Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[Mitch Todd]

Exactly why would that particular stub be important?

Read back, I already highlighted that part for you.

It didn't explain why you think it's important. And it still doesn't explain why you think it's important. Tomorrow won't change things either.

And how would that stub invalidate Oswald's signature?

Since we don't have that stub we can't know can we?

What information on the stub would make a difference? Or is it that you don't really know?

Btw, have you ever heard of fake signatures?

Have I ever heard of one? Yes. Have you ever proven one? I'm not holding my breath.

[Howard Gee]

On Planet ConspiraClown, Brewer is the suspect and Saint Patsy is the innocent goober taking a stroll and window shopping for shoes on his way to an exciting double feature playing in the Texas Theater.

[Mitch Todd]

No it isn't. Why can't the LNers provide evidence that shows LHO actually purchased the money order in question?

What, the two questioned-document examiners who verified Oswald's signature on the PMO are what, chopped liver? And how many handwriting experts have examined the money order and determined that it wasn't Oswald's handwriting?

[Rob Caprio]

What, the two questioned-document examiners who verified Oswald's signature on the PMO are what, chopped liver? And how many handwriting experts have examined the money order and determined that it wasn't Oswald's handwriting?

Quote them saying this.

[Mitch Todd]

Quote them saying this.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, I now hand you an item consisting of a U.S. postal money order in the amount of $21.45, payable to Klein's Sporting Goods, from "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." For the record I will state that this money order was included with the purchase order in Exhibit 773 which has just been identified, and was intended and used as payment for the weapon shipped in response to the purchase order, 773. I ask you, Mr. Cole, whether you have examined this money order for the purpose of determining whether it was prepared by the author of the standards?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that the handwriting on this money order is in the hand of the person who executed the standard writing.

Cole's deposition goes into more detail as to what the "standard writing"
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cole1.htm

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 788, and ask you if you have examined that exhibit?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, that is the money order which was included with the purchase order to Klein's. Have you prepared a photograph of that exhibit, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.)
Mr. EISENBERG. And this was taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And is it an accurate photograph of the money order, Exhibit No. 788?
Mr. CADIGAN. It is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you compare Exhibit No. 788 with the standards to determine whether Exhibit No. 788 had been written by Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. That the postal money order, Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, had been prepared by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. The postal money order is Commission Exhibit No. 788 and your picture is Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan2.htm

[Mitch Todd]

There's nothing conclusive about handwriting "analysis".

The Washington Post did a series on the state of forensic science. In it they note that a test of signature analysis generated a false positive match 3.4% of the time. The scientific standard for validity is a 95% correct rate. And having two separate examinations of the same material would lead to a false positive on the order of 0.034 * 0.034 = 0.00115 or 0.115% of the time. I kinda like those odds. 
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/forensic-analysis-methods/

[Mitch Todd]

And Trolletti isn't really trolling. Just Magoo-like going on a discussion forum with his impossible standard-of-proof and asking "reasonable" questions out of a genuine search for the truth. Sometimes he veers off into an "uncivil discourse" not of his own making.

Well, he starts out arguing something like a creationist playing the old transitional-forms angle:

That is, Creationist looks at the fossil record, and says,"hey, there's a gap between species B and species R. Evolution can't be right, because there should be a transition form between the two."

The response is "There *is* a transitional form between B and R, it's species K"

Then Creationist smiles and says, "ooh! You shouldn't have said that! Now you have twice the problem! Where are the transitional forms between B and K and K and R?!?!?!"

In JI's case, it boils down to him arguing more and more about smaller and smaller issues until he's arguing about a patch of bark on one tree so fervently that he's forgotten he's in the middle of a great forest. Maybe he secretly hopes everyone else stopped noticing the forest, too.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Well, he starts out arguing something like a creationist playing the old transitional-forms angle:

That is, Creationist looks at the fossil record, and says,"hey, there's a gap between species B and species R. Evolution can't be right, because there should be a transition form between the two."

The response is "There *is* a transitional form between B and R, it's species K"

Then Creationist smiles and says, "ooh! You shouldn't have said that! Now you have twice the problem! Where are the transitional forms between B and K and K and R?!?!?!"

In JI's case, it boils down to him arguing more and more about smaller and smaller issues until he's arguing about a patch of bark on one tree so fervently that he's forgotten he's in the middle of a great forest. Maybe he secretly hopes everyone else stopped noticing the forest, too.

It's somewhat like the deconstructionist fad of the 1980s where one would render a text indecipherable - words have open and no fixed meanings and therefore they can have no true meaning - thus making the author disappear.

As in: what did Brewer mean by suspicious? Or frightened? So we have to drill down forever into what he meant by those terms. Since there is no fully agreed upon definition - at least to the Oswald defender - the words have no meaning. The evidence is made to disappear.

Meanwhile, the fact that Oswald - the only person to have left the building where shots were fired - is several miles away carrying a loaded revolver with extra bullets in his pocket - is lost in the exercise.