Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[Mitch Todd]

You use the same site as your twin. Interesting. Explain why she wasn't sure if she sold him a ticket then if she saw him duck into the theater.

She didn't say she saw him enter the theater. She said she saw him come around the corner into the space where the ticket booth was, but didn't see him go through the door.

Visual aid:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7431907,-96.826047,3a,60y,6.69h,85.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9PyQ5zmWgGMSxT5qxBRATQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[Mitch Todd]

Yes, she said that in her testimony, but that is in conflict with her other statements and with Brewer's account.

Mr. BALL. What did you see him do after became around the corner?
Mrs. POSTAL. Well, I didn't actually----because I stepped out of the box office and went to the front and was facing west. I was right at the box office facing west, because I thought .the police were stopping up quite a ways. Well, just as I turned around then Johnny Brewer was standing there and he asked me if the fellow that ducked in bought a ticket, and I said, "No; by golly, he didn't," and turned around expecting to see him.

. . .

Mr. BELIN - Then did you know when you saw him walk in and when you walked up to Julia Postal that he had not bought a ticket?
Mr. BREWER - I knew that he hadn't.
Mr. BELIN - Why did you ask Julia Postal whether he had or hadn't?
Mr. BREWER - I don't know.
Mr. BELIN - You just asked her?
Mr. BREWER - Just asked her whether he had bought or she had seen him go in.
Mr. BELIN - She---did she say whether she had seen him, or don't you remember?
Mr. BREWER - She said she couldn't remember a man of that description going in.

"She said she couldn't remember a man of that description going in." She said she saw Oswald when he cleared the corner of the alcove/vestibule that the ticket booth sits in, but she didn't see him go through the door, both in her WC testimony and, a bit more clumsily, in her affidavit.

[Nicholas Turner]

Good post. Well argued.

Thank you. As I have mentioned, I have returned to this subject having been interested in it some years back, but am not an expert. I came here to see what the current state of evidence was and didn't really plan on posting much. Watching though, I feel it is easy to become too heavily involved in analysing the fine detail and to not take a step back and see the big picture. There also seems to be a tendency to try to disprove everything in the WC Report and to almost believe that if  its in there it must be wrong. I decided to post to ask a few questions, to learn more and to perhaps be a different, non expert voice.

[Nicholas Turner]

Arguable, but ok so far.

Depending on what wound locations you want to go with and what assumptions you make about them, but ok so far.

Here's where you go off the rails.  What behavior, and how does it unambiguously indicate that he was involved ?

So what you're doing here is that you're just pre-assuming that LHO was involved as a given, and just turning your attention solely to whether anyone else was involved rather than actually examining the evidence for Oswald being involved.

Lots of people speculate on lots of possible narratives, but I'm only interested in what actually can be demonstrated with evidence.

Sure.  Just as I would like to hear strong evidence that LHO did it, if there is any, rather than speculation and assumptions based on a little bit of questionable evidence.  I don't believe in a pre-assassination conspiracy either -- for the same reasons.  That doesn't tell you anything about whether Oswald did it or not.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to a non expert :-)

I think I start with LHO being a suspect, which he surely is, and try to see if the evidence fits. I think it does mostly but accept it is not certain or unambiguous. I struggle to see how it could all be wrong, fake or misunderstood. I tend to take all human testimony with a pinch of salt, considering it to be unreliable in many cases unless supported by other evidence, or supported by other independent human testimony. I generally don't do certainty :-). Many of my questions are totally genuine, though occasionally they are designed to reveal people's thought processes, and I appreciate it when people respond with that thought in mind.

[Nicholas Turner]

If you don't know the evidence, and you seem not to, of course you don't see any evidence of a conspiracy. The best evidence of a conspiracy is found in the twenty-six volumes and CD's.

Okay, so you don't want to waste your time responding to a self confessed non expert. That's fine, I'll just return to my previous position of not responding to any of your posts, as there is no oint and I have other things to do and others to talk to. I have no intention of reading the 26 volumes at present - maybe one day when I've retired. We both know where we stand now so lets leave it and move on.

[Steve Howsley]

Okay, so you don't want to waste your time responding to a self confessed non expert. That's fine, I'll just return to my previous position of not responding to any of your posts, as there is no oint and I have other things to do and others to talk to. I have no intention of reading the 26 volumes at present - maybe one day when I've retired. We both know where we stand now so lets leave it and move on.

Do stick around Nicholas. Your civility is very welcome.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Okay, so you don't want to waste your time responding to a self confessed non expert. That's fine, I'll just return to my previous position of not responding to any of your posts, as there is no oint and I have other things to do and others to talk to. I have no intention of reading the 26 volumes at present - maybe one day when I've retired. We both know where we stand now so lets leave it and move on.

There are two basic types of conspiracy advocates: the reasonable and thoughtful and the unreasonable and thoughtless. It's best to ignore and avoid the latter because they can see evidence for a conspiracy in the shape of the mayonnaise in their ham sandwiches.

If you can't see it too then, well, you're not an expert like they are.

And it is funny reading these conspiracy "experts" - self-appointed of course - criticize non-experts - again, by their standard - and yet dismiss the real experts - photographic, forensic, ballistics - who say the evidence points to Oswald as the assassin.

[John Iacoletti]

The important thing is Brewer saw Saint Patsy and thought he was acting suspicously.

Why is that important?

His wannabe attorney's insinuations and lamentations that Brewer didn't have a valid reason for being suspicous of Saint Patsy is an absolute absurdity.

Cool rebuttal bro.  Wannabe intellectual declares an opposing view "absurd" and thinks his job is done.   

The only thing that is absurd is what you think passes for a rational argument.

Which is why the wannabe's pathetic argument is now morphing into 'they didn't have probable cause to search him'.

You are so utterly clueless.  That's not a "morph" or even a new argument.  It's just a fact.

The 'didn't have reason to be suspicious of Saint Patsy' objection would be laughed out of court, much less a JFK assassination forum.

You're very adept at useless sarcasm.  Actually providing a reason for Brewer to be suspicious of a guy standing there staring at shoes...not so much.  Brewer himself didn't even provide a reason, yet you're so full of yourself you think it just goes without saying, and <insert juvenile cowardly sarcastic insult here for good measure>.  That's all you're capable of.