Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[Matt Grantham]

 Bill Chapman when you go around dismissing CT's as an identifiable pathology, you need some markers for such a diagnosis One prime criteria of course would be a lack of a simple investigatory spirit and consistent principles Lets just go with the investigatory spirit aspect Do you really believe that if we were to add the depth of understandings within the CT community it would be less that of LN's ? For the LN the story is already wrapped in a tight little package and the need to investigating beyond the wrappers is of little purpose  Of course that is not likely to be demonstrable, but even here we see people such as yourself coming up with all kinds of reasons for the facts from CT's to not be as reliable as others Or we must  answer a series of question requiring conclusions of various types before we can just consider evidence in a prima facie manner I see very little psycho pathologizing of the zombie follower approach of how individuals relate to authority if we wish to wrap things in clear container

[John Iacoletti]

There's no amount of evidence that would be accepted by you lot

How would you know?  You have yet to provide any.

[Bill Chapman]

How would you know?  You have yet to provide any.

Who, me? Where did I say I could prove anything?

[Bill Chapman]

The LNer 101 response. IF they really had evidence worthy of the name it wouldn't matter what CTers said, but they don't. End of story.

It wouldn't matter what CTers said even if there was no evidence whatsoever.

[John Iacoletti]

CTer canned response 101.  Ask for evidence, be given evidence, dismiss all evidence as the product of fakery and lies, suggest the burden is on others to dissuade you of these fantasies.

And by "be given evidence", Richard means regurgitating the unsupported WC conclusions and outright falsehoods of his own and calling that evidence.

[Michael O'Brian]

      After looking over the films War is Hell and Cry of Battle which I secured I would have to say my opinion is that Oswald either went to the Theater as part of the operation or was lured to the Theater not knowing why, because I believe there is significant reason to believe that attention was being drawn to these films, and to ask why are we not supposed to consider that possibility by the so-called informed?

Great to see you posting again James.
I would fully agree with you that attention was being focused on these films, due to the times of the Vietnam war,   The photo of Oswald outside of the cinema being shoved into the car, was a ploy designed to add fuel to the fire in the G.I's who were led to believe and angered that their POTUS had been killed by a commie.

[Nicholas Turner]

Bill Chapman when you go around dismissing CT's as an identifiable pathology, you need some markers for such a diagnosis One prime criteria of course would be a lack of a simple investigatory spirit and consistent principles Lets just go with the investigatory spirit aspect Do you really believe that if we were to add the depth of understandings within the CT community it would be less that of LN's ? For the LN the story is already wrapped in a tight little package and the need to investigating beyond the wrappers is of little purpose  Of course that is not likely to be demonstrable, but even here we see people such as yourself coming up with all kinds of reasons for the facts from CT's to not be as reliable as others Or we must  answer a series of question requiring conclusions of various types before we can just consider evidence in a prima facie manner I see very little psycho pathologizing of the zombie follower approach of how individuals relate to authority if we wish to wrap things in clear container

Its perfectly possible to investigate beyond the official stance, to look at what is presented as facts by CTs and non CTs and to conclude that Oswald was a lone shooter with there being no conspiracy. To hold that view doesn't mean that you consider there is no need to consider new information.