Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[John Iacoletti]

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.

There are two types of "Oswald did it" advocates.  those who discuss the actual evidence, acknowledge the weaknesses in their arguments, and civilly discuss differences of opinion, and those who mock and insult the other side, avoid discussing the evidence at all costs, and spend all their time mocking and insulting.

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.

What's funny is people who think that a false appeal to authority is a valid argument.  If "expert" can't scientifically support his or her conclusion with the evidence he or she is examining, or if their experiments are not falsifiable or repeatable then their credentials do not make a whit of difference.

[Howard Gee]

Why is that important?

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.

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

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.

You really don't understand why it's important that Brewer found Saint Patsy suspicious ?

Let me expain it to you.

The FACT that Brewer thought your client was acting suspiciously resulted in Saint Patsy being apprehended.

It doesn't matter that a wannabe blowhard attorney doesn't think his client was acting suspiciously.

It's incredible that you think your opinion of whether Saint Patsy was acting suspiciously outweighs Brewer's.

You can bitch and moan forever that 'looking funny' or 'staring at shoes' was insufficient reason for Brewer to have any suspicions about your hero, but you weren't there and Brewer was.

Brewer's opinion and actions matter, all your bloviating, whining and grandstanding doesn't.

Brewer hero. Iacoletti zero.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

You really don't understand why it's important that Brewer found Saint Patsy suspicious ?

Let me expain it to you.

The FACT that Brewer thought your client was acting suspiciously resulted in Saint Patsy being apprehended.

It doesn't matter that a wannabe blowhard attorney doesn't think his client was acting suspiciously.

It's incredible that you think your opinion of whether Saint Patsy was acting suspiciously outweighs Brewer's.

You can bitch and moan forever that 'looking funny' or 'staring at shoes' was insufficient reason for Brewer to have any suspicions about your hero, but you weren't there and Brewer was.

Brewer's opinion and actions matter, all your bloviating, whining and grandstanding doesn't.

Brewer hero. Iacoletti zero.

This is another example of the effort to make evidence against Oswald disappear. That is: demand that the information be explained to an absurd degree - What did Brewer mean by "suspicious"? How did Oswald look "scared"? - and then when the replies don't satisfy the questioner (none will) simply say the information is worthless.

We've seen this time after time. The rifle purchase, the backyard photos, the Hiddell ID....whatever. The evidence is made to vanish. He's not saying it was manufactured or faked; no, he's saying it never existed in the first place.

Then they turn around and say they really want to discuss the evidence in this event. They truly do. Sure, to perform their rhetorical magic tricks to make it disappear.

[Bill Chapman]

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

And a sample of what Oswald looks like with messed up hair and a stare

Did police beat the crap out of Oswald? Seems to me it was more of a wrestling match to remove the pistol from his possession. Well, at least after a retaliatory punch administered by McDonald after a first strike by your boy. Oswald's 'a policeman hit me' answer to a reporter's question about the mark on his face, doesn't seem to be a complaint about any sh*t-kicking.



Newbies, just imagine Oswald in that window

[Martin Weidmann]

This is another example of the effort to make evidence against Oswald disappear. That is: demand that the information be explained to an absurd degree - What did Brewer mean by "suspicious"? How did Oswald look "scared"? - and then when the replies don't satisfy the questioner (none will) simply say the information is worthless.

We've seen this time after time. The rifle purchase, the backyard photos, the Hiddell ID....whatever. The evidence is made to vanish. He's not saying it was manufactured or faked; no, he's saying it never existed in the first place.

Then they turn around and say they really want to discuss the evidence in this event. They truly do. Sure, to perform their rhetorical magic tricks to make it disappear.

This is another example of the effort to make evidence against Oswald disappear. That is: demand that the information be explained to an absurd degree - What did Brewer mean by "suspicious"? How did Oswald look "scared"?



Can you please show me where in the evidence it says that Oswald looked scared?

And perhaps you can also explain how the opinion of a witness, or an interpretation of an observation can be considered evidence of anything? 

Btw, speaking for myself, I don't want evidence to disappear. I want it to be presented in a convincing manner which includes getting answers to questions about the evidence that is presented. Why is that a problem?

[Bill Chapman]

There are two types of "Oswald did it" advocates.  those who discuss the actual evidence, acknowledge the weaknesses in their arguments, and civilly discuss differences of opinion, and those who mock and insult the other side, avoid discussing the evidence at all costs, and spend all their time mocking and insulting.

What's funny is people who think that a false appeal to authority is a valid argument.  If "expert" can't scientifically support his or her conclusion with the evidence he or she is examining, or if their experiments are not falsifiable or repeatable then their credentials do not make a whit of difference.

"those who mock and insult the other side'

Like you with Inattentional Blindness

You fcn hypocrite

[Martin Weidmann]

And a sample of what Oswald looks like with messed up hair and a stare

Did police beat the crap out of Oswald? Seems to me it was more of a wrestling match to remove the pistol from his possession. Well, at least after a retaliatory punch administered by McDonald after a first strike by your boy. Oswald's 'a policeman hit me' answer to a reporter's question about the mark on his face, doesn't seem to be a complaint about any sh*t-kicking.



Newbies, just imagine Oswald in that window

Newbies, just imagine Oswald in that window

So now you want them to imagine evidence?