12-01-2016, 09:21 PM
Bob: I don't think that Oswald went to the movie theater because he wanted to see the movie. I think Oswald, when he leaves work, must be weighing his flight options. It is conceivable that Oswald thought someone was going to meet him, but he might have retained the transfer just in case he had to take a bus ride to the Greyhound station to get out of town. (I think I recall reading (DJ's article?) McWatters say that the transfer was good for four hours, which, if true, gives Oswald a travel option window until 4:30-ish). I think its far more likely that, whatever Oswald originally planned to do, when he left the TSBD, he's had second thoughts about, out of concern for his own survival.
At the point where he went into the movie theatre, he's just killed a cop (or is getting framed for same). He's ditching his jacket to change his appearance, and there are cop cars all over the neighborhood. I think he's just trying to get off the street, and/or working on an alibi for the Tippet shooting. Maybe he's meeting someone by changing his seat in the movie house, maybe he's making himself memorable to potential alibi witnesses.
DJ: You don't prove something to be true, by arguing that nobody has proved anything different. For instance, a lack of convincing proof that he was on the bus, doesn't justify concluding that he wasn't on the bus, just means that it isn't convincingly proven. Same thing with Roger Craig's testimony about the station wagon.
I agree that there are problems with the bus evidence. Most all of the evidence in the case has one or more problems. I'm interested in learning more about your research. But, if you assume that your conclusion is true (i.e. "Oswald didn't shoot JFK") then, of course, discussing the evidence is pointless, (i.e. his shooting ability).
On the other hand, I am interested in following the evidence with as few assumptions as possible, so that I might be able to evaluate conclusions and results without being handicapped by the "blinkers" or "rose-colored glasses" of my own preconceptions.
![[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=7917&stc=1]](https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7917&stc=1)
Image credit: http://www.stubbornthings.org/wearing-blinkers/
At the point where he went into the movie theatre, he's just killed a cop (or is getting framed for same). He's ditching his jacket to change his appearance, and there are cop cars all over the neighborhood. I think he's just trying to get off the street, and/or working on an alibi for the Tippet shooting. Maybe he's meeting someone by changing his seat in the movie house, maybe he's making himself memorable to potential alibi witnesses.
DJ: You don't prove something to be true, by arguing that nobody has proved anything different. For instance, a lack of convincing proof that he was on the bus, doesn't justify concluding that he wasn't on the bus, just means that it isn't convincingly proven. Same thing with Roger Craig's testimony about the station wagon.
I agree that there are problems with the bus evidence. Most all of the evidence in the case has one or more problems. I'm interested in learning more about your research. But, if you assume that your conclusion is true (i.e. "Oswald didn't shoot JFK") then, of course, discussing the evidence is pointless, (i.e. his shooting ability).
On the other hand, I am interested in following the evidence with as few assumptions as possible, so that I might be able to evaluate conclusions and results without being handicapped by the "blinkers" or "rose-colored glasses" of my own preconceptions.
Image credit: http://www.stubbornthings.org/wearing-blinkers/
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."