Oswald's Motive

[Jon Banks]

Just to add: If he simply wanted to make money out of this I would suggest promoting a "My brother was setup by the military industrial complex/CIA national security state" would have gotten him more of it than this "My brother killed the president" one. Not even close.

Link/source: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/oswald/transcript/

I don't think he was motivated by money, but do you really believe the mainstream media wouldn't have ignored Robert, as they did his mother, if he joined her in alleging that LHO was framed?

Like Marina, he was useful in helping to promote the lone-nut narrative (even if that wasn't their intentions). If he had changed his mind as Marina, DeMorenschildt, and a few others did, his change of heart would've been dismissed just as much as they were.

[Charles Collins]

If I'm him and solely wanting to make money, just sell a book, that was not the book I write. I'm promoting a conspiracy, conspiracies sells. I'm not writing a lone assassin work.

As you know, he wrote this about the single bullet: "The Commission may have convinced some people that the one bullet caused the extensive injuries to two men and then emerged in that condition. It has not convinced me, partly because of the vagueness of its report on its own efforts to demonstrate the reasonableness of its theory. I feel that these tests, like many of the others carried out with the Mannlicher-Carcano, were ill-conceived, unrealistic and finally meaningless."

He said he believes (or believed at that time) that each shot hit the men; no misses, no single bullet doing the damage to JFK and JC.

I don't know if he later changed his mind on this.

It is either Belin or Willens (or both) that explained in detail in their books what the tests were meant to show, and how the ballistics tests results were meant to be interpreted. I need to read the WC report again to see how well the test results were presented in that report. Many people who, for instance, were skeptical of the appearance of CE-399 (as a bullet that caused all the wounds) interpreted the test results differently than was intended (due mostly to confirmation bias, I believe). Could the tests have been better conceived? Of course they could have been. But that opinion is in hindsight.

[Richard Smith]

You have provided absolutely no credible evidence or reason to call into question the actual evidence in this case that confirms Oswald's guilt.

Don't have to. I'm not claiming Oswald is guilty or innocent, but since you mention it, why don't you provide that "actual evidence" and I will gladly tell you if I question it or not and why.

Says the guy who claimed that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" from the 6th floor after the assassination.  Again, explain to us how Oswald could still be the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs". 

[Martin Weidmann]

Says the guy who claimed that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" from the 6th floor after the assassination.  Again, explain to us how Oswald could still be the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs".

Why do you constantly need to lie and misrepresent what people say?

What I actually said is that all the available evidence points to Oswald not coming down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.

Another one of your pathetic habits is asking questions that have already been answered

Now how about you presenting that "actual evidence" you constantly talk about but never produce? Let's start, shall we, by you proving wrong my conclusion about Oswald not coming down the stairs? Show us the evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and coming down the stairs within 75 seconds after the last shot. Go on then.....

[Richard Smith]

Why do you constantly need to lie and misrepresent what people say?

What I actually said is that all the available evidence points to Oswald not coming down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.

Another one of your pathetic habits is asking questions that have already been answered

Now how about you presenting that "actual evidence" you constantly talk about but never produce? Let's start, shall we, by you proving wrong my conclusion about Oswald not coming down the stairs? Show us the evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and coming down the stairs within 75 seconds after the last shot. Go on then.....

So you believe Oswald COULD have come down the stairs from the 6th floor after the assassination unnoticed by anyone in time for the encounter with Baker?  Thus, rendering your endless analysis on the topic of the stairs pointless in terms of whether he was the assassin.

[Martin Weidmann]

So you believe Oswald COULD have come down the stairs from the 6th floor after the assassination unnoticed by anyone in time for the encounter with Baker?  Thus, rendering your endless analysis on the topic of the stairs pointless in terms of whether he was the assassin.

More evasion.... from the guy who claims he has all the evidence for Oswald's guilt. Pathetic!

We already had this conversation and I am not going to have it again. My position is clear, no matter how many times you try to misrepresent it. Only a fool tries the same thing again and expects a different result.

Now, are you going to show that my conclusion about Oswald not coming down the stairs is wrong or not?

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald was”too calm”, therefore he shot the president. This is how ridiculous LN “evidence” is.