Time for Truth

[Alan Ford]

No. Whatever they might have intended to do, the actual physical arrest was because Oswald pulled a gun on McDonald as McDonald attempted to frisk Oswald. That kind of thing tends to get you arrested PDQ. BTW, McDonald had already frisked a couple of other theater patrons and let them go prior to approaching LHO; at the time McDonald reached out to frisk Oswald, he gave no external indication that he would treat Oswald differently.

So..................... if Mr. Oswald had managed to get rid of the gun and had behaved calmly, he wouldn't have been arrested?

[Dan O'meara]

~Grin~

This is rich coming from you, Mr. O'Meara, after all the sloppy claims of yours I've already had to correct on this thread.

There are serious problems with Mr. Brewer's story. Your gullibility towards that story, and your hostility to any querying of it, are rather amusing. I might as well be talking to Mr. Richard Smith here.

As for the fact that you don't think my theorizing as to what might have really happened is based on evidence, well that only confirms what I've been saying all along: you don't know the evidence. The more you posture, the more foolish you make yourself look

You posted:


"As for Mr. Brewer's 'recognition' of Mr. Oswald in the Texas Theatre, the evidence is that Officer McDonald did NOT go straight to Mr. Oswald after Mr. Brewer supposedly pointed him out. It's very possible that word having reached the ears of Mr. Brewer & co. that a man on the main floor kept changing seats and sitting beside patrons at random may have been what had led Mr. Brewer to believe that the man he had seen was now on the main floor. And then Mr. Oswald's reaction to being approached may have led Mr. Brewer to assume this guy must be guilty----of something."

-------------there is a very real possibility that Mr. Brewer, as he looked out from the curtains with the house lights up, did NOT see the white-shirted man he'd seen at the shoe store but DID believe that man was hiding under one of the seats (just as Mr. Brewer believed he'd done up in the balcony). So Mr. Brewer indicated as much to the officer(s).

I've asked what evidence you have for any of this "theorizing"
It's true McDonald doesn't go directly to Oswald but, as he explains in his testimony, he knows exactly who the suspect pointed out by Brewer is.
The rest is unsupported nonsense.

[Dan O'meara]

It's only a staggering coincidence if the man seen by Mr. Brewer at the shoe store had no connection to the JFK/Tippit killings

??
How so?

[Zeon Mason]

And why didn’t Oswald get rid of the revolver before it was too late?
(Presuming Oswald actually had a revolver on
His person in the first place)

The LN reason I’ve read is that Oswald was considering making g a final stand or something.

An alternative  might be that Oswald wasn’t worried if he was found with a revolver on his person perhaps because it was a non functional revolver, already had a malfunctioning firing pin?

Never the less, IF he had a revolver, then he’SHOULD have known that it’s dangerous NOT to inform a police approaching you to search you, that  you have a concealed gun.

But IDK what was doing on in Oswald’s mind so IDK know if he was paranoid , in fear of his life, or what,  especially if there was supposed to have been some contact which didn’t show up.

[Mitch Todd]

Obviously you don’t know what an assertion is.

An assertion is something stated as truth or fact, generally offered without any underlying or supporting evidence or proof.

That's how I put it.

The American Heritage Dictionary put it this way:

"Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof."

M-W is a little kinder to you:

"A declaration that something is the case"

But notice that it's a "declaration" and supporting evidence is not mentioned.

Dictionary.com follows the AHD:

"A positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason"

Wordnet defines it as:

"A declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary)"

And Collins follows along:

"A positive statement, usually made without an attempt at furnishing evidence"

Now, let's go back and look at what you wrote. First there is:

"a throw-down gun that McDonald brought"

This is a positive statement that you provided no supporting evidence. That is to say, an assertion. You followed up with:


"It’s [the alleged McDonald throw down gun] no less plausible than the evidence-less official claim about the revolver"

This is also a positive statement provided with no supporting documentation, argument, or evidence. That is, another assertion.

[Alan Ford]

You posted:


"As for Mr. Brewer's 'recognition' of Mr. Oswald in the Texas Theatre, the evidence is that Officer McDonald did NOT go straight to Mr. Oswald after Mr. Brewer supposedly pointed him out. It's very possible that word having reached the ears of Mr. Brewer & co. that a man on the main floor kept changing seats and sitting beside patrons at random may have been what had led Mr. Brewer to believe that the man he had seen was now on the main floor. And then Mr. Oswald's reaction to being approached may have led Mr. Brewer to assume this guy must be guilty----of something."

-------------there is a very real possibility that Mr. Brewer, as he looked out from the curtains with the house lights up, did NOT see the white-shirted man he'd seen at the shoe store but DID believe that man was hiding under one of the seats (just as Mr. Brewer believed he'd done up in the balcony). So Mr. Brewer indicated as much to the officer(s).

I've asked what evidence you have for any of this "theorizing"
It's true McDonald doesn't go directly to Oswald but, as he explains in his testimony, he knows exactly who the suspect pointed out by Brewer is.
The rest is unsupported nonsense.

'What evidence is there Oswald had been changing seats from patron to patron?'
'What evidence is there Brewer heard a seat popping but saw no one?'
'What evidence is there DPD were after a man in a white shirt?'
'What evidence is there Brewer hadn't been able to find the man in his own searches of the cinema interior and had told Postal he just wasn't in there?'
'What evidence is there the man was reported to police as being up in the balcony, hiding?'

Are you really asking me these questions, Mr. O'Meara?

[Mitch Todd]

So..................... if Mr. Oswald had managed to get rid of the gun and had behaved calmly, he wouldn't have been arrested?

Actually, that's an interesting question. He might have been detained and questioned (legally "detain" are "arrest" not the same thing). Most likely, the conflict between the Hidell and Oswald ID's would have piqued further interest, and at some point it was going to come out that there was a "Lee Oswald" missing from his workplace at the TSBD. So probably, Oswald still gets arrested, but it just takes longer.