But the weight of all the paper-bag evidence spells out "OSWALD WAS IN THE
S.N. WITH A PAPER BAG AND A RIFLE". That's obviously what the weight of
the evidence spells out to a reasonable researcher that is. Not to the
kooks, of course.

The CT crowd, however, has to have every last loose end and/or discrepancy
stamped "SOLVED TO MY KOOKY SATISFACTION" before a likely final solution
can be arrived at.

Therefore, per those CTers, the case can NEVER be solved, due to the types
of witness discrepancies that can be EXPECTED in every murder case. Things
like: height and weight of a person, hair color, clothing color, length of
an object, or the exact timestamping for a particular event.

Things like that are always going to vary witness by witness....but the
CT-Kooks keep propping up these things as ironclad proof of a plot. Why?

The fact that a similarly-fashioned bag (to what Randle and Frazier saw
LHO with) was found in the SN and with Oswald's prints on it doesn't mean
a thing to rabid CTers. Not a thing. This incredible "OSWALD'S INNOCENT"
coincidence is apparently to be EXPECTED by the CT- Kooks!

IOW....the conspiracy-loving kooks seem to be saying this:

"Why SHOULDN'T an empty paper bag (somewhat similar to what Frazier/
Randle observed on the very same day) with Oswald's prints on it be found
in the Sniper's Nest just after the shooting? That's no big deal. Oswald,
after all, WORKED THERE. His prints were on lots of things probably.
Doesn't mean he shot anybody.

"And why SHOULDN'T Oswald's rifle be found on that same 6th Floor within
an hour of the President's assassination? And why shouldn't it have some
of his own prints on it too? Lots of Texans own rifles. Doesn't mean he
used it to shoot the President on Nov. 22.

"And why SHOULDN'T Oswald have been seen in the window on the 6th Floor of
the TSBD at 12:30 and shortly before then? After all, he DID work there.
There's no crime in just standing around on the floor he worked on that
day, is there? Doesn't mean he shot anybody?

"And why SHOULDN'T a whole bullet from Oswald's rifle be found in the same
hospital where the shooting victims were taken? Doesn't mean Oswald fired
that bullet from that gun that day, does it?

"And why SHOULDN'T two bullet fragments from Oswald's rifle be found in
the limousine? Doesn't mean Oswald pulled the trigger.

"And why SHOULDN'T Oswald have gunned down Officer Tippit just 45 minutes
after JFK's shooting? Tippit probably insulted Oswald's glorious mother,
Marguerite. And nobody has to take that crap. Not even from a policeman!
He was just defending his mom. It's obvious!

"And why SHOULDN'T Oswald pull his gun on another policeman in the
theater? Doesn't mean he shot JFK, right? The cops were probably hassling
Lee over the cheap movie ticket he failed to purchase from Miss Postal.
And nobody has a right to sic the cops on a guy just because of that.

"And why SHOULDN'T Oswald have lied like a dog, time and time again, after
his arrest? It wasn't the cops' business if Oz owned a rifle. And it
wasn't the business of the police if Lee had or hadn't carried a long
package into work on Nov. 22nd. I'd have lied to those rotten cops too.
Serves 'em right!"

================

[End Kook Simulation.]

================

I wonder how much "Oswald Was There In The Sniper's Nest" stuff has to
pile up against the door in order for those "Why Shouldn't" items to be
discarded and in order for the "Oswald Must Have Been There In The Nest"
light bulb to go on in a CTer's head?

I wonder if having Oswald's prints on one or more of the three bullet
shells in the SN would be the thing that would convince the CTers? (Or
would that merely be another item for the lengthy "Why Shouldn't These
Things Have Happened To An Innocent Lee Harvey Oswald?" list?)

Just how many "Oswald Was Here" coincidences DOES it take for CTers to see
the light?