One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is correct, is the fact that contrarians never even attempt to provide a counternarrative (much less actual evidence) to explain what actually happened. In fact, some contrarians won't even admit they are CTers. They are like Inspector Clouseau. They suspect everyone, and they suspect no one. Why? Because the contrarian/defense attorney position requires no facts, evidence, common sense, or reason to defend. Just claim any fact that you don't want to accept hasn't been proven to your impossible standard of proof. Then deny that you are claiming, even by implication, that if the evidence under discussion is suspect for some unspecified reason that you are a conspiracy theorist. How or why the evidence is suspect is forever left to our imagination. It just is. Then take every discussion down the rabbit hole. Repeat endlessly...ZZZZ.
One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is correct, is the fact that contrarians never even attempt to provide a counternarrative (much less actual evidence) to explain what actually happened. Trust "Richard" to actually confirm what I just said and come up with the biggest cop out of them all! Basically, he is saying here that he (the official narrative) is right unless a counter narrative proves him/it wrong. It's not a surprise, though. It's just about all "Richard" has to offer. In the real world, there is no need for a counter narrative. The official narrative either stands or doesn't when scrutinized. In this case it clearly doesn't, which is exactly why the LNs fail completely to defend it.
In fact, some contrarians won't even admit they are CTers. Have you ever considered the possibility that somebody can scrutinize the official narrative, to see if it will withstand closer examination, without having any kind of theory about the conspiracy that must have existed, if the official narrative turns out to be a fairytale? Of course you haven't! Calling people CT's and contrarians is just a defense mechanism for you, designed to help you avoid having to discuss the actual evidence and the case.
Because the contrarian/defense attorney position requires no facts, evidence, common sense, or reason to defend.To be a contrarian you need to dismiss, or disagree with, a popular opinion. That's not the case here as there is no popular opinion that supports the official narrative. For the past 58 years there has never been a majority in support of the official story. But, hey, when you disagree with "Richard" you must be a contrarian, right?
You sound like a very bad prosecutor who complains to the judge that the defense is asking too many good questions.
