Perhaps you should ask yourself an important question. You don't need to do this publicly of course, feel free to do it on your own time and in privacy.
"If I can't provide evidence which actually supports what I believe may have happened or not happened, why exactly do I believe that it happened or didn't happen?"
The government did investigate, as did many agencies and groups outside of the government. So far this historically documented version of events is the best supported that I've seen. If there is a plausible alternate version, I'm willing to at least entertain it as being possible, but in order to actually accept it, I'd need it to be more strongly evidenced than what we already have on historical record.
Is that really all that unreasonable?
Why are you wrongly accusing me of not being open? I'm attempting to engage you in discussion. I've asked you multiple times for your evidence. If you have evidence and you are withholding it from me, how does that equate to me being closed minded?
Not at all. I believe that people who throw tantrums are throwing tantrums.
If you want to convince me of something, you'll need to bring evidence to the table in order to do so. Of course, you've stated that you aren't trying to convince anyone. What then is your intention? Are you just venting?
If you think that I'll accept anything less than substantial evidence before I accept your claims, you are indeed wasting your time.
I hope that you have a wonderful evening as well. Take care of yourself TB.