Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[Rob Caprio]

I have what he claims in his testimony, and no good reason to doubt it. On the other hand, you have......?

So you choose to believe an unsupported claim. Big deal. I guess this confirms that you have NO supporting evidence for his claim.

[Rob Caprio]

What bothers me (and not that much, lest you worry) is that you don't seem to be bothered by the facts in the first place..

What facts would these be? Be specific.

[Steve Logan]

Hi Brian....You and I seem to be in complete harmony .....  Many years ago I reached the conclusion that when J. Edgar Hoover learned of the CIA renegades and Cubans plot to murder JFK  ( for what they imagined to be a betrayal at BOP) he decided to secretly back them, or capitalize on their plot and run his own plot behind their plot. 

It's nearly impossible to get people to open their eyes and accept the truth, So I'm elated to  find that you share  convictions.  Lee Oswald was nothing but a patsy, ....for the criminal authorities.

Complete harmony. Perfect.

[John Iacoletti]

You don't believe it? That must be one of those slippery statements, the kind that some Freudian type was forever going on about. But, hey, why assume that the sun is coming up tomorrow morning? Why assume that your car is going to start? Better hit up uber instead. But, wait. How do you really know there's an Uber car out there at all? Maybe there's no Uber anymore! Welcome to the Iacolletti Archipelago, dead center in the Solipsistic Triangle, where nothing might be real!

Appeal to ridicule.  Invalid.  Whether you think your assumption is reasonable or not, it's still an assumption based on no evidence.

  In his 12/4/63 affidavit: "she replied that she did not think so"

Any particular reason you truncated the full statement?  Just to spin it into a "no"?

"I asked the girl if she had sold the man a ticket and she replied that she did not think so, that she had been listening to the radio and did not remember."

You're also ignoring the fact that she asked Brewer "what man?".  The various parts of her story are inconsistent with each other.

Then again, there's that bit about "she believed that he walked right by her ticket booth," which pretty much says straight out that he didn't buy a ticket at that time.

I agree that she would know that nobody bought a ticket at that time.

There was only a minute or so between Postal seeing Oswald round the corner into the frontal recess of theater and Brewer asking about That Man;

Where did you get that estimate?

The only way she would be uncertain is if she thought he might have bought a ticket much earlier, and had either walked away from the theater to come back later, or had gone in, come back out, and re-entered.

Yup, agreed.  If she in fact knew that "that man" did not buy a ticket then she would have consistently said so.  Not said different things to different people and/or burst into tears.

The problem with that is she, like Brewer, identified That Man as Lee Harvey Oswald,

Huh?  When?

and you have to get him to the theater in time to do that. If you can't do that, then she didn't sell him a ticket.
You have it the wrong way around. You need to demonstrate that he had a ticket.

Why?  I'm not claiming that Oswald bought a ticket.  I don't know if he did or not -- just like Julia Postal told Brewer and the FBI.  I'm responding the the argument that definitively claims that Oswald did not buy a ticket, merely because he did not buy a ticket at the time Brewer saw somebody turn a corner.

Any evidence at all would be appreciated.

Agreed.

No ticket, stub or any other indication of proper patronage (soft drink, popcorn tub, Jujubees, etc) was observed in the possession of Oswald.

How would you know that?  I think what you mean is that no reports mentioned such things.

To my knowledge, he never claimed he'd purchased a ticket.

To my knowledge, John Gibson never claimed he'd purchased a ticket either.  So what?

Burroughs never said that he took a ticket from Oswald.

No, but he did say he sold popcorn to Oswald about 20 minutes before Brewer saw his man who looked funny.  And if you're going to challenge Burroughs on "mental health" grounds, then why are you using him for your argument?

[John Mytton]

You don't believe it? That must be one of those slippery statements, the kind that some Freudian type was forever going on about. But, hey, why assume that the sun is coming up tomorrow morning? Why assume that your car is going to start? Better hit up uber instead. But, wait. How do you really know there's an Uber car out there at all? Maybe there's no Uber anymore! Welcome to the Iacolletti Archipelago, dead center in the Solipsistic Triangle, where nothing might be real!

Let's go back to the what I replied to you on the 22nd, with the FBI report added in:

This is what she said:
  In her 12/4/63 affidavit: "I told him no, I didn't"
  In the 2/29/1964 FBI report: "she said she was unable to recall whether he bought a ticket, but she believed that he walked right by her ticket booth..."
  In her WC testimony: "I said, 'No; by golly, he didn't'"
What Brewer said:
  In his 12/4/63 affidavit: "she replied that she did not think so"
  In his WC testimony: "she said no, she hadn't"
  To Ian Griggs: "she said no, she hadn't"

So now we have six different accounts. In four of these, she says, "no." In one, she "did not think so," which implies her doubt that it happened, even if she wasn't certain. In fact, in colloquial usage, "I don't think so" can mean a flat, emphatic, "no." And, finally,  there's the FBI report, in which she is said to be "unable to recall whether he bought a ticket." Then again, it says The only one that really fits you interpretation is the FBI version. So, of six accounts, there are four no's, one doubtful, and one I don't know. Of these accounts, you ignore two-thirds, strip the fifth of it's negative connotation, and concentrate on the only one that was generated by someone who wasn't actually at the scene at the time of the events described. If that's not cherry-picking, cherries must not exist.

Then again, there's that bit about "she believed that he walked right by her ticket booth," which pretty much says straight out that he didn't buy a ticket at that time. There was only a minute or so between Postal seeing Oswald round the corner into the frontal recess of theater and Brewer asking about That Man; Postal would have known if That Man had bought a ticket at the time Brewer saw him. The only way she would be uncertain is if she thought he might have bought a ticket much earlier, and had either walked away from the theater to come back later, or had gone in, come back out, and re-entered. The problem with that is she, like Brewer, identified That Man as Lee Harvey Oswald, and you have to get him to the theater in time to do that. If you can't do that, then she didn't sell him a ticket.
You have it the wrong way around. You need to demonstrate that he had a ticket. Any evidence at all would be appreciated.

No ticket, stub or any other indication of proper patronage (soft drink, popcorn tub, Jujubees, etc) was observed in the possession of Oswald.
To my knowledge, he never claimed he'd purchased a ticket.
Burroughs never said that he took a ticket from Oswald.
At the very least, Postal didn't remember selling him one. Even then, to get that out of her, you have to cherrymander the pits out of the witness statements.

The best you can do, other than the aforementioned cherrymandering, is to make excuses as to why there is no evidence Oswald bought a ticket. And even the cherry-picking can only get you a little uncertainty.
In TMWKK, he's said Oswald "slipped in" between 1:00 and 1:07. Of course, this version of events is something that doesn't appear in Burroughs' testimony
until the late 1980s. It's not in his WC testimony.

BTW, and this is a question for anyone who might know. Burroughs told the WC that the Army would not induct him because "the mental part----[he] didn't make enough points on the score." Be also notes that he'd dropped out of school in 9th grade but (at 22) he was going to some "private school" in Highland Park (which is something of an odd place to go to school if you're an electrician's kid) . Julia Postal's testimony about Burroughs isn't particularly flattering; in her account, he's easily excitable and prone to exaggeration. And in TMWKK, Burroughs talks in an oddly halting way; also when he is shown sitting in the Texas Theatre concession going through a small pile of ticket stubs (), the way he uses his hand is odd and awkward. Does anyone know if he was mentally challenged, to use the last term-or-the-art that I know of?

Somehow I missed this, but luckily I saw Iacoletti's p!ss poor attempt at refutation, talk about a kickass post! Well Done!

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Somehow I missed this, but luckily I saw Iacoletti's p!ss poor attempt at refutation, talk about a kickass post! Well Done!

Thanks for your p!ss poor attempt at jumping on the bandwagon...

[John Mytton]

Thanks for your p!ss poor attempt at jumping on the bandwagon...

What bandwagon, you failed.

JohnM

[Rob Caprio]

Somehow I missed this, but luckily I saw Iacoletti's p!ss poor attempt at refutation, talk about a kickass post! Well Done!

JohnM

John M. loves a post with NO supporting evidence. What a surprise. Not.