I can understand why you are running scared from facts and logic and trying to avoid discussing them. Your silly claim is that because no one saw Oswald make the bag that somehow means he didn't do so. But we know someone did make the bag undetected because that is what happened. As a result, Oswald is not precluded in any way whatsoever from being that person. In fact, he was better positioned than a stranger to have access to materials and opportunity to construct the bag undetected. But that is rabbit hole CTer nonsense. Oswald's prints are on the bag. That's called evidence not speculation or wild assumption. Oswald is seen carrying a long bag into the TSBD. Evidence. He lies about it. Evidence. Common sense dictates that you don't lie about the contents of a bag if it is exculpatory and assists you. Only if it is incriminatory. But you throw facts, common sense, and evidence out the window because you don't like the obvious conclusion. There is zero doubt in the historical record beyond the fringe element that Oswald carried the rifle into the TSBD in the bag found on the 6th floor.
I can understand why you are running scared from facts and logic and trying to avoid discussing them. What facts in your delusional rant do I run away from? You don't know what a fact is when it hits you in the face. You clearly lack the ability to differentiate between a true fact and the assumptions you think are facts.
Your silly claim is that because no one saw Oswald make the bag that somehow means he didn't do so. Nope.. that's not my claim at all. Anybody with a functional brain understands that it is not my claim.
But we know someone did make the bag undetected because that is what happened. Yes, so what?
As a result, Oswald is not precluded in any way whatsoever from being that person. And neither is anybody else who had access to the shipping room of the TSBD.
In fact, he was better positioned than a stranger to have access to materials and opportunity to construct the bag undetected. Anybody who worked in the TSBD would have been better positioned than a stranger.
Oswald's prints are on the bag. That's called evidence not speculation or wild assumption. And so are other prints. The fact that they can not be identified means it can not be ruled out that others touched the bag as well. When you cite evidence, please cite it correctly and completely and not just the part that serves your purpose!
Oswald is seen carrying a long bag into the TSBD. Evidence. Evidence of what exactly? That he carried a bag... sure, but two witnesses who actually saw the bag said that it wasn't the one that was allegdly found at the TSBD
He lies about it. Evidence. Again, evidence of what? He was asked if he brought in a
large bag and he says; no, only a lunch bag. In other words, he simply denies the bag he brought in was large!
Common sense dictates that you don't lie about the contents of a bag if it is exculpatory and assists you. Only if it is incriminatory. The only problem with that is you can't even demonstrate conclusively that he actually lied, so all the "common sense" crap you attach to it is just that; crap! And no amount of circular reasoning on your part is going to alter that.
But you throw facts, common sense, and evidence out the window because you don't like the obvious conclusion.Wrong again. I just don't like jumping to conclusions based on assumptions as you do all the time.
There is zero doubt in the historical record beyond the fringe element that Oswald carried the rifle into the TSBD in the bag found on the 6th floor. There is zero conclusive evidence that he did that. Doubt there is plenty of whether you like and agree with that or not.
