So again you attack the eyewitnesses who were actually there and saw the events with their own eyes and then attempt to insert your own narrative. WOW!
JohnM
And for what purpose? If there is no allegation being made that Brewer was involved in the conspiracy (i.e. that is a "strawman"), then what difference does it make whether Brewer's suspicion of Oswald was reasonable or not? This is more Alice-in-Wonderland logic from someone who knows the evidence is against their client. Arguing that Brewer was acting unreasonably, but then denying that he is making any claim that Brewer was doing so for a nefarious purpose. Thereby rendering the entire discussion pointless. Clearly what Dishonest John I. is doing is trying to imply that Brewer was acting in some nefarious manner but without acknowledging that because of the obvious absurdity of that position. An intellectually dishonest approach. Not unlike knowing someone posted in a certain thread but then claiming they did not because the thread had been deleted and they believed no one could "prove" otherwise.
