Oak Cliff Time Trials

[John Iacoletti]

Who said Postal saw the guy duck in?  You're confused.

Julia Postal did.  And you call me confused...

[John Iacoletti]

He may be the most obvious doing this but, as you know, it's not just him. A dominant JFK conspiracy hobbyist view (there are exceptions but they are just that: exceptions) expressed at the conspiracy sites is that there is more evidence that Ruth Paine was involved in the assassination of JFK then there is evidence that Oswald was involved. My guess is that 90+% believe she was a conspirator; and 90+% believe Oswald was totally innocent. Remarkable.

That sounds tongue-in-cheek, like a strawman argument: but it's absolutely true.

"My guess" does not equate with "absolutely true".

[Bill Brown]

Bullsh!t.  If she had actually seen him "duck in", why didn't she stop him and make him buy a ticket?  Why did she tell both Brewer and the FBI that she wasn't sure whether she sold Oswald a ticket or not?

Who said Postal saw the guy duck in?  You're confused.

Julia Postal did.  And you call me confused...

Quote her saying she saw the guy duck in.

[John Iacoletti]

Quote her saying she saw the guy duck in.

Mrs. POSTAL. Yes; and when the sirens went by he had a panicked look on his face, and he ducked in. (7H10)

[Bill Brown]

Mrs. POSTAL. Yes; and when the sirens went by he had a panicked look on his face, and he ducked in. (7H10)

So she did indeed see the guy after all.  A few posts back, you said she didn't see the guy.

[John Iacoletti]

So she did indeed see the guy after all.  A few posts back, you said she didn't see the guy.

You asked me to quote her saying that the guy ducked in.  Whether it's true or not (and the totality of the evidence indicates that she didn't see anybody "looking panicked" or "ducking in"), she did say it.  Did you say "Who said Postal saw the guy duck in?  You're confused" just so you could play rhetorical games again?

[Bill Brown]

You asked me to quote her saying that the guy ducked in.  Whether it's true or not (and the totality of the evidence indicates that she didn't see anybody "looking panicked" or "ducking in"), she did say it.  Did you say "Who said Postal saw the guy duck in?  You're confused" just so you could play rhetorical games again?

Here (again) is where you lack the ability to use your common sense.

Postal said she saw him, she saw the panicked look on his face.

She did not see him duck in; she made an obvious assumption based on the fact that she did not see him continue walking west of the theater (which is the direction she was looking) and Brewer told her the guy ducked in.

[John Iacoletti]

Here (again) is where you lack the ability to use your common sense.

Postal said she saw him, she saw the panicked look on his face.

She did not see him duck in; she made an obvious assumption based on the fact that she did not see him continue walking west of the theater (which is the direction she was looking) and Brewer told her the guy ducked in.

You always think your imagined stories are "common sense".  But what you are doing is cherry-picking the things you like.  I could just as easily claim that Brewer told her about the look on the guy's face too.  She was facing the other direction and said "what man?".