Pretty dadgum extreme and biased. YEE-HAA!
That's because I was quoting a post from 2018. Here ya go: Walden by Henry David Thoreau. Happy now?
Not everyone, sweetie, but indeed some we could name.
I'm sure Greg is an intelligent and hardworking guy who is kind to stray dogs, but in my opinion his ideas on virtually every issue are indeed lunatic fringe stuff. YMMV, and I'll bet it does.
The fact is, as I have pointed out repeatedly, there is now a VAST body of psychological and sociological literature concerning the conspiracy-prone mindset. Your continued umbrage might seem to many as though you were protesting just a wee bit too much.
Familiarity with this literature would be exceedingly helpful to a newbie in attempting to separate the wheat (e.g., Larry Hancock) from the chaff (i.e., you) in the CT literature.
I will concede: you are as fair and balanced as FOX News. 
What you fail to grasp is that I am talking about methodology for a newbie. My suggestion would be for a newbie, BEFORE he (or she) dives into substantive JFKA materials, to (1) familiarize himself with the literature concerning the conspiracy-prone mindset, and (2) thoroughly acquaint himself with Oswald the actual man, not the fictional Most Interesting Man Who Ever Lived of much CT literature or the cardboard cutout who is plugged into many conspiracy theories only because "we gotta do something with him."
You just can't help yourself, can you? This thread is supposed to be a chance for people to list the top six books they would recommend to a newcomer. But, of course, you only list five books and then deluge us with more of your endless, pompous posturing that everyone who disagrees with you is part of the lunatic fringe and/or has a conspiracy-prone mindset and/or has a warped mind and/or has a form of mental illness, blah, blah, blah--after, that is, you announce that you will talk about your supposedly high IQ and academic honors if anyone asks.
I really don't think you grasp that when you bloviate like this, as you frequently, people quickly discern that you are hopelessly biased and closed minded.
I will again remind you that the ranks of people who reject your version of the shooting include medical doctors, historians, ballistics experts, former federal prosecutors, former federal investigators, forensic pathologists, physiologists, neuroscientists, firearms experts, neurologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, physicists, etc., etc., not to mention that the last federal investigation into the assassination--the HSCA--concluded that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen were involved, that one of the shots came from the grassy knoll, that there were four shots, that Jack Ruby had significant Mafia ties and lied about how and why he killed Oswald, that there is credible evidence that anti-Castro Cubans were trying to frame Oswald weeks before the assassination, etc., etc.
And, just FYI, many researchers who posit a conspiracy initially believed in the lone-gunman theory. I'm one of them.