I haven't the temerity to suggest that my JFK research/analysis/opinion canon amounts to "must-reading." Yet it continues to be offered primarily via heavily visited posts on this and other heavily visited sites.
In other words, it's accessible.
What I have termed (and written extensively on) the "Doppelganger Gambit" (DG) addresses the well known phenomenon of two -- or more -- conflicting iterations of ostensibly the same evidence: multiple attack scenarios (see my analysis of the Chicago "plot" as a Dallas doppelganger), Sponsors, Facilitators, Mechanics, confessions, guns, autopsies, brains, LHOs, bullets, caskets, body wrappings, PM X-rays and photographs, Z-films, George Bushes, Jack Rubys, etc. My contention is that these and similar elements of the DG are created by cover-up Facilitators to sow confusion, debate, and conflict within the research community and the general public -- prolonging doubt and despair while deflecting one and all from acting on these two statements of fact:
-- Anyone with reasonable access to JFK assassination evidence who does not conclude the the act was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.
-- Until we weaponize the evidence already in-hand and utilize it in the winnable war to effect justice for JFK and the millions collaterally damaged by his assassins, we are acting as de-facto accessories-after-the-fact to the crime of regicide.
From the Sponsors' and Facilitators' shared perspective: So far, sooooo good!
Be that as it may: Over at the Across-the-Pond-Scum Forum, a well intentioned corresponent (whose own JFK-related work is admirable, albeit in a "fringe" medium in which I nonetheless find significant merit) appears to be oblivious to the DG argument when he insightfully observes:
"This all gets me after a while. How is it that all these years later we are still not sure of any of this? Two Oswalds, two Rubys, two caskets."
And barely 90 minutes later, the august and ubiquitous "I Mean" jumps in with an unequivocal (if unintended) confession of ignorance on the matter: "I am not sure about the [two Jack Rubys] thing," he replies -- while either missing entirely (or perhaps wilfully side-sidestepping) the larger implications of the original question.
As a result, the DG Facilitators are aided and abetted.
If you choose to put on your hazmat suits and venture into the ooze, the thread under discussion is titled "Ruby and Nixon."