Do you believe there is reasonable doubt that the person Reid encountered was Oswald or not? Yes or no. It's a simple question that I thought you had already answered in the affirmative. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. That after 50 plus years I would need to conclusively identify to your satisfaction the person Reid spoke with (if anyone) to cast doubt on her identification of Oswald? Is that the standard you apply to witnesses who ID'd Oswald at the Tippit scene? Are you going to identify to my satisfaction the name of the person that those witnesses saw to create doubt that it was Oswald? Of course not. Again, it is remarkable that you are quibbling over there being doubt in this instance in which there are grounds for doubt while applying an impossible standard of witness identification in the Tippit situation to create false doubt. It's mind blowing in its misapplication of logic and inability to recognize the fallacies of that approach. It would be like criticizing someone for characterizing a hundred degree day as being hot after repeatedly arguing that a 10 degree day was a sizzler.
So many words and nothing of any real value?..
Do you believe there is reasonable doubt that the person Reid encountered was Oswald or not? Yes or no. It's a simple question that I thought you had already answered in the affirmative. Which only shows just how little you understand. There is no reasonable doubt to conclude that Reid did not see Oswald as he was leaving the building. The possibility that somebody may have told Reid about the lunchroom encounter, only seconds earlier, does not create reasonable doubt by itself. It would merely have explained to Reid where Oswald was coming from and how he came to be where she met him. There is in fact nothing reasonable about assuming that Reid may have lied about who she saw simply because somebody told her about what happened in the lunchroom. The mere fact that Oswald was in the lunchroom and was later seen by a reporter walking out the frontdoor after showing the man where the telephone was makes it nearly impossible to conclude anything else than that Oswald must have passed by the location where Reid said she was when she saw him. Even more so since you are unable to name anybody else who could have been there and also can not explain where Oswald went after the lunchroom encounter.
But, by all means, argue that Reid did not see Oswald pass by, as the consequence of that would automatically be that he didn't leave the building through the front door, withing three minutes after the shooting, which in turn may mean that Buell Frazier was correct when he said that he saw Oswald walking down Houston, coming from the loading dock area, towards Elm street some time after the shooting. That, of course, in turn destroys the entire bus/taxi saga.....
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. That after 50 plus years I would need to conclusively identify to your satisfaction the person Reid spoke with (if anyone) to cast doubt on her identification of Oswald? Is that the standard you apply to witnesses who ID'd Oswald at the Tippit scene? Oh boy, you don't even understand that there is a difference between a public street and a closed office building, do you now? Where anybody could have been at 10th/Patton when Tippit was shot, only a few people could have had access to the office space where Reid worked. So, where it is nearly impossible to name an individual on the street, it should be possible to determine who else could have been in that office space if it wasn't Oswald.
Again, it is remarkable that you are quibbling over there being doubt in this instance in which there are grounds for doubt while applying an impossible standard of witness identification in the Tippit situation to create false doubt. Let's turn this nonsense around, shall we... In this particular instance, you use a non verbatim FBI report about an alleged conversation as sufficient grounds for reasonable doubt, but you completely ignore and dismiss all those other instances where far more compelling evidence than just an internal FBI report would more than justify reasonable doubt. Why is that?
