Because, unlike Ms Reid's on-the-record story, it actually makes sense: Mr Oswald goes "outside to watch P. Parade", sees "all the excitement" and (Coke still in hand) asks an employee who comes running up the steps what all the excitement is about. Later, when word filters through that Mr Oswald is a suspect in the assassination, said employee tells colleagues about her encounter at the door with the Coke-holding Mr Oswald. Later, though, she is pressurized into doing what her own immediate boss (Mr Truly) has been pressurized into doing: moving a front-entrance encounter up to the second floor.
As has already been pointed out, English isn't your strong suit.
The question begins "what evidence do you have..."
What
evidence?
Instead of providing even the slightest hint of evidence you go off, in true Fantasia Ford style, on some mad rant that you've completely made up, from start to finish.
Don't you see that you've completely made up this story?
Do you know what's real?
But you, of course, are in loud denial about the fact that Mr Oswald not just claimed to have gone "outside to watch P. Parade" but actually did go "outside to watch P. Parade". At the heart of your denial is your comically hopeless identification of PM as Ms Stanton, as well as your excruciating public inability to explain away the impossible shadow down Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman film, an impossible shadow which all on its own proves that the 'investigating' authorities needed to hide something on those front steps.
"...the fact that Mr Oswald...actually did go "outside to watch P. Parade""
Really?
Point out where I've denied Oswald claimed to have gone "outside to watch P. Parade"
You can't.
You don't seem to know the difference between what is really happening and your fantasy world. It's alright for you to invent a fantasy world based on zero evidence and believe it's a fact. Or make false claims about those who have to deal with your nonsense.
