Time for Truth

[Alan Ford]

You do realise that this is just stuff you're making up.
"It's very possible" and "there is a very real possibility" are just ways of saying you're making it up.
What evidence do you have that supports any of this? Speculations and assumptions based on some kind of evidence are fine but this is just stuff you're making up.

~Grin~

This is rich coming from you, Mr. O'Meara, after all the sloppy claims of yours I've already had to correct on this thread.

There are serious problems with Mr. Brewer's story. Your gullibility towards that story, and your hostility to any querying of it, are rather amusing. I might as well be talking to Mr. Richard Smith here.

As for the fact that you don't think my theorizing as to what might have really happened is based on evidence, well that only confirms what I've been saying all along: you don't know the evidence. The more you posture, the more foolish you make yourself look

[Alan Ford]

So, how does this alter the staggering coincidence that Brewer and Postal just happened to lead the police to Oswald's location?

It's only a staggering coincidence if the man seen by Mr. Brewer at the shoe store had no connection to the JFK/Tippit killings

[Mitch Todd]

So what? That’s not probable cause for murder either.

Another assertion made without any supporting argument or evidence.

LOL

But in describing the man in front of the shop, he notably doesn’t say suspicious, he doesn’t say ducked, he doesn’t say avoid. He does say “funny” though.

There is no requirement that anyone explicitly use the word "suspicious" to describe suspicious behavior. Nor does the failure to use the word "duck" somehow negate the idea that the man was acting suspiciously. Nor does Brewer have to use the word "avoid" to describe a man trying to avoid. These are just artificial constraints you baselessly assert in an attempt to bullsh-- your way through. Of course, if such stipulations actually existed, then maybe you could enlighten the rest of us as to which ancient stone tablets these commandments are carved into.

And, yes, Brewer says "funny." And also, "scared." And "looked as if he'd been running." Etc, etc. You dote on "funny" but ignore the rest of Brewer's description.

It is you who is embellishing what he said with your characterization and your “condensing”. I don’t need to “deal with” your interpretation of what somebody “implied”.

I've embellished nothing. You certainly haven't come up with an example of it. The 'condensed version' of Brewer's testimony is composed of Brewer's own statements. Yes, there are a pair of parenthetical additions, but all they do it preserve context that already exists in the testimony. And you still can't deal with it. All you can manage is hissing and sputtering like an enraged kitten.

Bull. He was arrested for murder. The arrest report says nothing about “pulling a gun on McDonald”. In fact no testimony of a single person in the theater says that Oswald “pulled a gun”. McDonald clearly states that the gun came out after he grabbed Oswald’s hand and yanked.

No. Whatever they might have intended to do, the actual physical arrest was because Oswald pulled a gun on McDonald as McDonald attempted to frisk Oswald. That kind of thing tends to get you arrested PDQ. BTW, McDonald had already frisked a couple of other theater patrons and let them go prior to approaching LHO; at the time McDonald reached out to frisk Oswald, he gave no external indication that he would treat Oswald differently.

JI: "In fact no testimony of a single person in the theater says that Oswald 'pulled a gun'"

Your fact is, in fact, not a fact. What's disappointing is that we've been here before. From the same post that the "stop and frisk" discussion came from:

"Mr. BALL - Which fist did he hit you with?
Mr. McDONALD - His left fist.
Mr. BALL - What happened then?
Mr. McDONALD - Well, whenever he knocked my hat off, any normal reaction was for me to go at him with this hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes. I went at him with this hand, and I believe I struck him on the face, but I don't know where. And with my hand, that was on his hand over the pistol.
Mr. BALL - Did you feel the pistol?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Which hand was--was his right hand or his left hand on the pistol?
Mr. McDONALD - His right hand was on the pistol.
Mr. BALL - And which of your hands?
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir."

Further, from the same post:

"Brewer, John Gibson, and George Applin all saw a pistol in Oswald's hand during the melee with the cops. How did it get there if he didn't draw it himself? I mean, did a feral revolver that lived in the alley charge into the theater through the open back door then lunge at McDonald's throat before Oswald bravely saved the day by grabbing the rabies-crazed firearm to protect McDonald from it's venomous bite?"
 

Nope. I guess you missed the part that says “the current stop and frisk policy has been legal since 1968, when the Supreme Court ruled in Terry v. Ohio”.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. The weapon was found during a "stop and frisk" search when Terry and a couple of friend ignited the spider-sense of a nearby police officer. Terry sued Ohio hoping to have the search declared illegal. This would resulted in the evidence from the search being thrown out of court under the exclusionary rule. The Supremes ruled against Terry, with Chief Justice Diana Ross going so far as to say, "so sorry, sucker" in her affirming opinion. BTW, Terry lost at every level of the judiciary. That is to say, the Supreme Court ratified as legal something that was already common practice. Had you done something as simple as read the Wikipedia article on Terry v Ohio, you would know this.

[Alan Ford]

No. Whatever they might have intended to do, the actual physical arrest was because Oswald pulled a gun on McDonald as McDonald attempted to frisk Oswald. That kind of thing tends to get you arrested PDQ. BTW, McDonald had already frisked a couple of other theater patrons and let them go prior to approaching LHO; at the time McDonald reached out to frisk Oswald, he gave no external indication that he would treat Oswald differently.

So..................... if Mr. Oswald had managed to get rid of the gun and had behaved calmly, he wouldn't have been arrested?

[Dan O'meara]

~Grin~

This is rich coming from you, Mr. O'Meara, after all the sloppy claims of yours I've already had to correct on this thread.

There are serious problems with Mr. Brewer's story. Your gullibility towards that story, and your hostility to any querying of it, are rather amusing. I might as well be talking to Mr. Richard Smith here.

As for the fact that you don't think my theorizing as to what might have really happened is based on evidence, well that only confirms what I've been saying all along: you don't know the evidence. The more you posture, the more foolish you make yourself look

You posted:


"As for Mr. Brewer's 'recognition' of Mr. Oswald in the Texas Theatre, the evidence is that Officer McDonald did NOT go straight to Mr. Oswald after Mr. Brewer supposedly pointed him out. It's very possible that word having reached the ears of Mr. Brewer & co. that a man on the main floor kept changing seats and sitting beside patrons at random may have been what had led Mr. Brewer to believe that the man he had seen was now on the main floor. And then Mr. Oswald's reaction to being approached may have led Mr. Brewer to assume this guy must be guilty----of something."

-------------there is a very real possibility that Mr. Brewer, as he looked out from the curtains with the house lights up, did NOT see the white-shirted man he'd seen at the shoe store but DID believe that man was hiding under one of the seats (just as Mr. Brewer believed he'd done up in the balcony). So Mr. Brewer indicated as much to the officer(s).

I've asked what evidence you have for any of this "theorizing"
It's true McDonald doesn't go directly to Oswald but, as he explains in his testimony, he knows exactly who the suspect pointed out by Brewer is.
The rest is unsupported nonsense.

[Dan O'meara]

It's only a staggering coincidence if the man seen by Mr. Brewer at the shoe store had no connection to the JFK/Tippit killings

??
How so?

[Zeon Mason]

And why didn’t Oswald get rid of the revolver before it was too late?
(Presuming Oswald actually had a revolver on
His person in the first place)

The LN reason I’ve read is that Oswald was considering making g a final stand or something.

An alternative  might be that Oswald wasn’t worried if he was found with a revolver on his person perhaps because it was a non functional revolver, already had a malfunctioning firing pin?

Never the less, IF he had a revolver, then he’SHOULD have known that it’s dangerous NOT to inform a police approaching you to search you, that  you have a concealed gun.

But IDK what was doing on in Oswald’s mind so IDK know if he was paranoid , in fear of his life, or what,  especially if there was supposed to have been some contact which didn’t show up.

[Mitch Todd]

Obviously you don’t know what an assertion is.

An assertion is something stated as truth or fact, generally offered without any underlying or supporting evidence or proof.

That's how I put it.

The American Heritage Dictionary put it this way:

"Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof."

M-W is a little kinder to you:

"A declaration that something is the case"

But notice that it's a "declaration" and supporting evidence is not mentioned.

Dictionary.com follows the AHD:

"A positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason"

Wordnet defines it as:

"A declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary)"

And Collins follows along:

"A positive statement, usually made without an attempt at furnishing evidence"

Now, let's go back and look at what you wrote. First there is:

"a throw-down gun that McDonald brought"

This is a positive statement that you provided no supporting evidence. That is to say, an assertion. You followed up with:


"It’s [the alleged McDonald throw down gun] no less plausible than the evidence-less official claim about the revolver"

This is also a positive statement provided with no supporting documentation, argument, or evidence. That is, another assertion.