Of course you do.
The rational conclusion is that the contents of the package are unknown and unknowable. "Not curtain rods" does not equal "disassembled Carcano rifle".
Once again, you demonstrate the astonishing shallowness of your thinking - which was precisely the point I made about the arguments of internet atheists.
We do have (1) the curtain rod testimony as outlined in my original post and the questions it raises, which demand the most plausible answers we can give them; (2) Oswald's story of having brought a sandwich and apple, possibly (when suggested by Holmes) in a very large grocery bag, the plausibility of which (and lack of evidence for which) we can assess; (3) the rifle and bag ostensibly found on the sixth floor, the evidentiary value of which we can assess; and (4) the totality of the circumstances concerning the purchase of the rifle, Oswald's pre- and post-assassination behavior, and other considerations that provide a lens through which to assess items 1-3.
No, we do not know to an ontological certainty what the package Oswald brought into the TSBD contained, just as we do not know to an ontological certainty that there is (or isn't) a deity. We can, however, assess all the available evidence, make the most reasonable inferences we can, and arrive at a high level of
conviction that the package contained the disassembled Carcano. I have a difficult time articulating any alternative CT-oriented theory that seems even vaguely as plausible - indeed, that isn't as comically ad hoc, speculative and agenda-driven as those Greg Doudna has suggested.
In this thread, I invited alternative theories that struck CTers as reasonably plausible. Instead, I get crickets or non sequiturs like yours.
This is the internet atheist game. One can't know to an ontological certainty that there is a deity, hence any belief in a deity is, ipso facto, mindless faith. Uh, no. One can reach an
informed conviction (including, yes, an informed conviction there is no deity) on the basis of long and intense study of philosophy, theology, science, human experience and everything else that may seem relevant. Ditto with every aspect of the JFKA.
Thank you for this opportunity to expose the game you are playing and the shallowness of your thinking. I don't suppose it will shut you up since you appear to derive some weird satisfaction from this game, but I am confident that the shallowness of your thinking has indeed been exposed.
