Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[John Iacoletti]

Did someone say that Brewer's personal observations were evidence of murder?  It seems only CTers are the ones suggesting that.

What other information did the police have when they declared him to be a suspect for murder?

About 3 years ago, a guy came into a coffee shop and sat about 15 feet away from me. He had a backpack. He had an unfriendly, even angry, look on his face. Sure enough, a few minutes later he looked around while loudly blurting out something in a language I didn't recognize.

Did the police then storm in and arrest him for murder?

[John Iacoletti]

That the observer thought he looked scared.

If that ain't evidence that somebody just killed a cop I don't know what is!

[Nicholas Turner]

The fine detail is where the big picture falls apart.

One example I was thinking of when I wrote this was this discussion of why Brewer thought LHO looked suspicious. The analysis of every word (such as sdared & staring) seems to kiss the overall nist of what Brewer was trying, but struggling, to say. I'm sure you've seen someone and thiught there was something odd about them and the situation without really being able to say why ir what it was about that person. It makes sense to me that Brewer 'felt' something was wrongtong about how LHO was acting in the circumstances but wasn't sure what. He watched him go to the Theatre and duck in so followed to investigate, not knowing anything but just sensing something was giing on. If he knew LHO was armed he might nit have followed but he didn't know anything so did, talked to Postal, did a bit of a search then decided to call the police. Trying to analyse every word in his testimony looking for meaning seams to me to be in danger of missing the overall picture.

[Rob Caprio]

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.

Visual aid:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7431907,-96.826047,3a,60y,6.69h,85.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9PyQ5zmWgGMSxT5qxBRATQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

She was inconsistent as she didn't say that in her affidavit. If you want to use Postal then you have to tie her suspicions to the killing of JFK as she had no idea that JDT had been killed.

Why would she think a killer of JFK in DP would be four miles away in Oak Cliff? Furthermore, why would the said killer be going into a movie theater instead of heading out of town?

[Rob Caprio]

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.

Why do all LNers misrepresent what other people say? Quote me saying that I only respond to "experts". If that were the case then I would never respond to LNers.

I said since you show no interest in learning the evidence (which is a prerequisite to understanding what really happened) then it is a waste of time to respond to you as you prefer biased opinion, speculation and made up scenarios instead.

How can anyone understand what happened if they don't know the evidence? You can't, but it is easier to blame the other person instead.

[Rob Caprio]

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.

You guys are hilarious. Asking someone to learn the evidence is akin to "criticizing them." 😂

The truth is they know that the evidence does NOT support the WC's claims that is why they really ignore it. If the evidence actually supported the WC's claims then they wouldn't call for the removal of it as they did with my series.

[Rob Caprio]

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.

The evidence against LHO disappears when one simply views it as none points to him. This is why the LNers stay away from it beyond some safe testimony which was NOT open to cross-examination.