I basically agree with this. The Tippit murder has really never interested me beyond the level of the broad questions: Where was Oswald going? Why did Tippit stop? Why did Oswald shoot him?
Whys ask why. Both men are dead. They are never going to tell us why.
In another thread, I pointed out that the WC answered the key questions of who, where, when, and how. I purposely left off why from that list because we can never know the why nor do we need to know why. It's fun to speculate about the why and we might even guess right, but we can never know if we have guessed right.
All of the "problematical minutiae" has just never really interested me. The notion that this was some conspiratorial frame-up of Oswald just strikes me as so fantastically improbable that I've really never got past the threshold question, "What sense would that have made?" I read a great quote from a presentation that Paul Hoch gave in 1993: "We [CTers] have identified twelve of the three gunmen." I think this is the problem with much conspiracy thinking - there is just "too much" to be plausible. Hence my thread about focusing on plausibility, quality rather than quantity.
The WC took all the fun out of the game by giving us the answers to the important questions. I think that is what drives many CTs. They don't want a pat answer. They want something more interesting. It is rather boring to accept the answer that the DPD gave us about 12 hours after these double murders were committed. We aren't entitled to an interesting story. We are entitled to know the truth. In 62 years, I have seen nothing that makes me doubt the answers the WC provided us with.
