This can be demonstrated beyond the slightest doubt.
Does that count in any way?
Do you think Oswald took the shots?

There is certainly no body of evidence of sufficient integrity to convict Oswald beyond reasonable doubt
of firing shots from a TSBD sixth floor window at President Kennedy inside the time frame laid out in the government's
case.

Rooming house owner Gladys Johnson stated that she recalled Oswald initially asking about availablility of a room for
rent because he wanted to "be near his work". This conflicts with the reality of Oswald not being employed at that time.

Bonnie Ray Williams testified he was eating his lunch alone on the sixth floor until he left at 12:20 pm to descend to the fifth
floor to join co-workers.

In early 2013, I received a curious reaction to my telephoned request to a nephew of one of the most curious person
of interest in the investigation, Jack Dougherty, especially of sixth floor activity during the crucial window of time in which the JFK motorcade
was approaching and making the unusual turn onto Elm St.

The nephew's wife hung up on me when I identified myself as a moderator at the JFK Debate forum requesting to speak to
her husband. I immediately called back and this time the nephew answered. I requested that he consider he or members of his
family donate a photo of his uncle Jack to the Sixth Floor museum in observance of the then upcoming 50th anniversary of the
JFKA. The nephew reacted as if I was accusing his late uncle Jack of committing murder and or conspiracy.
I reminded him I was calling in the interest of history, posterity, pointing out I was not making the request out of personal
benefit in any way and I was not one of the posters on the internet he described as treating his late uncle very badly.
I asked him to consider donating a photo that could reasonably result in clearing his uncle Jack of suspicion, since so much film
evidence of the noon hour in and near the TSBD exists. It seems Jack's family chose to continue to cheat history.

Then there is the palm print DPD Lt. Day claimed he lifted off the rifle found on the sixth floor but somehow neglected to
initially catalogue for the FBI lab in DC where the rifle was sent next. No latent fingerprints were ever lifted from the rifle,
or from the stripper clip containing unfired ammuntion, nor from the 3 spent bullet hulls found on the sixth floor, nor
even from the boxes of books stacked to block the view between the boxes and the sixth floor window investigators
claimed was the sole source of gunfire at the President's limousine.
No retail transaction or other source of the unusual Carcano rifle ammo was ever identified.
Oswald allegedly had a library card with the name of his former co-worker, Jack Bowen, displayed on the back.
Bowen just happened to be the former brother-in-law of Dial Ryder, a man who claimed to have made adjustments
to the Carcano rifle at the request of a customer. A closer look at the background and history of Jack Bowen is
quite amazing. He was a convicted felon who had conned his way into being hired for a position as art director
at a firm that had a section it claimed was compartmentalized to secure to secret, federal government contract work.
That firm also hired recent defector returned from the Soviet Union, LHO.

The rifle investigators claimed to have been a mail order purchase from Klein's in Chicago was associated with a
postal money order payment that allegedly set a record as the fastest mailing from Dallas and quickest payment processing
upon receipt by Klein's that anyone could ever imagine. It certainly wasn't anyone at Klein's fault that the receiving bank
misdated the date of deposit.

But none of the above is even required for me to be a sceptic of the first government panel's conclusion and reports.
There is the matter of the DOJ sending its number 3 assistant to the Attorney General, Howard Willens to be its eyes and
ears on the WC. Willens later testified he determined who was to investigate what area and when to stop devoting
investigative resources to any given assignment. For example, Willens later testified he had ended the investigation of
Jack Ruby's foreign travel and activity. In 1956, FBI records indicate questioning of Willen's father after he had returned from
a Home Builder's Association organized trip to and tour of the Soviet Union. The senior Willens asked the FBI agents not to be prejudiced
by Willens' recent decision, at that time, to purchase and relocate his wife and son to a residence adjacent to that of Tony
Accardo. Articles exist more recently online describing the basement of the former Willens residents being connected by
a tunnel to the former Accardo residence!

Descriotion and photo of Accardo's former home,
https://archive.is/WWRPp  Or, https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/10/15/anthony-accardo-river-forest-mansion/

"....The property had a $47,917 property tax bill in the 2023 tax year."