You know that your viewpoint has some serious issues when you have to resort to accusing people who disagree with you of being lunatic fringe, having warped minds, having a form of mental illness, having a [fill in the blank]-mindset, having lost the ability to think rationally, etc., etc. This is usually the verbiage used by frustrated people who hold minority viewpoints.

It's interesting that those who posit a conspiracy in the JFK case don't feel the need to question the sanity of lone-gunman theorists, but some lone-gunman theorists--by no means all, but some--routinely accuse conspiracy theorists of various forms of mental illness. In all my years in JFKA forums, I have never seen a conspiracy theorist actually question the sanity of a lone-gunman theorist, nor have I read any pro-conspiracy books or articles that have done so.

What is especially curious about this is that (1) lone-gunman theorists are in a decided minority in the Western world when it comes to the JFK case, and (2) the last official U.S. Government investigation into the assassination concluded that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen were involved, that Jack Ruby had significant Mafia ties, that Ruby lied about how he entered the police basement to kill Oswald, that Ruby lied about why he killed Oswald, that there is credible evidence that anti-Castro Cubans were trying to frame Oswald weeks before the assassination, etc., etc.

It's not like WC believers represent the majority view in the Western world. They do not. Numerous polls have long shown that the substantial majority of Americans and Europeans believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy. Yet, some WC apologists talk like they're speaking for the dominant view, when they are not.

Granted, truth is not automatically determined by public opinion, but you'd think that WC apologists would show a bit more humility given the fact that for decades their view has been the minority view in the Western world.

I believe the rigidity of belief of both LNs and CTs is a symptom of the lunacy.

New evidence, outside of an extremely narrow lane, cannot even be seriously considered.

"That dog won't hunt."

Patience....following archive link loads slowly...

What new evidence? The arguments being made today are the same ones I saw 35 years ago when I first started discussing the JFKA online. I occasionally see new arguments made, but no new evidence. Just a whole lot of nothing burgers.

Besides Clay Shaw, who in the history of the CIA was a "contract source"?

Carter Page? If so, why has he been described as a "contact source"?

If "contract source" was an official designation, Shaw couldn't have been the only one, right?

Please tell us who, other than Shaw, was a "CIA contract source," and tell us if they "highly paid," "moderately paid," or "low paid."

Or have the evil, evil, evil gunsel CIA'er perps in Project Mockingbird hidden that intel?

Voluminous support for the contention there was actually one side, description of two adversarial sides is found wanting, the Shaw criminal trial jury's three hours of deliberation
and the inaccurate naming of actual adversaries by Mellen, "On the Trail" editor and "JFK, the Movie", screenplay writer, Zachary Sklar, and of course, Jim DiEugenio, as well as
the two debates between Nicholas Lemann and Sklar, first in print, and secondly in a 1992 Charlie Rose TV segment, combine to influence a reasonable person to conclude that you, Tommy, are not helping yourself by creating this thread and posting in it what you have, so far.
 
Patience....following archive link loads slowly...

https://web.archive.org/web/20161229162654/https://jfkfacts.org/comment-of-the-week-17/Tom S. February 16, 2016

Ronnie Wayne – February 11 (2016)

…. I guess the other main theory of the thread is it means all of DiEugenio and Mellen’s work, as well as Garrison’s is junk?

It is inescapable, judging by researched details of familial relationships emerging during the past ten years, to argue as the only compatible with reality option, that
Garrison, Shaw, and Nicholas Lemann were all playing parts of the same script! There isn't any other plausible explanation for what we've become aware that they knew
vs. what they said, and did.

Mellen, Sklar, DiEugenio and this fellow, Perry Raymond Russo, obviously were not "read in".

The "both sides of the fence" stinking up Willard Robertson also is a tell.

Speaking of other "same side" activity,

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3894.msg153982.html#msg153982
....
Garrison's mentor, Eberhard Deutsch, was United Fruit's outside counsel....inside counsel, Augusto Miceli, was the brother-in-law of CIA's Dorothy Brandao, (an
officer in the NOLA Domestic Contacts office.)
.....

Ms. Brandao attended college in Garrison's hometown, Des Moines

Biden is gone and your 20M or more is exaggerated.
Where does the 14 Amendment say except those from expectant foreign mothers?

Instead of deflecting answer the question.  Should someone be able to give birth in the US, and return the child to their own country with all the privileges of US citizenship including voting for the president?  Almost no other countries allow this because it is completely insane.  Regardless of how many millions of people you think Biden allowed into the country, all their children born here will be US citizens.  Biden's unlawful conduct created a crisis that brought this to a head.

  Not only are you uninformed, you obviously didn't even read my original post. Par for the course.