Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[Bill Chapman]

No, this is a sample of what Oswald looked like after the police beat the sh!t 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?

[John Iacoletti]

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.

Why is a shoe salesman's opinion of suspicious behavior that he can't even describe any better than anyone else's, including a cowardly anonymous Internet troll's?

[John Iacoletti]

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.

What exactly do you think "looking scared" is evidence of?

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.

Who's "he"?  Nobody is claiming that these things don't exist.

[Bill Chapman]

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

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. He then pulled out a laptop and started using it. He continued to look around with what I perceived as an angry countenance. I thought to myself what if this guy has a weapon in that backpack? I decided fck this guy; if he pulls out a weapon I'm going to hit him with a chair. I calculated the time it would take to grab a chair from my table and nail the guy, hoping his attention would not be fixed on me. But the guy left after a few more minutes.

My observation doesn't prove the guy had a weapon or that he was otherwise dangerous. It only proves that some people are more alert & observant especially in times of random bombings... or in Brewer's case, nearby manhunts.

[John Iacoletti]

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

  Like that has any relevance to what he looked like outside Brewer's store (if it was even Oswald).

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.

Seems to me you don't have even a cursory knowledge of the evidence.

Mr. BALL - Did you see any officers strike him?
Mr. APPLIN - I seen one strike him with a shotgun.
Mr. BALL - How did he do it?
Mr. APPLIN - He grabbed the muzzle of the gun and drawed it back and swung and hit him in the back.
Mr. BALL - With what?
Mr. APPLIN - With the butt end of the gun.
Mr. BALL - Looked like a hard blow?
Mr. APPLIN - Yes, sir; it--I guess-it was. You could--yes, sir.

Well, at least after a retaliatory punch administered by McDonald after a first strike by your boy.

That was the story.  Sure, and McDonald must have had clear blood coming out of his "bloody nose".