We stand by exactly what we stated in modmail. You did not critically engage with Garrison's book. Critical engagement is not citing a Wikipedia article and throwing out a few random primary sources. Again, critical engagement is drawing upon multiple secondary sources that discuss Garrison's work, its reliability, and its place in the historiography. If you are either unable to do so, then we either must assume that you are not versed enough in this topic to provide in-depth and comprehensive coverage of the topic. If you are unwilling, then we must suspect that you are enough of a believer in Garrison's work that you are not interested in providing the counter-argument to him. In neither case would we allow a response to stand in that case.

As we stated multiple times, the mere mentioning of Jim Garrison in a discussion of the Kennedy Assassination is not reason enough to remove a post. Honestly, his work, thanks to the work of Oliver Stone, is so much a part of the American consciousness that it would almost be expected that any in-depth treatment of the assassination would at least touch on the part he played. But pushing, or heavily implying, that he was correct - which your post absolutely does - is absolutely reason for great pause, as this is not the view that you will find in much of the literature on the topic, and his work is absolutely placed in the realm of 'conspiracy theory' by many. There is plenty of literature out there that could be utilized, not just general, but quite specific works that deal with Garrison, such as Patricia Lambert's "False Witness". To be sure, Lambert's work isn't considered perfect either, but that is what critical engagement is - laying out multiple sides of the argument, their strengths, their flaws, how they intersect - and with a book as controversial as Garrison's, that is basically the minimum requirement.

It is unfortunate that you think this is the breaking point of the community, but I would hope most regulars would agree that approving your post as it stands would actually be the breaking point. This subreddit is certainly a place for the discussion of historical facts, which is exactly why we remove posts which push narratives about historical events when those narratives are not in line with the majority of the scholarship on that topic.

I also never received notice that my comment was removed and CyberVol's post was also removed (despite providing an adequate and answer with great detail).

I just wanted to respond to this specifically. We simply cannot leave a response for every removed comment. Do you see how much flak we get when it says there are 5-10 comments on a post, but all of them are removed? (That's a programming issue on Reddit's part, by the way - we know it's annoying and would change it if we could.) We'd get even more complaints if it said there were 10-20 comments and half were just removal notices. Anyone is welcome to check on a thread while logged-out and check if their comment was left up, and if it's not, you can always send us a modmail to get constructive criticism - we do it all the time.

The very detailed answer was removed because much of it was plagiarized. We don't allow users to copy and paste paragraphs from books or websites without attribution, presenting it as their own work. I'm not sure why that would be seen as a bad thing, but there you are.