[Supermancho]

Debating that there wasn't a conspiracy is different than debating if he killed himself (which can't be proven). So far, there has been a coordinated effort to obscure accountability and records. This is SOP for the US Federal Government, when trying to hide misdeeds from the US population. Typically, we only get windows into what happened later when political opponents need ammunition or decades later when there are deathbed admissions.

[Waterluvian]

Again, _any_ solid links about this discussion? The main tell tale sign of crackpots is that they'll tell you a big earful of conspiracy. If they had a solid case they'd just share a link to a solid case. A link with analysis filled with references all the way down to primary sources.

I'm always so dissatisfied when I ask for evidence for these things.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Of course there's no solid evidence.

But there are also serious questions that need to be answered - a very, very long list of serious questions about very important and influential people involved in some very suspicious events that culminated in some very rare and unusual security lapses.

Linking anyone asking those questions to "crackpots" is simply disingenuous.

[Supermancho]

There is no scientific way to organize a "solid case" and there is no legal avenue with the federal handwashing that has already been stated (ie it was the guards who simply failed to check up, and criminally falsified records).

A classic denialist position is to require a social process and specific outcome in order to challenge their beliefs, in the face of context. Not that it will change our society, in either case.