Walk me through this, curtain rod fans

[John Iacoletti]

No, we do not know to an ontological certainty what the package Oswald brought into the TSBD contained,

That's the overstatement of the year.  You don't know to ANY certainty whatsoever.  At best you can make a weak argument that it wasn't curtain rods.

In this thread, I invited alternative theories that struck CTers as reasonably plausible. Instead, I get crickets or non sequiturs like yours.

Who do you think you're fooling?  What you are doing is the usual LN shift-the-burden game:  prove that it was something else, or disassembled Carcano wins by default.

I don't claim to know if there is a deity or not.  There is just no good reason to believe in one.  Just like there is no good reason to believe that Oswald killed JFK.

"Oh yeah, prove it's false" is not a good reason to believe something.  You can try to dress it up in all kinds of flowery language and philosophical deepities in order to feel arrogant and superior, but that doesn't turn it into a good reason. Nor does it make you right.

[John Iacoletti]

They "furthered their predetermined conclusion" by allowing Randle to demonstrate and testify at length about a 28.5" bag?

Did that change their conclusion at all?  No, they just declared her "mistaken".  That's how predetermined conclusions work.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Someone who is truly and honestly neutral on what happened, is agnostic on what occurred that day in Dallas and has no set opinion on whether it was Oswald alone or a cast of thousands, would, on the bag question (and others), challenge every explanation as to what it contained and not just one. Viz., that it contained a rifle, that it contained curtain rods, that it contained a lunch, or that it contained something else. Each theory would be challenged.

But we don't see that here (or with the other questions). We have this challenge against the "bag had the rifle" theory but not challenges of the curtain rod or lunch or "something else" theory. This from the person who says he has no theory as to what happened (and isn't interested, he adds, in any one of them anyway). The intellectual inconsistency is obvious to everyone.

[Tom Graves]

Someone who is truly and honestly neutral on what happened, is agnostic on what happened that day in Dallas and has no set opinion on whether it was Oswald alone or a cast of thousands, would, on the bag question, challenge any and every explanation as to what was in it. Viz., that it contained a rifle, that it contained curtain rods, that it contained a lunch, or that it contained something else. Each theory would be scrutinized, questioned. But we don't see that. We have the challenge made against the rifle theory but not the curtain rod or lunch or something else theory.

The intellectual inconsistency is obvious to everyone.

Dear Steve M.,

Do you think the bag (with Oswald's prints on it) was planted in the Sniper's Nest by the bad guys?

If not, what do you think it had contained, if anything?

-- Tom

[Zeon Mason]

Seems like it would be a lot easier to swing , with just one hand, a 27” length paper bag package containing light weight curtain rods than it would be to swing a 35” length  paper bag package containing 8lbs of disassembled rifle stock and barrel.

That was rather a risky thing to do, carrying
8lbs of rifle parts in a flimsy paper bag , with just one hand at the top. Oswald loses  his grip and the bag tears apart or slides thru the unsecured folded over flap?

And why is that upper flap not taped securely, but just folded over? Is Oswald crazy, stupid , or what?

[Tom Graves]

Seems like it would be a lot easier to swing , with just one hand, a 27” length paper bag package containing light weight curtain rods than it would be to swing a 35” length  paper bag package containing 8lbs of disassembled rifle stock and barrel.

That was rather a risky thing to do, carrying
8lbs of rifle parts in a flimsy paper bag , with just one hand at the top. Oswald loses  his grip and the bag tears apart or slides thru the unsecured folded over flap?

And why is that upper flap not taped securely, but just folded over? Is Oswald crazy, stupid , or what?

You're right, of course, Neon, so we're forced to conclude that Buell and his sister lied about how long the package was and how Oswald had carried it.

Why in the world would they do that?

One possible answer is that Buell conspired with Oswald to kill JFK.

Another possible answer is that, despite what Oswald told him about "curtain rods," Buell suspected that he might have a rifle in that package and was duping him into transporting it to their seven-story place of work a few hours before JFK and Jackie were scheduled to pass by it.

In this scenario, after the assassination Buell must have felt culpable for not having reported his suspicions to someone in authority at the TSBD.

I mean . . . wouldn't you?

Bottom line: Buell may have decided to lie about how long he thought the package was in order to make him look less naive and/or less culpable!!!

[Lance Payette]

Someone who is truly and honestly neutral on what happened, is agnostic on what occurred that day in Dallas and has no set opinion on whether it was Oswald alone or a cast of thousands, would, on the bag question (and others), challenge every explanation as to what it contained and not just one. Viz., that it contained a rifle, that it contained curtain rods, that it contained a lunch, or that it contained something else. Each theory would be challenged.

But we don't see that here (or with the other questions). We have this challenge against the "bag had the rifle" theory but not challenges of the curtain rod or lunch or "something else" theory. This from the person who says he has no theory as to what happened (and isn't interested, he adds, in any one of them anyway). The intellectual inconsistency is obvious to everyone.

I thought that's what I was trying to do with this entire thread?

OK, the package contained curtain rods: Answer the questions I posed and explain how that makes sense.

OK, it contained a lunch: Answer the questions I posed and explain how that makes sense.

OK, it contained something other than a rifle, curtain rods or a lunch: Answer the questions I posed and explain how that makes sense.

Then we'll assess the plausibility of each explanation and see if any reaches the same level of plausibility as the disassembled rifle.

We will reach some level of conviction that the package contained whatever the most plausible explanation suggests it contained.

That's how reasoning works, except in conspiracy world.