They taught me how to kill, and I liked it.

[Richard Smith]

"Everything you think you know about Oswald is what others have told you and you have no way to verify if it is true or not." 

M. Weidmann - Contrarian philosopher

Apply this idiot logic to any event or person from history and tell us how any fact or conclusion could ever be reached.   For example, I wasn't present at Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.  All I know about it comes from "what others have told me."  I have no time machine to verify if it really happened.  Perhaps it is all made up.  There is no actual evidence of fakery but it is "possible."  I'm confident it did, however, occur based on the first account of those present and totality of evidence.  Therefore, I can conclude it is a fact without time travel as you stupidly imply here.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

"Everything you think you know about Oswald is what others have told you and you have no way to verify if it is true or not." 

M. Weidmann - Contrarian philosopher

Apply this idiot logic to any event or person from history and tell us how any fact or conclusion could ever be reached.   For example, I wasn't present at Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.  All I know about it comes from "what others have told me."  I have no time machine to verify if it really happened.  Perhaps it is all made up.  There is no actual evidence of fakery but it is "possible."  I'm confident it did, however, occur based on the first account of those present and totality of evidence.  Therefore, I can conclude it is a fact without time travel as you stupidly imply here.

We have Oswald's own statements, his writings, his actions and the accounts of others to make this judgment.

This is, of course, how we make such judgments about people. But it's ONLY with Oswald that these people object to such an act. Conspiracists here make all sorts of judgments about these figures - about major figures like LBJ and Hoover and about lesser figures like Ruth Paine and Johnny Brewer et al. - and they never complain. Hell, they make judgments about these people too, about their motives and credibility. Brewer's a liar, Brennan wanted attention, McDonald was a dirty cop, et cetera. But again, it's just Oswald that they won't do this.

[Martin Weidmann]

"Everything you think you know about Oswald is what others have told you and you have no way to verify if it is true or not." 

M. Weidmann - Contrarian philosopher

Apply this idiot logic to any event or person from history and tell us how any fact or conclusion could ever be reached.   For example, I wasn't present at Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.  All I know about it comes from "what others have told me."  I have no time machine to verify if it really happened.  Perhaps it is all made up.  There is no actual evidence of fakery but it is "possible."  I'm confident it did, however, occur based on the first account of those present and totality of evidence.  Therefore, I can conclude it is a fact without time travel as you stupidly imply here.

Why are you trying to shift the discussion to an event rather than Oswald's state of mind?

Your entire argument is pathetic. People were present at Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and witnessed the event. When they say it happened, you have actual eyewitness accounts and thus evidence that justifies the verifiable conclusion that the event happened.

Nobody can say with any kind of certainty what went on in Oswald's mind. All they can do is guess. And none of it is verifiable, leaving you with no basis to reach any conclusion.

If you don't understand the difference between the two, then I don't know what to tell you. I gave up trying to fix stupid a long time ago.

[Martin Weidmann]

We have Oswald's own statements, his writings, his actions and the accounts of others to make this judgment.

This is, of course, how we make such judgments about people. But it's ONLY with Oswald that these people object to such an act. Conspiracists here make all sorts of judgments about these figures - about major figures like LBJ and Hoover and about lesser figures like Ruth Paine and Johnny Brewer et al. - and they never complain. Hell, they make judgments about these people too, about their motives and credibility. Brewer's a liar, Brennan wanted attention, McDonald was a dirty cop, et cetera. But again, it's just Oswald that they won't do this.

Hilarious

[Jon Banks]

We have Oswald's own statements, his writings, his actions and the accounts of others to make this judgment.

This is, of course, how we make such judgments about people. But it's ONLY with Oswald that these people object to such an act. Conspiracists here make all sorts of judgments about these figures - about major figures like LBJ and Hoover and about lesser figures like Ruth Paine and Johnny Brewer et al. - and they never complain. Hell, they make judgments about these people too, about their motives and credibility. Brewer's a liar, Brennan wanted attention, McDonald was a dirty cop, et cetera. But again, it's just Oswald that they won't do this.

Apples to Oranges if you’re comparing Lee Oswald to public figures whose lives are exposed to far more people.

The biggest problem with understanding Oswald is that there’s lots of gaps in information and a lot of contradictory behavior in his short life.

Some choose to ignore the gaps, contradictions, and lack of a clear motive by simply dismissing him as a “nut”.

Others view some of those odd behaviors and patterns as evidence that he was some sort of intelligence agent or asset.

At the end of the day, all we can do is speculate because we’re left with puzzle pieces of his life and clearly don’t have enough pieces to complete the construction of the puzzle…

[Richard Smith]

Why are you trying to shift the discussion to an event rather than Oswald's state of mind?

Your entire argument is pathetic. People were present at Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and witnessed the event. When they say it happened, you have actual eyewitness accounts and thus evidence that justifies the verifiable conclusion that the event happened.

Nobody can say with any kind of certainty what went on in Oswald's mind. All they can do is guess. And none of it is verifiable, leaving you with no basis to reach any conclusion.

If you don't understand the difference between the two, then I don't know what to tell you. I gave up trying to fix stupid a long time ago.

I've already explained this to you.  I didn't have to personally know Oswald as you stupidly suggest to formulate reasoned conjecture as to his personality.  There WERE many people who knew and left accounts of Oswald.  Many people testified about him including his personality.  Many competent historians and law enforcement investigators have analyzed him and written books on the topic.  I've explained to you as to a small child that there can be reasoned conjecture as to Oswald's state of mind based upon the large volume exiting information.  Instead of addressing that issue, you took the thread down the contrarian rabbit hole that nothing could be known about Oswald's state of mind because I didn't meet him personally.  It goes beyond just that, however.  You apply this same idiot logic to the determination as to whether Oswald was the assassin.  Suggesting the evidence is dubious for similar reason.  Thus, no fact can ever proven that lends itself to Oswald's guilt no matter how well supported in your contrarian fantasy world while every manner of baseless alternatives can be entertained if it suggests doubt.

[Martin Weidmann]

I've already explained this to you.  I didn't have to personally know Oswald as you stupidly suggest to formulate reasoned conjecture as to his personality.  There WERE many people who knew and left accounts of Oswald.  Many people testified about him including his personality.  Many competent historians and law enforcement investigators have analyzed him and written books on the topic.  I've explained to you as to a small child that there can be reasoned conjecture as to Oswald's state of mind based upon the large volume exiting information.  Instead of addressing that issue, you took the thread down the contrarian rabbit hole that nothing could be known about Oswald's state of mind because I didn't meet him personally.  It goes beyond just that, however.  You apply this same idiot logic to the determination as to whether Oswald was the assassin.  Suggesting the evidence is dubious for similar reason.  Thus, no fact can ever proven that lends itself to Oswald's guilt no matter how well supported in your contrarian fantasy world while every manner of baseless alternatives can be entertained if it suggests doubt.

I didn't have to personally know Oswald as you stupidly suggest to formulate reasoned conjecture as to his personality.

A great example of a complete fool considering his opinion to be reasonable. 

Let's go back to your initial post;

Oswald entertained a delusional fantasy that he could become someone of importance in the Soviet Union.  He likely blamed American society for his invisible presence.   He held out hope that things would be different in the USSR.  When that didn't work out, he became embittered and disillusioned.

There is no indication this is conjecture on your part. You just state this BS as if it is fact.

there can be reasoned conjecture as to Oswald's state of mind based upon the large volume exiting information.

Sure, as long as that "large volume of information" is verifiable. If it isn't, you are just making up stuff in accordance with your bias.

People can give you all their opinions about an individual's state of mind, but you will never know if it is true or not. When you, nevertheless, accept their opinions as true and use it as basis for your so-called "reasonable conjecture" all you are doing is showing us all just how low your bar is, if it exists at all.

I'll say it again; you have no idea whatsoever about what Oswald's state of mind was some 60 + years ago. Period!

You apply this same idiot logic to the determination as to whether Oswald was the assassin.  Suggesting the evidence is dubious for similar reason.

Nope. I only say that evidence is dubious if and when there is a good reason for saying that. It's not my fault or problem that the WC produced a massive number of claims that are simply not supported by the evidence. When there is no chain of custody, the evidence can not be authenticated. You may not like it but that's how it works in the real world.