The Kennedy Assassination has popped up here a few times. Here's a pretty good discussion of it, with u/eternalkerri making the salient points.

Most of the historians I have ever talked to on the subject - the ones who had bothered to read up on it- went with the preponderance of the evidence , which showed that Oswald did it. He had plenty of motive, opportunity, and ability, owned the murder weapon, and was apprehended not far from the scene; even killed someone in an attempt to escape. The alternative-theorists magnify the small problems in the Oswald narrative to cast doubt on it, then blissfully ignore the problems in their own explanations, which are bigger. This is familiar to most of us: it's selective use of the facts to support your own bias. It's possible that someone will come up with the perfect alternative to Oswald, someday, or find something that decisively rules him out. But it has not happened yet.

If you want a thorough analysis of it all, Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History is thorough. His writing style is irritating, hectoring at times: but underneath it all is a great deal of research and attention to all the discrepancies, and a massive amount of data is laid out in the open.