Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[Bill Chapman]

Yes, it's much more rational to look at a guy looking in the windows of a shoe store and think "just killed a cop".

'Just killed a cop'
>>> Did Brewer say that 'a guy' looking in his window looked like he just killed a cop?

[Nicholas Turner]

This fabricated story was created to involve Brewer when the actual evidence shows that he was most likely not involved.

What actual evidence is that?

[Paul May]

As is typical of many or most JFK blogs/forums in 2018, the very same questions were asked 55 years ago.  The "WHY" questions.  They never cease because we, the public will never have the answers.  Hence, we all speculate.  WHY did LHO go to the movie theater? WHY did LHO leave his wedding ring and $ for Marina on 11/22? Thousands more why questions.  And the responses?  No different than 55 years ago. When LHO died, so did the answers yet people refuse to accept that.  Ok.  Yet, what hasn't changed is the evidence in the case.  Nothing hard, nor credible in 55 years of conspiracy.  Could there have been one?  Absolutely.  Can anybody prove one?  Absolutely not.  People ask, why would LHO shoot Kennedy?  People say he liked and admired JFK.  IMO, and ONLY mo, Oswald wasn't shooting at Kennedy.  He didn't see Kennedy.  What he did see was the POTUS and all that represented in the world.  Oswald wanted to change history.  How better to do that than kill the POTUS?

[Martin Weidmann]

As is typical of many or most JFK blogs/forums in 2018, the very same questions were asked 55 years ago.  The "WHY" questions.  They never cease because we, the public will never have the answers.  Hence, we all speculate.  WHY did LHO go to the movie theater? WHY did LHO leave his wedding ring and $ for Marina on 11/22? Thousands more why questions.  And the responses?  No different than 55 years ago. When LHO died, so did the answers yet people refuse to accept that.  Ok.  Yet, what hasn't changed is the evidence in the case.  Nothing hard, nor credible in 55 years of conspiracy.  Could there have been one?  Absolutely.  Can anybody prove one?  Absolutely not.  People ask, why would LHO shoot Kennedy?  People say he liked and admired JFK.  IMO, and ONLY mo, Oswald wasn't shooting at Kennedy.  He didn't see Kennedy.  What he did see was the POTUS and all that represented in the world.  Oswald wanted to change history.  How better to do that than kill the POTUS?

When LHO died, so did the answers yet people refuse to accept that.

Who are these people that refuse to accept that exactly?

And what is your argument precisely? Are you saying that LNs can speculate about the evidence (calling it "common sense") but WC skeptics can not do the same about alternate scenarios which could fit and explain the existing evidence just as well?


Nothing hard, nor credible in 55 years of conspiracy.  Could there have been one?  Absolutely.  Can anybody prove one?  Absolutely not. 

Agreed, so let me ask two more why questions.....

If there could have been a conspiracy, which can't be proven with the evidence we know today, why do LNs insist so absolutely that there never was a conspiracy in the first place because there is no evidence for it? Since when has absence of evidence become evidence of absence?

And why do LNs (including you) constantly ask non-believers of the WC conclusions for conspiracy theories and the evidence for it when it is obvious to every sane individual that the lack of such a theory does not lead to the default "Oswald did it alone" conclusion?

[John Iacoletti]

Maybe on Planet CK it would be rational to ignore someone someone ducking into the alcove of your store as police cars go by and not have your suspicions aroused,

Excuse me, when did Brewer say "ducking"?

[John Iacoletti]

If that's your best take on the events surrounding the capture of the cop killer then you will have to repeat third grade again. Do try harder next time.

Cool rebuttal bro.  Is that the best you can do?

[John Iacoletti]

That's an excellent summation of the CT method. Of course such a defense would be laughed out of court. Any half decent prosecutor would construct a narrative that connects the evidence in a logical fashion leaving the defense with a pile of parts that simply can't be constructed into a satisfactory account.

That's the whole problem.  The prosecution "constructs a narrative" first, and then desperately tries to shoehorn the evidence into that narrative.  There's nothing logical about it.

Of course Oswald would appeal on the grounds that his attorney was an idiot but that would simply delay the obvious i.e. guilty on two counts of murder.

Where does this false bravado that all LNs seem to possess come from?  Do you really think that makes your argument more compelling?

[Howard Gee]

Excuse me, when did Brewer say "ducking"?

He didn't have to, but you're excused anyway.

Point is Brewer got the impression that Saint Patsy was ducking the cops.

That's why he took the action he did.

And sorry, his action was completely rational.

Unlike you.