https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3...

different courts have said different things. the more recent courts have said it only removes the punishment

you were still found guilty, so the guilt is still there

That link breaks for me, but I suspect I know what you are referring to. That talk from the various courts seems mostly like rhetoric more than an establishment of legal precedent. It is all implied meaning, since indeed you do not need to affirmatively proclaim your own guilt in order to accept a pardon. You can just accept delivery and be done with it. Whether someone else imputes guilt from that is [mostly] their problem.

There's also a weird play with the prosecution.

Like if a pardon is issued before trial, under normal circumstances the prosecutor will drop charges and the pardonee does not need to accept it. Further, a prosecutor won't go after charges when someone is pardoned.

These are the cases where a pardon wouldn't imply guilt.

But generally speaking, pardons happen after a conviction and not before. Accepting a pardon ends appeals.