Do you agree or not that receiving 82 million votes is a statistical outlier in US presidential elections?   How do you explain that?  No one before or since received anything close to that.  Do you think Biden was more popular than Reagan, JFK, Obama, or Kamala?  And more than ten million Biden voters decided not to vote for Kamala in 2024?  This logic makes me laugh.

Laugh away - that logic isn't mine 
People vote the way they vote.

There has never been ANY evidence of election fraud in US elections significant enough to change outcome
The percentages range 0.000003% and 0.0025% of all votes cast.  Minuscule.
Our elections have always been secure and trusted until Donald Trump came along.

For a lone nutter you got some kind of crazy conspiracy theories.
But still no comment on the POTUS' dangerous delusion or con game; that he thinks he won an election 6 years ago - huh?
 ....or all those election denying Republicans that win; then take their seat without ever questioning their own result.

Full List of 'Election Deniers' Who Won (2022)
https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-election-deniers-who-won-their-races-1758250

Jerry Carl, Barry Moore, Mike Rogers, Robert Aderholt, Dale Strong, Gary Palmer, Steve Marshall, Kay Ivey, Katie Britt, Debbie Lesko, Paul Gosar, Rick Crawford, Bruce Westerman, Leslie Rutledge, Doug LaMalfa, Tom McClintock, Kevin McCarthy, Darrell Issa, Doug Lamborn, Matt Gaetz, Neal Dunn, Kaat Cammack, Michael Waltz, Cory Mills, Bill Posey, Daniel Webster, Gus M. Bilirakis, Greg Steube, Scott Franklin, Bryon Donalds, Brian Mast, Mario Diaz-Balart, Carlos Gimenez, Buddy Carter, Drew Ferguson, Rich McCormick, Austin Scott, Andrew Clyde, Mike Collins, Barry Loudermilk, Rick Allen, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Russ Fulcher, Mike Simpson, Brad Little, Mike Bost, Mary Miller, Darin LaHood, Jim Bank, Jim Bair, Greg Pence, Diego Morales, Kim Reynolds, Tracey Mann, Jake LaTurner, Ron Estes, Hal Rogers, Rand Paul, Andy Harris, Jack Bergman, John Moolenaar, Bill Huizenga, Tim Walberg, Lisa McClain, Tom Emmer, Michelle Fischbach, Pete Stauber, Trent Kelly, Michael Guest, Ann Wagner, Blaine Luetkemeyer, Mark Alford, Sam Graves, Eric Burlison, Jason Smith, Eric Schmitt, Matt Rosendale, Adrian Smith, Jeff Van Drew, Elise Stefanik, Claudia Tenney, Gregory Murphy, Virginia Foxx, Daivd Rouzer, Dan Bishop, Richard Hudson, Brad Wenstrup, Jim Jordan, Bob Latta, Bill Johnson, Max Miller, Warren Davidson, Kevin Hern, Frank Lucas, Tom Cole, Stephanie Bic, Markwayne Mullin, Cliff Bentz, Dan Meuser, Scott Perry, Lloyd Smucker, John Joyce, Guy Reschenthaler, Glenn Thompson, Mike Kelly, Joe Wilson, Jeff Duncan, William Timmons, Ralph Norman, Russell Fry, Alan Wilson, Kristi Noem, Diana Harshbanger, Tim Burchett, Chuck Fleischmann, Scott DesJarlais, John Rose, Mark Green, David Kustoff, Dan Crenshaw, Keith Self, Pat Fallon, Lauce Gooden, Jake Ellzey, Morgan Luttrell, August Pfuger, Ronny Jackson, Randy Weber, Pete Sessions, Jodey Arrington, Troy Nehls, Beth Van Duyne, Roger Williams, Michael C. Burgess, Michael Cloud, John Carter, Brian Babin, Chris Stewart, Burgess Owens, Rob Wittman, Bob Good, Ben Cline, Morgan Griffith, Dan Newhouse, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Carol Miller, Alexander Mooney, Scott Fitzgerald, Tom Tiffany, Harriet Hageman, Chuck Gray, Anna Paulina Luna, Ashley Moody, Ron DeSantis, Nicole Malliotakis, Dave Yost, Andy Ogles, Monica de la Cruz, Ken Paxton, Greg Abbott, Dan Patrick, Derrick Van Orden, Maria Elvira Salazar, Burt Jones, Tedd Budd, J.D. Vance, and Jen Kiggans.

I think the First shot might've been fired around the same time as the first splice on the Zapruder film, it seems very likely, What, are you gonna try to convince me the first shot was fired after Kennedy starts waving again? After the little girl in the background stops running? After Connally turns around?

I don't need to disprove anything. The people making the claim have the burden of proof.
The regulars on this forum all know you are nuts. You choose to believe things for which there is zero evidence.

It is pretty obvious that the reason Ruby corrected Wade was because of the need to prevent Oswald from being known for what he really was, an anti-Castro agent provocateur...I imagine Wade made a Freudian Slip when he said Oswald was a member of the anti-Castro Free Cuba Movement...Wade knew Oswald was CIA and was playing the role of pro-Castro agitator...

I don't engage in the prayer man nonsense.

Reporter: "Were you in the building sat the time?"

Oswald: "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir."

Oswald is telling us he was inside the building "at the time".  If he was inside the building at the time, then he was not out front on the landing.  If he was not out front on the landing, then he is not prayer man.  If he is not prayer man, then who cares who prayer man is.

You don't get to choose which evidence you recognize and which you don't...

The need to debunk the Greg Parker Prayer Man theory led me to the most important evidence discovery of our generation in the form of Sarah Stanton hearing Oswald say he wasn't going down to the front steps to watch the motorcade but was going back in to the 2nd Floor Break Room instead to eat his lunch...

The Education Forum also chooses which evidence it recognizes and which it doesn't and it uses vicious censorship and persecution (and lies about site rules violations) to keep this very important information from the awareness of the research community all so it can pamper Jim DiEugenio and run things the way he likes - which involves censoring people who out-argue him...All so it can maintain the clique...

Simkin and Iler remain on the safe side of accounting for this by the means of uncredible ignoring, banning, and censorship...So while you pose yourself as a strict maintainer of accuracy you offer flimsy excuses when it comes to keeping the clique honest...The members of The Education Forum sell other researchers out cheaply as long as they get a guaranteed seat at the forum...They are responsible for the lack of progress in solving the case...

Thus, WC apologists have no way to explain the fact that JFK's throat wound was small (about 5 mm), neat, and punched inward, textbook traits of an entry wound, and that the damage behind and below the wound was larger than the wound itself, another textbook trait of an entry wound. The shored-wound theory cannot explain the throat wound, and the FPP majority who floated this nonsense surely should have known better.

There is, of course, a logical, straightforward, forensic explanation for the throat wound's appearance and underlying damage: it was an entrance wound, just as the Parkland doctors initially said it was. But you guys can't be logical and follow the science because your theory of the shooting collapses if you admit the throat wound was an entrance wound.

Do we have to draw pictures for you? I've never argued for the shored exit theory and don't care about it. The reason the exit wound was similar in appearance to an entrance wound is because it was made by an FMJ bullet which doesn't deform when striking soft tissue. That's what they were designed to do.  They will make a nice neat exit wound similar to an entrance wound. Forensic medical examiners are still able to tell the difference. Any description of the wound was made from memory by Dr. Perry because his tracheostomy incision obliterated the wound. I think he had more pressing matters to tend to than getting an accurate measurement and description of the wound.

I've never seen a plausible argument from those who insist the throat wound was an entrance as to what became of such a bullet. Either it exited the body or it remained in the body. X-rays taken at autopsy found no bullets in the body. There was no exit wound for a bullet entering JFK's throat. Can you explain this conundrum?