Time for Truth

[Alan Ford]

Have you even decided whether or not Oswald was wearing a jacket when he left the rooming house?

Lol, I don't get to 'decide' what Mr. Oswald was wearing as he left the rooming house. He does.

What does the scanty evidence available to us suggest? That IF he was wearing a jacket it was not light-colored a la CE162

[Zeon Mason]

They showed Whaley the taxi driver both the CE 162 ( light gray) jacket and the CE 163 (dark blue) jacket and Whaley said that Oswald was wearing BOTH jackets !?

Whaley must have been totally confused, lying, or some  other man than Lee Harvey Oswald got into his taxi, because CE 162 was the jacket that was at Oswalds boarding house , and CE 163 , the dark blue jacket , was LEFT by Oswald in the Domino room ( where it was found a month after the tragic event,)

So whatever jacket(s) that Whaley thinks he saw were NOT jackets that Oswald could have been wearing , IF Oswald owned ONLY the 2 jackets , CE 162 and CE 163.

That is , IF there were no nefarious relocating both these jackets after the fact similar  to the rearrangement of boxes in the SN, and the various paper bag locations and the 3 shells tossed on the floor, failure to document chain of custody etc.

[John Iacoletti]

It proves a lot John.

Oswald was seen zipping up his jacket as he left the rooming house.
A short distance away he was seen at the Tippit crime scene killing Tippit with a gun and wearing a jacket.
Oswald who was trying to alter his appearance after killing Tippit was seen entering a car park where his jacket was found.

Your speculative guess about what Oswald was “trying” to do is not proof of anything.

Oswald was seen not wearing a jacket while passing Johnny Brewer and at the front of the Texas Theater Oswald was not wearing his jacket.

Proving what, exactly?

Oswald was arrested with the same gun which exclusively matched the shells Oswald was seen discarding at the Tippit crime scene.

LOL.

[John Iacoletti]

And off into Unicorn land we go....
That didn't take you too long.
Rather than some long, drawn out, tiresome reveal, why not cut to the chase and directly explain what this means.
Start off with the "him" Brewer sees.

This is the point at which we always go off into LN-La-La-land. It’s just presumed that Brewer is correct and Burroughs and Davis are not. As if there is anything that makes his claims automatically true.

[Martin Weidmann]

I've seen the jacket.  It is a nondescript color that could be characterized in different ways depending on the circumstances.  Grasping at straws to avoid the obvious conclusion that Oswald ditched the jacket to change his appearance after murdering Tippit is weak sauce.

I have also seen the jacket and there is no way that witnesses could describe it as being dark, never mind the circumstances.

[Dan O'meara]

This is the point at which we always go off into LN-La-La-land. It’s just presumed that Brewer is correct and Burroughs and Davis are not. As if there is anything that makes his claims automatically true.

??
Brewer describes this suspicious looking guy outside his shop and police sirens out on the street. The man walks towards the Theater and Brewer goes out and sees him enter the cinema. He goes up to Postal and asks if the man bought a ticket. Postal confirms this in her WC testimony. Brewer decides to go in and asks Burroughs to help him check the exits. Burroughs confirms this in his WC testimony.
In their WC testimonies both Postal and Burroughs confirm key parts of Brewer's testimony regarding following Oswald into the cinema.
What's the issue?

[John Iacoletti]

??
Brewer describes this suspicious looking guy outside his shop and police sirens out on the street. The man walks towards the Theater and Brewer goes out and sees him enter the cinema. He goes up to Postal and asks if the man bought a ticket. Postal confirms this in her WC testimony. Brewer decides to go in and asks Burroughs to help him check the exits. Burroughs confirms this in his WC testimony.
In their WC testimonies both Postal and Burroughs confirm key parts of Brewer's testimony regarding following Oswald into the cinema.
What's the issue?

Five issues:

- Brewer didn’t see anybody enter the cinema. The doors weren’t visible from his position.
- Postal didn’t see anybody enter the cinema. She was out on the sidewalk looking west on Jefferson.
- Brewer didn’t immediately go talk to Postal. He went back into his store and talked to the IBM men first.
- Postal told both Brewer and the FBI that she wasn’t sure if she sold the man a ticket or not.
- Just because Brewer thought the man he saw was Oswald, doesn’t mean that the man he saw was Oswald, anymore than the man that Burroughs saw or the man that Jack Davis saw.