I've come to realize that there are four types of Warren Commission defenders out there:

1) The "professional lone nutter," who knows the details of the case very well, almost certainly knows there was a conspiracy, yet defends the official story anyway (examples: DVP, McAdams, Bugliosi, etc). You can argue with them all day and get nowhere. They are well-schooled in LNer apologetics.

2) The "low information nutter" - probably the vast majority of lone nutters among the general public are people who know very little about the case. All they really know is what they've seen on a few TV "specials." Maybe they've read Posner's book and a few articles on websites belonging to Von Pein or McAdams. They are easily misled by corporate media and their "experts." It may be possible to reach some of these people if they had more information.

3) The ideologues/partisan hacks - people in the media, academic and political world, some of them otherwise intelligent - who refuse to examine the JFK assassination in depth because it conflicts with their world view/political paradigm, or because their bosses wouldn't like it. (Many examples such as Noam Chomsky, Bill O'Reilly, Rachel Maddow)

4) The internet trolls - people who are probably paid to troll forums and comments. They really know nothing about the subject, but are handed a set of talking points, which they copy/paste/repeat with hilarious regularity. It doesn't take long to figure out how limited their knowledge of the subject is.