There is no point in debating someone who says the following:

Post by BOZ
I don't think he "ducked" in anywhere. He went to the theatre, but I'm
guessing he bought a ticket. He was, though, yes, worried about being
caught, hence his upset when accosted by the cops....
Gee, you don't suppose that the DPD could lose a movie-theatre ticket?
Or stub, that is....
dcw

Well, they put someone else's name and call # Sgt. Hill's "auto 38" call.
If they can do that, they can lose a ticket!

dcw

BOZ

2018-04-04 01:52:09 UTC

Well, they put someone else's name and call # Sgt. Hill's "auto 38" call.
If they can do that, they can lose a ticket!
dcw

Mrs. POSTAL. This man, yes; he ducked into the box office and----I don't
know if you are familiar with the theatre.
Mr. BALL. Yes; I have seen the theatre.
Mrs. POSTAL. You have? Well, he was coming from east going west. In other
words, he ducked right in.
Mr. BALL. Ducked in, what do you mean? He had come around the corner----
Mrs. POSTAL. Yes; and when the sirens went by he had a panicked look on
his face, and he ducked in.

Anthony Marsh

2018-04-05 16:48:22 UTC

Post by BOZ

Well, they put someone else's name and call # Sgt. Hill's "auto 38" call.
If they can do that, they can lose a ticket!
dcw

The key point being that it was Oswald hearing the sirens going by which
caused him to duck into the theater.

Why do the Trolls object to the term DUCK? Should we say Goose instead?

Beyond Wikipedia

2018-04-07 19:53:01 UTC

I didn't know that it was even a matter of contention that Oswald wanted
to avoid the Police. He's an intelligence asset and the movie theater
could have served as a meeting ground for a contact.

Steve M. Galbraith

2018-04-08 19:37:10 UTC

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
I didn't know that it was even a matter of contention that Oswald wanted
to avoid the Police. He's an intelligence asset and the movie theater
could have served as a meeting ground for a contact.

You think there is no merit in the belief he was avoiding the police? So,
if you were a DPD officer and met Oswald, searched him and found a gun on
him you'd release him?

The DPD in the theater should have let him go?

Intelligence asset for whom?

The man had no car, no home, no phone, lived on unemployment benefits for
long periods of time, his wife and two children had to live on charity...

Did he do this work for free?

Anthony Marsh

2018-04-09 12:01:25 UTC

You think there is no merit in the belief he was avoiding the police? So,
if you were a DPD officer and met Oswald, searched him and found a gun on
him you'd release him?
The DPD in the theater should have let him go?
Intelligence asset for whom?
The man had no car, no home, no phone, lived on unemployment benefits for
long periods of time, his wife and two children had to live on charity...
Did he do this work for free?

No sure what you mean. Do you mean Oswald? He was not an intelligence
agent. The Dallas assistant DA put out the FALSE story that he was an
FBI informant who was paid $200 a month. Is that what you mean?

In the real world does anyone work for the CIA and not get paid?
Sure. Clay Shaw worked for the CIA as an informant and he was not paid.
Well, he was rich anyway.
My father worked with the CIA for a token $1 per year, which was a
standard practice back in th 50's and 60's.

OHLeeRedux

2018-04-10 05:42:22 UTC

You think there is no merit in the belief he was avoiding the police? So,
if you were a DPD officer and met Oswald, searched him and found a gun on
him you'd release him?
The DPD in the theater should have let him go?
Intelligence asset for whom?
The man had no car, no home, no phone, lived on unemployment benefits for
long periods of time, his wife and two children had to live on charity...
Did he do this work for free?

No sure what you mean.

That's business as usual for you.

Steve BH

2018-04-09 19:37:08 UTC

You think there is no merit in the belief he was avoiding the police? So,
if you were a DPD officer and met Oswald, searched him and found a gun on
him you'd release him?
The DPD in the theater should have let him go?
Intelligence asset for whom?
The man had no car, no home, no phone, lived on unemployment benefits for
long periods of time, his wife and two children had to live on charity...
Did he do this work for free?

No, for Soviets! In US, government pays spies. In Russia, spies pay
government!

Anthony Marsh

2018-04-09 01:51:38 UTC

Just a minor point, but one does not have to be an intelligence asset to
want to avoid the police.
Oswald only ducked into the theater to break the tail.

Jason Burke

2018-04-09 19:37:28 UTC

Just a minor point, but one does not have to be an intelligence asset to
want to avoid the police.
Oswald only ducked into the theater to break the tail.

Do you *honestly* believe that? Dang, you're more desperate than I
thought.

BOZ

2018-04-04 01:52:55 UTC

Well, they put someone else's name and call # Sgt. Hill's "auto 38" call.
If they can do that, they can lose a ticket!
dcw

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.

BOZ

2018-04-04 01:53:53 UTC

Well, they put someone else's name and call # Sgt. Hill's "auto 38" call.
If they can do that, they can lose a ticket!
dcw

Mr. BREWER - He walked into the Texas Theatre and I walked up to the
theatre, to the box office and asked Mrs. Postal if she sold a ticket to a
man who was wearing a brown shirt, and she said no, she hadn't. She was
listening to the radio herself. And I said that a man walked in there, and
I was going to go inside and ask the usher if he had seen him.

Steve M. Galbraith

2018-04-04 02:00:47 UTC

Well, they put someone else's name and call # Sgt. Hill's "auto 38" call.
If they can do that, they can lose a ticket!
dcw

There's no evidence he bought one.

I guess we have to prove he didn't? And prove the DPD didn't lose it? And
prove Postal lied when she said she didn't sell him one?

That's the usual conspiracy MO. Wild accusations that have to be disproved
and not shown to be plausible first.

Anthony Marsh

2018-04-05 16:46:29 UTC

Well, they put someone else's name and call # Sgt. Hill's "auto 38" call.
If they can do that, they can lose a ticket!
dcw

There's no evidence he bought one.

He's not talking about that. The absence of evidence is not proof.
We have positive proof that he did not buy a ticket. No need to guess.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
I guess we have to prove he didn't? And prove the DPD didn't lose it? And
prove Postal lied when she said she didn't sell him one?

No, you don't have to guess. We have two contemporaneous witnesses.
You can call them liars if you are lazy.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
That's the usual conspiracy MO. Wild accusations that have to be disproved
and not shown to be plausible first.

What wild accusation?

donald willis

2018-04-06 00:22:07 UTC

Well, they put someone else's name and call # Sgt. Hill's "auto 38" call.
If they can do that, they can lose a ticket!
dcw

There's no evidence he bought one.

He's not talking about that. The absence of evidence is not proof.
We have positive proof that he did not buy a ticket. No need to guess.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
I guess we have to prove he didn't? And prove the DPD didn't lose it? And
prove Postal lied when she said she didn't sell him one?

No, you don't have to guess. We have two contemporaneous witnesses.
You can call them liars if you are lazy.

Now, who is it that's always saying, Never rely on witnesses!

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
That's the usual conspiracy MO. Wild accusations that have to be disproved
and not shown to be plausible first.

What wild accusation?

Anthony Marsh

2018-04-07 01:49:19 UTC

Well, they put someone else's name and call # Sgt. Hill's "auto 38" call.
If they can do that, they can lose a ticket!
dcw

There's no evidence he bought one.

He's not talking about that. The absence of evidence is not proof.
We have positive proof that he did not buy a ticket. No need to guess.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
I guess we have to prove he didn't? And prove the DPD didn't lose it? And
prove Postal lied when she said she didn't sell him one?

No, you don't have to guess. We have two contemporaneous witnesses.
You can call them liars if you are lazy.

Now, who is it that's always saying, Never rely on witnesses!

C'est moi. Good advise. But we don't have to ignore them or ASSuME that
they lie.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
That's the usual conspiracy MO. Wild accusations that have to be disproved
and not shown to be plausible first.

What wild accusation?

Steve BH

2018-04-04 22:22:01 UTC

I suppose 19 year-old Johnny Brewer, who uses Oswald’s failure to
pay, as he goes past the ticket counter, as excuse to call the cops, just
makes that up to screw Oswald? And the ticket lady who is out on the curb
trying to figure out what the sirens are, does the same?

Wow it must have been hard to site these two deep agents.

David Von Pein

2018-04-05 19:45:08 UTC

Post by Steve BH
I suppose 19 year-old Johnny Brewer,

Correction....
Johnny Brewer was 22 years old, not 19.

Loading Image...

Post by Steve BH
who uses Oswald’s failure to
pay, as he goes past the ticket counter, as excuse to call the cops, just
makes that up to screw Oswald? And the ticket lady who is out on the curb
trying to figure out what the sirens are, does the same?
Wow it must have been hard to site these two deep agents.

Anthony Marsh

2018-04-06 14:16:54 UTC

Post by Steve BH
I suppose 19 year-old Johnny Brewer,

Correction....
Johnny Brewer was 22 years old, not 19.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-edZe44WR-1g/Tvw4zuMtq3I/AAAAAAAABvU/gTbdK5VrbMk/s3000-h/Johnny-Brewer-Affidavit.gif

Then don't call him a kid.

Post by Steve BH
who uses Oswald???s failure to
pay, as he goes past the ticket counter, as excuse to call the cops, just
makes that up to screw Oswald? And the ticket lady who is out on the curb
trying to figure out what the sirens are, does the same?
Wow it must have been hard to site these two deep agents.

Not sure which site you are talking about? Somebody's Web site. Postal
apparently did not see Oswald sneak into the theater, but Brewer did. And
she sais Oswald did not buy a ticket.

BOZ

2018-04-06 15:01:05 UTC

Post by Steve BH
I suppose 19 year-old Johnny Brewer,

Correction....
Johnny Brewer was 22 years old, not 19.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-edZe44WR-1g/Tvw4zuMtq3I/AAAAAAAABvU/gTbdK5VrbMk/s3000-h/Johnny-Brewer-Affidavit.gif

Are you talking about Johnny Brwer's double? I think Brewer was from
Milwaukee.

Steve BH

2018-04-07 14:59:49 UTC

Post by BOZ

Post by Steve BH
I suppose 19 year-old Johnny Brewer,

Correction....
Johnny Brewer was 22 years old, not 19.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-edZe44WR-1g/Tvw4zuMtq3I/AAAAAAAABvU/gTbdK5VrbMk/s3000-h/Johnny-Brewer-Affidavit.gif

Are you talking about Johnny Brwer's double? I think Brewer was from
Milwaukee.

The Brewer that made Milwaukee famous? Groan.

Anthony Marsh

2018-04-04 22:23:56 UTC

Well, they put someone else's name and call # Sgt. Hill's "auto 38" call.
If they can do that, they can lose a ticket!
dcw

There was no ticket. Oswald SNUCK in without buying a ticket.
Why would Oswald keep a ticket? Doesn't he have to turn it in to get
admitted? Why would he keep a ticket stub?

Ace Kefford

2018-04-03 23:51:51 UTC

Bozley, you are 100% correct on this point. No sense debating because you
cannot debate that type of person who changes the facts or makes up
stories to fit his desired result. There is no evidence that could ever
persuade that type of person. So no point in debating them.

donald willis

2018-04-05 02:49:50 UTC

Like I say, it's not as if the DPD didn't phony up the first major
transcription of its own radio logs. Henslee's effort has two other
people sending Sgt Hill's "auto 38" transmission, and Officer Haygood
sending Officer L. Hill's 12:37 "second window from the end" transmission.
Fortunately, in the latter case, the estimable Warren Report corrected
Haygood and Henslee and correctly attributed the 12:37 message to Hill.

Easier, in fact, to simply "lose" a theatre ticket than to concoct a false
transcription!

dcw

Anthony Marsh

2018-04-06 14:18:08 UTC

Like I say, it's not as if the DPD didn't phony up the first major
transcription of its own radio logs. Henslee's effort has two other
people sending Sgt Hill's "auto 38" transmission, and Officer Haygood
sending Officer L. Hill's 12:37 "second window from the end" transmission.
Fortunately, in the latter case, the estimable Warren Report corrected
Haygood and Henslee and correctly attributed the 12:37 message to Hill.
Easier, in fact, to simply "lose" a theatre ticket than to concoct a false
transcription!

Why would Oswald keep a ticket. Are you claiming it wasn't even Oswald
in the theatre? Do you think Oswald was anywhere in Dallas?

Post by donald willis
dcw

donald willis

2018-04-07 19:50:42 UTC

Like I say, it's not as if the DPD didn't phony up the first major
transcription of its own radio logs. Henslee's effort has two other
people sending Sgt Hill's "auto 38" transmission, and Officer Haygood
sending Officer L. Hill's 12:37 "second window from the end" transmission.
Fortunately, in the latter case, the estimable Warren Report corrected
Haygood and Henslee and correctly attributed the 12:37 message to Hill.
Easier, in fact, to simply "lose" a theatre ticket than to concoct a false
transcription!

Why would Oswald keep a ticket. Are you claiming it wasn't even Oswald
in the theatre? Do you think Oswald was anywhere in Dallas?

Post by donald willis
dcw

I should have said "ticket STUB"....

Steve M. Galbraith

2018-04-07 00:44:08 UTC

Like I say, it's not as if the DPD didn't phony up the first major
transcription of its own radio logs. Henslee's effort has two other
people sending Sgt Hill's "auto 38" transmission, and Officer Haygood
sending Officer L. Hill's 12:37 "second window from the end" transmission.
Fortunately, in the latter case, the estimable Warren Report corrected
Haygood and Henslee and correctly attributed the 12:37 message to Hill.
Easier, in fact, to simply "lose" a theatre ticket than to concoct a false
transcription!
dcw

So your evidence that they lost the stub is that they misreported who
called in the 12:37 message to Hill?

But the question is what evidence is there that Oswald *bought* a ticket
and not what the DPD did with an imaginary stub. Which you have no
evidence on either.

Even if he had purchased a ticket that doesn't undermine all of the other
evidence. Which, yes I know, you dismiss. Markham lied, Calloway lied, the
Davis' lied et cetera et cetera.

Why all of these people - waitresses and cab drivers and bus drivers and
steamfitters and shoe salesmen and ticket takers - lied about a 24 year
old book order filler is one of the mysteries for the ages.

donald willis

2018-04-07 20:05:28 UTC

Like I say, it's not as if the DPD didn't phony up the first major
transcription of its own radio logs. Henslee's effort has two other
people sending Sgt Hill's "auto 38" transmission, and Officer Haygood
sending Officer L. Hill's 12:37 "second window from the end" transmission.
Fortunately, in the latter case, the estimable Warren Report corrected
Haygood and Henslee and correctly attributed the 12:37 message to Hill.
Easier, in fact, to simply "lose" a theatre ticket than to concoct a false
transcription!
dcw

So your evidence that they lost the stub is that they misreported who
called in the 12:37 message to Hill?

If the DPD can fake one aspect of the case, they can fake another. The
12:37 call was not just "misreported"--the officer who testified to the
Commission that he sent it had in fact not sent it. The ol' Warren Report
actually picked up on this misrepresentation and restored the call to the
correct officer, despite the other officer's false testimony.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
But the question is what evidence is there that Oswald *bought* a ticket
and not what the DPD did with an imaginary stub. Which you have no
evidence on either.
Even if he had purchased a ticket that doesn't undermine all of the other
evidence. Which, yes I know, you dismiss. Markham lied, Calloway lied, the
Davis' lied et cetera et cetera.

Is there a Robert's Rules of Testimony which says only two or three
witnesses in any given case lie?

dcw

John McAdams

2018-04-07 20:08:48 UTC

Post by donald willis
If the DPD can fake one aspect of the case, they can fake another. The
12:37 call was not just "misreported"--the officer who testified to the
Commission that he sent it had in fact not sent it. The ol' Warren Report
actually picked up on this misrepresentation and restored the call to the
correct officer, despite the other officer's false testimony.

Is there a Robert's Rules of Testimony which says only two or three
witnesses in any given case lie?

There is a rule of logic that says when you have to make dozens of
witnesses liars to make you theory fit the evidence it is a bad
theory.

It is almost as though you are trying to concoct the *least* plausible
scenario, given the evidence.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

2018-04-09 01:48:06 UTC

Is there a Robert's Rules of Testimony which says only two or three
witnesses in any given case lie?

There is a rule of logic that says when you have to make dozens of
witnesses liars to make you theory fit the evidence it is a bad
theory.

So you say that no one ever lies and there are never any cover-ups?
Like Watergate? Like Vietnam. Like Trump?

Post by John McAdams
It is almost as though you are trying to concoct the *least* plausible
scenario, given the evidence.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Ace Kefford

2018-04-10 05:39:43 UTC

Is there a Robert's Rules of Testimony which says only two or three
witnesses in any given case lie?

There is a rule of logic that says when you have to make dozens of
witnesses liars to make you theory fit the evidence it is a bad
theory.
It is almost as though you are trying to concoct the *least* plausible
scenario, given the evidence.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Hey, John, I think you actually defined the research and analysis method
of most of the buffs: "make dozens of witnesses liars to make your theory
fit the evidence," with the addition that their method goes beyond
witnesses to also include making mountains of physical evidence falsified
(or just ignore it) and making groups of experts corrupt or intimidated.
With that trifecta they are winners every time!

Anthony Marsh

2018-04-11 15:29:17 UTC

Is there a Robert's Rules of Testimony which says only two or three
witnesses in any given case lie?

There is a rule of logic that says when you have to make dozens of
witnesses liars to make you theory fit the evidence it is a bad
theory.
It is almost as though you are trying to concoct the *least* plausible
scenario, given the evidence.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Hey, John, I think you actually defined the research and analysis method
of most of the buffs: "make dozens of witnesses liars to make your theory

"Some." Not most. I call them alterationist.
The earlist researchers actually interviewed witnesses.

Post by Ace Kefford
fit the evidence," with the addition that their method goes beyond
witnesses to also include making mountains of physical evidence falsified
(or just ignore it) and making groups of experts corrupt or intimidated.
With that trifecta they are winners every time!

Ace Kefford

2018-04-13 04:00:17 UTC

Is there a Robert's Rules of Testimony which says only two or three
witnesses in any given case lie?

There is a rule of logic that says when you have to make dozens of
witnesses liars to make you theory fit the evidence it is a bad
theory.
It is almost as though you are trying to concoct the *least* plausible
scenario, given the evidence.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Hey, John, I think you actually defined the research and analysis method
of most of the buffs: "make dozens of witnesses liars to make your theory

"Some." Not most. I call them alterationist.
The earlist researchers actually interviewed witnesses.

Agreed. Originally although researchers and critics had certain views and
preconceptions that they brought to the case almost all of them were
trying to find the actual truth using the available facts or what they
could add to those facts, with the primary exception being those who were
doing propaganda and agitation work for their Russian Communist superiors.

Especially in the last couple of decades or so, however, while some
genuine researchers remain, many of the buffs, including some popular
authors and filmmakers, have instead pursued the path of doing anything so
that "their side" will "win" and so engage in arguments that treat all
contrary evidence as altered and all contrary testimony of witnesses and
experts as intentional lies and back it all up with a massive conspiracy
that basically can control all truth and reality and hence is not
falsifiable. In summary: Welcome to Nutbag Country!

Anthony Marsh

2018-04-14 13:01:53 UTC

Is there a Robert's Rules of Testimony which says only two or three
witnesses in any given case lie?

There is a rule of logic that says when you have to make dozens of
witnesses liars to make you theory fit the evidence it is a bad
theory.
It is almost as though you are trying to concoct the *least* plausible
scenario, given the evidence.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Hey, John, I think you actually defined the research and analysis method
of most of the buffs: "make dozens of witnesses liars to make your theory

"Some." Not most. I call them alterationist.
The earlist researchers actually interviewed witnesses.

So YOUR conspiracy is that the conspiracy researchers were working for
the KGB? Can you name them?

Post by Ace Kefford
Especially in the last couple of decades or so, however, while some
genuine researchers remain, many of the buffs, including some popular

Not many of us let.

Post by Ace Kefford
authors and filmmakers, have instead pursued the path of doing anything so
that "their side" will "win" and so engage in arguments that treat all

Well, in case you were in a coma, we already won, in 1978. But we are
realistic enough to know that some WC defenders will never admit anything.

Post by Ace Kefford
contrary evidence as altered and all contrary testimony of witnesses and

Can you name the specific few pieces of evidence that have been altered
or desroyed? Can you tell me where JFK's brain is?

Post by Ace Kefford
experts as intentional lies and back it all up with a massive conspiracy
that basically can control all truth and reality and hence is not
falsifiable. In summary: Welcome to Nutbag Country!

It works both ways buddy. When we point out the bullet hole in the
forehead you claim you can't see it or the evidence is fake. When we cite
witnesses you claim they are fake. When we cite polls, you claim they are
fake.

When I PROVE that the Zapruder film is authentic, you call me a liar.

OHLeeRedux

2018-04-15 00:42:51 UTC

Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -
So YOUR conspiracy is that the conspiracy researchers were working for
the KGB? Can you name them?

Post by Ace Kefford
Especially in the last couple of decades or so, however, while some
genuine researchers remain, many of the buffs, including some popular

Not many of us let.

Post by Ace Kefford
authors and filmmakers, have instead pursued the path of doing anything so
that "their side" will "win" and so engage in arguments that treat all

Well, in case you were in a coma, we already won, in 1978. But we are
realistic enough to know that some WC defenders will never admit anything.

Post by Ace Kefford
contrary evidence as altered and all contrary testimony of witnesses and

Can you name the specific few pieces of evidence that have been altered
or desroyed? Can you tell me where JFK's brain is?

donald willis

2018-04-15 00:44:17 UTC

Is there a Robert's Rules of Testimony which says only two or three
witnesses in any given case lie?

There is a rule of logic that says when you have to make dozens of
witnesses liars to make you theory fit the evidence it is a bad
theory.
It is almost as though you are trying to concoct the *least* plausible
scenario, given the evidence.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Hey, John, I think you actually defined the research and analysis method
of most of the buffs: "make dozens of witnesses liars to make your theory

"Some." Not most. I call them alterationist.
The earlist researchers actually interviewed witnesses.

Agreed. Originally although researchers and critics had certain views and
preconceptions that they brought to the case almost all of them were
trying to find the actual truth using the available facts or what they
could add to those facts, with the primary exception being those who were
doing propaganda and agitation work for their Russian Communist superiors.
Especially in the last couple of decades or so, however, while some
genuine researchers remain, many of the buffs, including some popular
authors and filmmakers, have instead pursued the path of doing anything so
that "their side" will "win" and so engage in arguments that treat all
contrary evidence as altered

Even the DPD had to admit, tacitly, that DPD Sgt. Henslee faked the
transcription of their radio logs. A later DPD transcription, by Sgt.
Bowles, restored various transmissions to their proper senders, including
Sgt. Gerald Hill and Patrolman Leonard Hill....

But the damage had been done--(Sgt.) Hill and Patrolman Haygood were
allowed to testify, falsely, re transmissions re some "auto .38" bullets
and a "second window from the end", resp. So, you might say that this
part of the cover-up was eminently "successful"....

dcw

Steve M. Galbraith

2018-04-08 19:37:46 UTC

Like I say, it's not as if the DPD didn't phony up the first major
transcription of its own radio logs. Henslee's effort has two other
people sending Sgt Hill's "auto 38" transmission, and Officer Haygood
sending Officer L. Hill's 12:37 "second window from the end" transmission.
Fortunately, in the latter case, the estimable Warren Report corrected
Haygood and Henslee and correctly attributed the 12:37 message to Hill.
Easier, in fact, to simply "lose" a theatre ticket than to concoct a false
transcription!
dcw

So your evidence that they lost the stub is that they misreported who
called in the 12:37 message to Hill?

Is there a Robert's Rules of Testimony which says only two or three
witnesses in any given case lie?
dcw

The rule of common sense - okay, my rule - is that unless one can give a
plausible reason for waitresses and bus drivers and used car salesmen and
ticket takers and shoe salesmen and warehouse workers and cab drivers to
lie about the actions of someone who is a plausible suspect in two crimes
then I think that someone, i.e., the suspect, has to have an extraordinary
explanation for his behavior and whereabouts to give.

We have, roughly, two scenarios: Oswald committing a couple of crimes or
dozens of people - ordinary people with no motive to do so - lying about
his actions.

What was their motive?

claviger

2018-04-04 01:45:13 UTC

CTs don't come here to discuss the facts. They come here to discuss
their own fantasies.

mainframetech

2018-04-05 02:56:39 UTC

Post by claviger

CTs don't come here to discuss the facts. They come here to discuss
their own fantasies.

Whereas LNs come to express their opinions and avoid facts.

Chris

Anthony Marsh

2018-04-05 16:52:39 UTC

Post by claviger

CTs don't come here to discuss the facts. They come here to discuss
their own fantasies.

So you think it's a fantasy that the Zapruder film is authentic.
All you have is Poisoning the Well because you have no facts on your side.

BOZ

2018-04-04 01:54:00 UTC

Oswald never bought a ticket.

Anthony Marsh

2018-04-04 22:32:50 UTC

The ticket seller said he didn't. The shoe clerk saw him avoid buying a
ticket and sneaking in.

Post by BOZ
Gee, you don't suppose that the DPD could lose a movie-theatre ticket?
Or stub, that is....
dcw

Beyond Wikipedia

2018-04-14 03:34:03 UTC

Um, hello? The movie theater was a meeting spot for a failed/faked
contact? Why else with the halved dollar bills? Why else with the
switching of the seats? Sounds like David Atlee Phillips stuff to me.

There is nothing contradictory about a situation wherein Oswald is both an
intelligence asset and choosing to hide from the Police.

Anthony Marsh

2018-04-15 00:54:22 UTC