Jump to content
The Education Forum
Ron Bulman

Two Oswalds in the Texas Theater

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, David Boylan said:

Jim, 

Ruby must have been an informant. 🙂

Strange mix there. McKeown knew Ruby, Oswald, Prio, Hernandez, Davis and Castro.

 

Yes absolutely Ruby was an informant. The FBI had to 'fess up that they wanted him back in 1959, but he never gave them anything good. Yet the FBI had records going back to 1956 quoting witnesses who claimed that any drugs shipments going through Dallas had to be cleared by Ruby first. As Jim Hargrove (and John Armstrong) have been arguing for years, the reason that McKeown was approached by a "false "Oswald"'' in September of 1963 was to implicate Castro in the upcoming assassination. McKeown had run guns to Castro a few years earlier, so if "Oswald" was part of a gun purchase from McKeown - Castro's arms dealer - then Castro himself could be blamed. 

However, McKeown refused to take the bait. The high price offered to McKeown ($10,000 for four rifles!) was so suspicious that McKeown correctly smelled a rat and wouldn't make the sale.

Jack Ruby was regularly used as an informant for the DPD's Richard Clark, a detective in narcotics and vice and the Warren Commission had the evidence (which they ignored!)

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10488#relPageId=92&tab=page

And, according to this FBI document, Jack Ruby was influential within the Dallas Police Department as early as 1948!

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62260#relPageId=179

However, Jim H. and John A. and I all believe that Ruby's most important connections were to the CIA. It is impossible to believe that Ruby could have been running guns to Cuba for years without the knowledge, approval and help of CIA operatives. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed!  McKeown smelled a rat and wouldn't sell "Oswald" those four 300 Savage rifles with scopes, even for the laughably inflated price of $10,000 (in 1963 dollars!)  Does ANYONE here doubt that at least one of those 300 Savage rifles would have appeared on the sixth floor of the Book Depository on 11/22/1963 had McKeown been fooled?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, David Boylan said:

Jim, 

Ruby must have been an informant. 🙂

Strange mix there. McKeown knew Ruby, Oswald, Prio, Hernandez, Davis and Castro.

McKeown, most importantly, was a close friend of Fidel Castro's.  That's why "Oswald" tried to buy rifles from him.  John A. wrote:

After leaving  Washington, DC, Castro flew to Houston and met Robert McKeown at the airport. A photograph on the front page of the Houston Chronicle titled “Castro and the Gunrunner" recorded the event. An article accompanying the photograph quoted Castro as saying that if McKeown would return with him to Cuba, he would be given a high post in the government, a franchise.....whatever he wanted. McKeown politely told Castro that he could not legally leave the United States because of his probation. Castro said not to worry because US authorities would not bother him in Cuba. But McKeown declined his offer and Castro departed for Havana. 


CASTRO%20&%20MCKEOWN%20copy.jpg


McKeown's close friendship with Castro prompted many people to ask him for assistance in affairs pertaining to Cuba. On one occasion McKeown's brother asked him to contact Castro and attempt to obtain the release of three friends who were being detained because they were caught fishing in Cuban waters. McKeown personally telephoned and spoke with Castro and the men were quickly released. On another occasion Jack Porter, a campaign manager for Eisenhower, contacted McKeown about approaching Castro. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Perhaps people other than me should continue this line of thought because I just don’t have much faith at all in Brewer as a witness. We could speculate endlessly about what he meant by the “IBM men,” but I’d be just as inclined to guess they were a stand-in for Tommy Rowe, who would certainly be more likely to have the ability to close up the shoe shop.  Before he got enmeshed in this whole mess, I’ll bet Brewer had no idea how close his underling was to Ruby, or how pivotal Ruby was in the assassination plot.  

This is all just a wild guess on my part, of course, but so is everything else regarding the two “IBM men,” at least in my opinion.  None of us are getting any younger, especially me, and I’d rather concentrate on matters that have a greater chance of being understood with at least some modest degree of certainty.

Jim, I have no faith in Brewer as a witness either.  I think he was likely coerced and coached before he ever gave a statement, much less testified.  I'd never read much about him before Micha's post earlier in the thread.  Now because of him, you, Steve and Paul I'm aware of holes in his story, Rowe and the IBM guys.  It's all intriguing and important even if not much more information is available.  Thank you all for educating me a bit.  

Further, I've come to wonder if Brewer might have been used, like the second Oswald, to help lead police to the Texas Theater.  I know, speculation.  I have a hard time believing he was deeply involved prior to the assassination.  Per his Spartacus bio, born in 1942, after high school SW TX State in San Marcos for a year then Nixon Clay Business College in Austin.  Starts at Hardy's Shoes in Austin in September 1961.  Ten month's later in July 1962 promoted to manager in Dallas at the age of 20.  Maybe Hardy's was a front for ?  But otherwise nothing known about clandestine activities in his young life, e. g. no military history.

Why would this young man bring up IBM guy's who hung out in his store for months, for no known/stated reason, he couldn't remember the names of, but closed the store for him ?  

Might they have been there as observers waiting for O2 to pass and "suggested" he follow him to the TT?

If Rowe was so tight with Ruby, did he know the IBM guys too?

Food for thought for future researches digging though whatever unexplored files yet to be seen

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Perhaps people other than me should continue this line of thought because I just don’t have much faith at all in Brewer as a witness. We could speculate endlessly about what he meant by the “IBM men,” but I’d be just as inclined to guess they were a stand-in for Tommy Rowe, who would certainly be more likely to have the ability to close up the shoe shop.  Before he got enmeshed in this whole mess, I’ll bet Brewer had no idea how close his underling was to Ruby, or how pivotal Ruby was in the assassination plot.  

This is all just a wild guess on my part, of course, but so is everything else regarding the two “IBM men,” at least in my opinion.  None of us are getting any younger, especially me, and I’d rather concentrate on matters that have a greater chance of being understood with at least some modest degree of certainty.

Jim,

 

I agree.

I told Bart Kamp the other day that I wish I had a lot more answers rather than have just a list of endless questions.

 

Steve Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IBM clearly had a large presence in Dallas.  Ted Cruz's father was working for IBM in Dallas on the day of the assassination!  Several of the people who contributed to the Sixth Floor Museum's oral history project were working for IBM.  Brewer said he had known the two IBM employees since he came there and that they simply liked to hang out.  These weren't two mysterious, shadowy figures.

Apart from that, step back and put on your Reality Hat:  How would anything sinister have worked?  For starters, you have no evidence whatsoever that Oswald was "supposed" to duck into the Texas Theater.  But we'll ignore that gigantic black hole of speculation and say he was.  He's weaving his way like a scared rabbit toward the Texas Theater.  Presumably he would like to get there as quickly and unobtrusively as he could - yes?  He presumably wasn't part of any plan to get himself caught and arrested - right?  But police vehicles were screaming down the street, so he ducked into the shoe store alcove just as you or I might have done under the circumstances.  Since the two IBM employees were already in the shoe store, you would have to believe that it was planned - part of The Conspiracy - for Oswald to duck into the shoe store alcove and for the IBM employees to plant the notion in Brewer's head that this was a suspicious-looking character who should be watched.

DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE?  It was somehow anticipated that Oswald would duck into the shoe store alcove - as opposed, say, into any one of the other businesses lining the street or behind a parked car, a lamp post or a tree?  Since Brewer knew the IBM men, the conspirators were confident - or at least willing to run the massive risk - that Brewer wouldn't mention them and cause them to be interviewed and investigated?  Thereby putting the entire conspiracy at risk - FOR WHAT?  If the plan were as you folks seem to be envisioning it, why would the conspirators need Brewer or the IBM men AT ALL?  Just have someone, anyone, standing on the other side of the street until Oswald ducked into the theater, then have that someone walk up to Julia Postal, say "Hey, a guy just snuck behind your back without paying!", and disappear into the scenery.

It seems to me that JFK conspiracy theorizing has reached such a nadir that this kind of stuff is what the conspiracy community is reduced to.  (Hey, who was Julia Postal anyway?  Did she ever attend a high school civics class where Allen Dulles was mentioned?  Uh-huh, I thought so.  Follow that up.)

I once had a client about whom I used to say:  "Given a straightforward, legal way to do something, and a convoluted, illegal way to do the same thing, Brad actually prefers the convoluted, illegal way."  This sort of thing gives me the same feeling - why live in reality when fantasy is so much more entertaining?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Payette apparently chooses not to consider the evidence that the major players in the events of 11/22/63 in Dallas were following instructions.   In fact, someone had clearly been impersonating “Oswald” for six weeks or so in and around Dallas prior to 11/22.   The photos taken by Stuart Reed on assassination day virtually prove that one of the Oswalds was told in advance to board the Marsalis bus.  The murder of Tippit was clearly a planned event.  The proof is here.

The fact that both Oswalds ended up at the Texas Theater was CLEARLY planned.  One was told to look for a contact, probably with a matching torn dollar bill that Classic Oswald® was apparently carrying.  

Dollar_bill_halves.png

These events, and many others, were PLANNED, and had the earmarks of American Intelligence are all over them.  What CIA accountant James Wilcott referred to as the “Oswald Project” was clearly a program that sent a man who secretly understood Russian to the Soviet Union for two an a half years.  Due to its enormous success, this same project was apparently resurrected in 1963 when Classic Oswald was granted permission by the State Department to return to Russia.

Ruby apparently was protected by the American government when he ran guns to Cuba during two different decades.  He was also connected to Agency bigwig David Atlee Phillips through Phillips' close friend Gordon McLendon, who owned radio station KLIF, where Ruby spent time the night of the hit.  Phillips’ deceitful machinations immediately after the hit are regarded by some researchers as opportunistic efforts to blame JFK’s murder on Castro,  but on closer examination the whole purpose of the Kennedy assassination was clearly to blame it all on Castro and provoke an invasion of Cuba.

LBJ himself had to head off the invasion juggernaut by ordering the cover-up.  Earl Warren told us that in his book many years ago.   I could go on and on, as could most of us, but some people don’t seem to want to even consider the truth.  Too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

FWIW, here is the Sixth Floor Museum's oral history statement by Johnny Brewer in 2005.  He does explain why he asked Julia Postal if Oswald had bought a ticket.

https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/26152/johnny-calvin-brewer-oral-history;jsessionid=707927C23DAED05B1E13B05349FE272D?ctx=34c5adfd-073b-4ab3-a0c2-9ac2857a4b9f&idx=9

I find Brewer's persona and personal history to make him a good candidate for The Least Suspicious Person On Earth.  But, of course, that's precisely what we would expect in a well-organized conspiracy - right?  See how this works?  Regardless of whether the persons or circumstances are "blatantly suspicious" or "not suspicious at all," they can be fitted seamlessly into The Plan.

Here's the sort of stuff that drives me crazy:  Brewer gave his interview to Griggs in 1996.  Brewer was alive and well in 2011, when he received an award from the city of Dallas at the age of 70.  I couldn't find an obituary, so for all I know he is alive today.

The dark speculation about the IBM men began almost immediately after the Griggs interview.  In all those intervening years, did anyone simply follow up with Brewer?  We're talking about at least 15 years, folks - likely 20 or more.  Judging from the articles I could find, he was scarcely a recluse.  This pattern appears again and again in conspiracy discussions - don't do the obvious legwork when sitting around and engaging in dark speculation is so much more fun.  The obvious legwork is dangerous - it might quickly expose your dark speculation as baseless and absurd.

You will note that Jim's post above does not address the substance of my post at all.  I conceded for purposes of my post that Oswald's intended destination was the Texas Theater, which is like a Southern Baptist conceding there is no God for purposes of argument.  I conceded for purposes of my post that there was a plan.  I asked, conceding all this, how does the presence of two shadowy conspirators inside the Hardy's shoe store MAKE ANY SENSE???  It doesn't.  Why do you need Brewer and the two IBM men AT ALL?  You don't.

As a spokesman for Harvey & Lee, Jim of course believes something like the Oswald patsy (Harvey or Lee, I can never keep them straight) being predestined to be arrested at the Texas Theater.  OK, we will concede even this for purposes of argument.  We won't even ask why it makes any sense, why The Plan required the murder of Tippit or the arrest of Lee (or Harvey, as the case may be) at the Texas Theater.  But again I ask, how does the presence of two shadowy conspirators inside the Hardy's shoe store MAKE ANY SENSE???  It doesn't.  Why do you need a lowly 22-year-old shoe salesman like Brewer and the two IBM men AT ALL?  You don't.

How do you have any confidence that the lowly 22-year-old shoe salesman is going to react in the way you "need" him to react?  What if says, "Yeah, that guy looked kind of suspicious, but I can't leave the store or I'll get fired"?  I could go on and on, but it simply seems to me that when people put on their conspiracy spectacles, logic and common sense fly out the window.

The "Oswald Project."  Yeah, that's how the CIA would internally characterize a massive clandestine project involving a guy named Lee Harvey Oswald when submitting disbursement requests to a relative nobody.  See http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html.  Good Lord.  It sounds like something from "The Spy Who Shagged Me."

 

 

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen,

As I pointed out before, the key detail in Johnny Brewer's story (that "Oswald" entered Hardy's Shoes around 1:30) simply could not be correct because "Oswald" had been in the Texas Theater for at least fifteen minutes by then.

Whoever entered Hardy's Shoes, it wasn't "Oswald."

Could the rest of Brewer's story be basically correct?

Sure.

I explained all the anomalies in Brewer's testimony and his 1996 interview earlier, at length.

Can we say why he said what he said? No, but my guess is the most likely one - he was urged to report a suspicious person entering the Texas Theater by people he'd known and trusted. The two IBM men were the only ones in position to push Brewer - and yes, he was pushed. He admitted "" I still had no reason to have somebody call the police. I'm not sure what the hell I'm doing here to start with."

There is no reasonable explanation for that statement other than he was pressured to call the police, and that pressure came from someone else.

The crucial question, avoided studiously by all the authorities from that day to this, and apparently not well understood by many of us here is simple:

Since Johnny Brewer unquestionably knew and remembered "Oswald" as a previous customer at Hardy's Shoes, WHY DIDN'T BREWER RECOGNIZE "OSWALD" WHEN HE ENTERED THE LOBBY AT HARDY'S AROUND 1:30? (After all, Brewer knew him!)

The answer is simple: The man who came into the lobby/doorway area at Hardy's Shoes on 11/22/63 around 1:30 was NOT known to Brewer - that man was not "Oswald"!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a very good point, Paul, but it is hardly the only problem with Brewer's tale.  The main floor "Oswald" was clearly inside the Texas Theater long before Brewer claimed to see him in front of the shoe store.  And he was making such a scene moving from patron to patron that it is quite obvious why the list of theater patrons had to disappear.  George Applin confirmed Butch Burrough's recollection that "Oswald" walked back into the concession area long before he was supposed to be in front of Hardy's Shoes.  This isn't complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

2 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Gentlemen,

As I pointed out before, the key detail in Johnny Brewer's story (that "Oswald" entered Hardy's Shoes around 1:30) simply could not be correct because "Oswald" had been in the Texas Theater for at least fifteen minutes by then.

Whoever entered Hardy's Shoes, it wasn't "Oswald."

Could the rest of Brewer's story be basically correct?

Sure.

I explained all the anomalies in Brewer's testimony and his 1996 interview earlier, at length.

Can we say why he said what he said? No, but my guess is the most likely one - he was urged to report a suspicious person entering the Texas Theater by people he'd known and trusted. The two IBM men were the only ones in position to push Brewer - and yes, he was pushed. He admitted "" I still had no reason to have somebody call the police. I'm not sure what the hell I'm doing here to start with."

There is no reasonable explanation for that statement other than he was pressured to call the police, and that pressure came from someone else.

The crucial question, avoided studiously by all the authorities from that day to this, and apparently not well understood by many of us here is simple:

Since Johnny Brewer unquestionably knew and remembered "Oswald" as a previous customer at Hardy's Shoes, WHY DIDN'T BREWER RECOGNIZE "OSWALD" WHEN HE ENTERED THE LOBBY AT HARDY'S AROUND 1:30? (After all, Brewer knew him!)

The answer is simple: The man who came into the lobby/doorway area at Hardy's Shoes on 11/22/63 around 1:30 was NOT known to Brewer - that man was not "Oswald"!

 

Any lawyer will tell you that a witness's earliest statements are the most probative.  Two weeks after the assassination, Brewer signed an affidavit in which Oswald was nothing more than "a man."  When he testified to the WC less than five months after the assassination - after presumably having given careful thought to what he would say - he testified:

Mr. BELIN - Let me hold you a minute. You used the word Oswald. Did you know who the man was at the time you saw him?

Mr. BREWER - No.

Mr. BELIN - So at the time, you didn't know what his name was?

Mr. BREWER - No.

Later:

Mr. BREWER - He just looked funny to me. Well, in the first place, I had seen him some place before. I think he had been in my store before. And when you wait on somebody, you recognize them, and he just seemed funny. His hair was sort of messed up and looked like he had been running, and he looked scared, and he looked funny.

In this 1964 interview, Brewer said the day of the assassination was "the first time" he had seen Oswald.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=K-jUhs5MPhg  In this recreation, likewise from 1964, Oswald is simply "this man."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo-wHtJPdQM

32 years later, Brewer gives the interview to Griggs.  Now he clearly remembers Oswald, down to his shoe size, what shoes he bought, and that he was a "pain in the butt."  Read those two paragraphs of the Griggs interview.  What Brewer says doesn't even make sense.  You can't even tell when he had this flash of recollection about Oswald.  It sounds like it was in the Texas Theater.

Ten years earlier, in 1986, when he testified at the mock trial, he had said nothing like he later said to Griggs.  In the 2005 oral history statement I posted, he says nothing like he supposedly said to Griggs ("I recognized him … in a way [shrugs] … you know, like I seen this guy").

Brewer was a shoe salesman, for God's sake, caught up in the news story of the century.  I have no doubt that his head was spinning and probably still is.

Witnesses' recollections simply DO NOT become vastly more detailed 32 years after the event.  Yet this happens AGAIN AND AGAIN with the assassination witnesses, after they have attended conspiracy seminars, had conspiracy-oriented authors whispering in their ears and/or "educated" themselves with books, videos and internet sites.

So what does a good conspiracy theorist believe?  Why, the 1996 Griggs interview, of course.  That and only that.

What does a good conspiracy theorist hang his hat on?  Why, discrepancies in the timeline of events, of course - probably the least reliable basis of all.  Every discrepancy that will serve a cockamamie conspiracy theory becomes the gospel truth, the official timeline.

If you seriously don't believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the man in the alcove of Hardy's, I have nothing further to say to you.  You have gone down the rabbit hole.

By the way,

NO ONE HAS EVEN ATTEMPTED TO EXPLAIN HOW ANY OF THIS MAKES ANY SENSE,

even after I have conceded all that I have conceded for the sake of argument.  You folks don't even CARE if it makes any sense.  You might as well develop your theories by consulting a Ouija board.

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

That's a very good point, Paul, but it is hardly the only problem with Brewer's tale.  The main floor "Oswald" was clearly inside the Texas Theater long before Brewer claimed to see him in front of the shoe store.  And he was making such a scene moving from patron to patron that it is quite obvious why the list of theater patrons had to disappear.  George Applin confirmed Butch Burrough's recollection that "Oswald" walked back into the concession area long before he was supposed to be in front of Hardy's Shoes.  This isn't complicated.

Jim, I knew Jack Davis mentioned Oswald going into the concession area after he sat by him and someone else but I wasn't aware Applin did too.  Was this from a interview or did he make a statement I missed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Payette chooses to mock Brewer’s comment about the two “IBM men” as if that was an integral part of this case,  says that Brewer is “a good candidate for The Least Suspicious Person On Earth,” and then goes on to insist he was a prevaricator.  Mr. Payette’s dictum that the earliest testimony is usually the best, normally well founded advice, completely ignores a trainload of evidence that the FBI and the WC in this case altered witness statements and testimony, falsified physical evidence, made statements and documents disappear, and invented others out of whole cloth.

Here’s a three minute video with Gil Jesus and Mark Lane that shows how the FBI dramatically altered statements by three Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses about where the gunshots may have originated on that fateful day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M

The Warren Commission and the FBI knowingly altered sworn testimony, as the example below shows. In this case, it was to hide the fact that “Oswald’s” so-called possessions were quietly transferred to Washington the night of the assassination, vastly modified and expanded, and quietly returned to Dallas a few day later so they could be PUBLICLY sent back to Washington in their modified form.  Among a great many other alterations, a Minox “spy camera” became a Minox “light meter.” Tax records, not found by Dallas police who said they initialed each scrap of paper, magically appeared without DPD initials.  FBI agent James Cadigan inadvertently spilled the beans about the secret transfer during his sworn WC testimony, which was altered by the WC.


Cadigan_Altered.jpg

The FBI falsified so much testimony that it even had a process in place for routinely doing so, including over the objections of Warren Commission attorneys.  
Dingle.gif

Mr. Payette tells us, “If you seriously don't believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the man in the alcove of Hardy's, I have nothing further to say to you.  You have gone down the rabbit hole.”  He tells us, from deep within his own rabbit hole, to trust the Warren Commission and the FBI versions of witness statements and physical evidence in this case, which have been proven again and again to be unreliable and downright fraudulent.

But, of course, Warren Commission loyalists ignore all that and insist that we are nutty Conspiracy Theorists® who don’t make sense.  Odd, and indefensible, but an old, old story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

 

Any lawyer will tell you that a witness's earliest statements are the most probative.  Two weeks after the assassination, Brewer signed an affidavit in which Oswald was nothing more than "a man."  When he testified to the WC less than five months after the assassination - after presumably having given careful thought to what he would say - he testified:

Mr. BELIN - Let me hold you a minute. You used the word Oswald. Did you know who the man was at the time you saw him?

Mr. BREWER - No.

Mr. BELIN - So at the time, you didn't know what his name was?

Mr. BREWER - No.

Later:

Mr. BREWER - He just looked funny to me. Well, in the first place, I had seen him some place before. I think he had been in my store before. And when you wait on somebody, you recognize them, and he just seemed funny. His hair was sort of messed up and looked like he had been running, and he looked scared, and he looked funny.

In this 1964 interview, Brewer said the day of the assassination was "the first time" he had seen Oswald.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=K-jUhs5MPhg  In this recreation, likewise from 1964, Oswald is simply "this man."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo-wHtJPdQM

32 years later, Brewer gives the interview to Griggs.  Now he clearly remembers Oswald, down to his shoe size, what shoes he bought, and that he was a "pain in the butt."  Read those two paragraphs of the Griggs interview.  What Brewer says doesn't even make sense.  You can't even tell when he had this flash of recollection about Oswald.  It sounds like it was in the Texas Theater.

Ten years earlier, in 1986, when he testified at the mock trial, he had said nothing like he later said to Griggs.  In the 2005 oral history statement I posted, he says nothing like he supposedly said to Griggs ("I recognized him … in a way [shrugs] … you know, like I seen this guy").

Brewer was a shoe salesman, for God's sake, caught up in the news story of the century.  I have no doubt that his head was spinning and probably still is.

Witnesses' recollections simply DO NOT become vastly more detailed 32 years after the event.  Yet this happens AGAIN AND AGAIN with the assassination witnesses, after they have attended conspiracy seminars, had conspiracy-oriented authors whispering in their ears and/or "educated" themselves with books, videos and internet sites.

So what does a good conspiracy theorist believe?  Why, the 1996 Griggs interview, of course.  That and only that.

What does a good conspiracy theorist hang his hat on?  Why, discrepancies in the timeline of events, of course - probably the least reliable basis of all.  Every discrepancy that will serve a cockamamie conspiracy theory becomes the gospel truth, the official timeline.

If you seriously don't believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the man in the alcove of Hardy's, I have nothing further to say to you.  You have gone down the rabbit hole.

By the way,

NO ONE HAS EVEN ATTEMPTED TO EXPLAIN HOW ANY OF THIS MAKES ANY SENSE,

even after I have conceded all that I have conceded for the sake of argument.  You folks don't even CARE if it makes any sense.  You might as well develop your theories by consulting a Ouija board.

Lance,

Re-read everything I posted earlier - I explained simply and clearly.

You and I agree that in none of Brewer's early statements did he claim to have recognized "Oswald" - the Hardy's Shoe customer from some weeks before the assassination , whose shoes were catalogued in the Dallas Police inventory of 11/22/63 - as the man who stepped into his shoe store around 1:30 on 11/22/63. 

You and I agree that he claimed to recognize "Oswald" only at the Texas Theater, but not a few minutes earlier in the lobby/vestibule of his store.

Butch Burroughs sold popcorn to "Oswald" a few minutes before 1:15 up in the Texas Theater, and therefore, "Oswald" could not have been the man in the lobby/vestibule of Hardy's Shoes at 1:30. 

Other than Johnny Brewer's belated claim - which we both agree is fishy as hell! -  that the man he saw in the lobby/vestibule of Hardy's Shoes was "Oswald", there is not the slightest piece of evidence that "Oswald" was in the lobby/vestibule area of Hardy's Shoes around 1:30 on 11/22/63.

It is you, Lance, who have no credible evidence that "Oswald" was in the alcove/lobby/vestibule area of Hardy's Shoes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...