Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Okay, so you don't want to waste your time responding to a self confessed non expert. That's fine, I'll just return to my previous position of not responding to any of your posts, as there is no oint and I have other things to do and others to talk to. I have no intention of reading the 26 volumes at present - maybe one day when I've retired. We both know where we stand now so lets leave it and move on.

There are two basic types of conspiracy advocates: the reasonable and thoughtful and the unreasonable and thoughtless. It's best to ignore and avoid the latter because they can see evidence for a conspiracy in the shape of the mayonnaise in their ham sandwiches.

If you can't see it too then, well, you're not an expert like they are.

And it is funny reading these conspiracy "experts" - self-appointed of course - criticize non-experts - again, by their standard - and yet dismiss the real experts - photographic, forensic, ballistics - who say the evidence points to Oswald as the assassin.

[John Iacoletti]

The important thing is Brewer saw Saint Patsy and thought he was acting suspicously.

Why is that important?

His wannabe attorney's insinuations and lamentations that Brewer didn't have a valid reason for being suspicous of Saint Patsy is an absolute absurdity.

Cool rebuttal bro.  Wannabe intellectual declares an opposing view "absurd" and thinks his job is done.   

The only thing that is absurd is what you think passes for a rational argument.

Which is why the wannabe's pathetic argument is now morphing into 'they didn't have probable cause to search him'.

You are so utterly clueless.  That's not a "morph" or even a new argument.  It's just a fact.

The 'didn't have reason to be suspicious of Saint Patsy' objection would be laughed out of court, much less a JFK assassination forum.

You're very adept at useless sarcasm.  Actually providing a reason for Brewer to be suspicious of a guy standing there staring at shoes...not so much.  Brewer himself didn't even provide a reason, yet you're so full of yourself you think it just goes without saying, and <insert juvenile cowardly sarcastic insult here for good measure>.  That's all you're capable of.

[John Iacoletti]

What, no front windows? My point is the 'guy' was lucky he was out of sight, eh?

The "alcove", as you put it, was windows.  What are you talking about?

Brewer says the 'guy' was standing by the tennis shoes. So he was buying Junie tennis shoes, huh?.

No idea.  Is this supposed to be unlikely?

[John Iacoletti]

Sample of Oswald with messed up hair, and what could reasonably be described as staring.

No, this is a sample of what Oswald looked like after the police beat the Ooops, I'm a naughty Boy out of him.

[John Iacoletti]

She didn't say she saw him enter the theater. She said she saw him come around the corner into the space where the ticket booth was, but didn't see him go through the door.

Then why did she say "what man?" when Brewer asked her about him?

[John Iacoletti]

Watching though, I feel it is easy to become too heavily involved in analysing the fine detail and to not take a step back and see the big picture.

The fine detail is where the big picture falls apart.

[John Iacoletti]

Thanks for taking the time to respond to a non expert :-)

Thanks for being willing to have a discussion rather than just slinging belligerent insults like the trolls do.

I think I start with LHO being a suspect, which he surely is, and try to see if the evidence fits. I think it does mostly but accept it is not certain or unambiguous. I struggle to see how it could all be wrong, fake or misunderstood.

Before trying to characterize "it all", the first step is to understand exactly what the evidence is and how (or even if) it supports a conclusion that Oswald shot JFK.  If it does not, then it can be discarded on that basis alone.

I tend to take all human testimony with a pinch of salt, considering it to be unreliable in many cases

As you should.  Human memory is terribly unreliable and malleable.

unless supported by other evidence, or supported by other independent human testimony.

The key to that is understanding what is "independent" and what is not.  And pretty much all witness testimony in this case is contradictory anyway.