Oswald’s descent

[Steve M. Galbraith]

He was angry and disturbed, and trained to use weapons,
As he said when he defected, he wanted to make the American people think.
He thought his destiny was to do something remarkable.

When he discovered that the Presidents motorcade was going to go right past his place of work, I think he thought this is it, and decided to throw a big rock in the pond.
It would have been interesting to hear his explanation for why he did it.
Maybe even he couldn’t exactly say why.

He was intelligent and self-radicalised.
He was sufficiently violent or aggressive enough to pull the trigger three times, to reload and re-aim.
He had time to fire three shots.
However I don’t think he had much of an exit plan.

It was a truly appalling act of violence.
He was expecting to get caught, otherwise he wouldn’t have left Marina all of his money and his wedding ring.

I believe he took he took the elevator down to the 2nd floor and had sufficient time to walk out of the building.
Perhaps he attracted the attention of Baker and Tippet by doing a sudden about turn when he saw them approach. Ultimately it was his own behaviour that attracted the attention of the Police.

Does everything fit? Maybe, maybe not.
I do wonder about the stories of people claiming to be secret service.
I wonder about Ruby’s role.
You wonder about all these single witnesses who each have an unrelated piece of the supposed jigsaw.
But I don’t think he was a patsy. That was his greatest line.

It was his gun. Only a limited number of people had access to the 6th floor.
And he wasn’t a team player.
I just cannot see him being chosen for any role within a planned conspiracy.

I’m not persuaded by the Jim Garrison / Mark Lane theories that he was living a lie and was really part of a right-wing plot / CIA plot.

I think he did go to Mexico, Not least because one of the witnesses on the bus was a Mr McFarland of Liverpool.
There is rather famous footballer from Liverpool called Roy McFarland 🐏 and I suspect it was one of his relatives. Next time I see him, I’ll ask him.

Rather than Plausible Deniability, the conspiracy theory has Plausible Believe-ability.
That’s why it is a compelling puzzle.
That’s why I’m interested in what others think.
But you guys aren’t exactly saying much.
Perhaps you’ve all been over this many times.

Right, but they don't think he shot JFK. So you have to cite other evidence to support the view that he was violent, or had a capacity to violence.

But when we cite this other evidence they say it's faked, it's Warren Commission propaganda, it's a fiction. Marina lied. He didn't shoot Tippit. Or try to kill Walker. And the backyard photos are faked. Whatever evidence we produce is turned upside down and is considered evidence of his innocence. Since it's faked. They even think the accounts by the Cubans and Soviets in Mexico City who said he was acting erratic and strange and bizarre are fake. They made it all up. Or it was an impostor. We're at a dead end.

As you said, the evidence is overwhelming (at least to us) that somebody took a rifle, went inside that building, went to 6th floor, shot JFK and then left. A real person did that. Who could it have been? A complete stranger? There's no evidence for it. It had to be someone who had access to that 6th floor, who could walk around unnoticed. Of that group it includes Oswald. So why couldn't it be him? Why are they so determined to clear him? And only him? They believe in all sorts of conspiracies, all sorts of people doing things. But Oswald? They just don't want to believe it.

So we look at the potential suspects who worked in the building, separate them, weigh the evidence against each one and what do we have? To us: Oswald. The lines of evidence all point to him and no one else. His radical beliefs, his capacity for violence, his behavior post assassination, his rifle, et cetera.

If you want to believe in a conspiracy it has to start with him. It may not end with him - maybe he was manipulated, encouraged, incited, misled - but he's the starting point.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Oswald was basically the same person from a very young age.   He tried various things like joining the Marines and then defecting to the USSR but always a malcontent with a chip on his shoulder.  He was only 24 when he assassinated JFK.  It's not like he lived a long life as an adult before flipping out.  He was the type who blamed others for his failures.  A guy ultimately who decided he was willing to die or spend the rest of his life in jail to be remembered.  That was part of the calculation to assassinate JFK.  He knew that and accepted it.  Why a few people go down that path and most others do not can never be known with any precision, but it happens all too often.

Again, the question is his capacity for violence and his emotional decline over the months preceding the assassination. What is your explanation for Marina's account of how he changed, how he became increasingly violent, erratic, removed, detached? The beatings, the pretense as some revolutionary, the agitation for Castro, the behavior in Mexico City. 

None of this behavior can be seen in Minsk. If you think the Oswald there was the same person as the one in Dallas then, well, we'll have to part.

[Richard Smith]

He was angry and disturbed, and trained to use weapons,
As he said when he defected, he wanted to make the American people think.
He thought his destiny was to do something remarkable.

When he discovered that the Presidents motorcade was going to go right past his place of work, I think he thought this is it, and decided to throw a big rock in the pond.
It would have been interesting to hear his explanation for why he did it.
Maybe even he couldn’t exactly say why.

He was intelligent and self-radicalised.
He was sufficiently violent or aggressive enough to pull the trigger three times, to reload and re-aim.
He had time to fire three shots.
However I don’t think he had much of an exit plan.

It was a truly appalling act of violence.
He was expecting to get caught, otherwise he wouldn’t have left Marina all of his money and his wedding ring.

I believe he took he took the elevator down to the 2nd floor and had sufficient time to walk out of the building.
Perhaps he attracted the attention of Baker and Tippet by doing a sudden about turn when he saw them approach. Ultimately it was his own behaviour that attracted the attention of the Police.

Does everything fit? Maybe, maybe not.
I do wonder about the stories of people claiming to be secret service.
I wonder about Ruby’s role.
You wonder about all these single witnesses who each have an unrelated piece of the supposed jigsaw.
But I don’t think he was a patsy. That was his greatest line.

It was his gun. Only a limited number of people had access to the 6th floor.
And he wasn’t a team player.
I just cannot see him being chosen for any role within a planned conspiracy.

I’m not persuaded by the Jim Garrison / Mark Lane theories that he was living a lie and was really part of a right-wing plot / CIA plot.

I think he did go to Mexico, Not least because one of the witnesses on the bus was a Mr McFarland of Liverpool.
There is rather famous footballer from Liverpool called Roy McFarland 🐏 and I suspect it was one of his relatives. Next time I see him, I’ll ask him.

Rather than Plausible Deniability, the conspiracy theory has Plausible Believe-ability.
That’s why it is a compelling puzzle.
That’s why I’m interested in what others think.
But you guys aren’t exactly saying much.
Perhaps you’ve all been over this many times.

I agree with almost all of this with some minor exception like his having taken the elevator to the 2nd floor.  I don't believe this is much of a puzzle if you step back to the basic evidence and avoid losing sight of the forest for all the trees.  It becomes a very simple case in which almost no one would claim any doubt of Oswald's guilt has had the victim been anyone other than the president.  I'm 100% certain Oswald was the assassin based on the totality of evidence and circumstances.  I'm 99.9% certain that he acted alone.  Leaving a small chance because it is difficult to disprove the negative with certainty.  I've never seen a single credible piece of evidence that lends itself to Oswald working with anyone.   CTers often conflate a lot of bizarre acts by Oswald such as defecting to the USSR with proof of his being involved in some nefarious plot.