Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[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 sh!t 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.

[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 As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day?  It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair.  His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate.  Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare.  There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.' 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 As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day?  It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair.  His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate.  Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare.  There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.' 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.