Are there any "researchers" here who started out as LNs but who are now CTs?

[John Corbett]

Count me among those who don't give a shit about Oswald's feelings.

[Tommy Shanks]

Oswald had agency, made his decisions (however limited they were) on his own, they weren't forced on him. He had two brothers who also grew up in the same (roughly) environment. They turned out not only to not be bad men they turned out to be good ones.

He disgraces himself in the Marines (among other things twice court-martialed), he defects to the Soviet Union and tells his family to get lost but then asks for help when he needs them. He brutally beats Marina. He prevents her from learning English so that she's dependent on him. He tries to kill Walker and in doing so would abandon his family on their own. He then tries to defect to Cuba and again is abandoning his family including a seven months pregnant Marina (he told Marina to find her way to Cuba on her own). Instead of providing for him family he thinks he's some type of historic figure. Then of course he kills JFK. And a police officer. Both men with families and small children.

That's just a partial list. He was a bad man who made decisions on his own. He had free will.

Excellent, excellent points, Steve.

[Lance Payette]

Excellent, excellent points, Steve.

Always nice to have a cheerleader. Do you have pom-poms to go with the outfit? (You aren't Jonathan Cohen, are you? He's famous for short, content-free, LN-cheerleading observations at the Ed Forum.)

As I think about this, and not intending to portray Oswald as an Eagle Scout:

1. The passage from Priscella Johnson's book is suspect at best. She "bonded" with Marina to an extent that was "just a bit" odd. Marina's WC and HSCA testimonies were not this dramatic. She described Oswald as a "good family man" who helped around the house and was a loving father. Yes, she said that he hit her and that he sometimes went into a state where he seemed like a stranger and became angry over trifles. On the other hand, Marina admitted that she was sometimes to blame, and observers of the couple said she was very sharp-tongued and went so far as impugning his manhood in public.

2. Robert Oswald and John Pic bailed out of the home at their earliest opportunity, which is exactly what my siblings did. They did not receive the full Marguerite treatment. Their childhoods were bad enough, but not the chaos of Oswald's.

3. Did Oswald have a significant history of violence, bullying or anything of the sort in school? Not really. One notable fight, but no indication of an out-of-control anger. Did he torture animals, anything like that? No. While he was truant, he went to the zoo and rode the subway; he didn't join a gang or otherwise wreak havoc. A social worker described "a rather pleasant, appealing quality about this emotionally starved, affectionless youngster which grows as one speaks to him."

4. The Marine incidents are closer to tomfoolery than anything suggestive of a serious problem. Was he a constant problem, detested by his superiors and fellow Marines? No.

5. Did he exhibit anything like violence during his time in Russia? No, he was generally well-liked, had friends and girlfriends. Lazy at work, but not a disciplinary problem.

6. When fired from jobs, did he become irate and threaten retribution? No, he was quite passive. Ditto in his encounter with Carlos Bringuier ("Go ahead, Carlos, hit me"). Ditto when he was sandbagged on the radio with the surprise revelation that he had defected to Russia.

7. The night before the JFKA, did he become angry and abusive when Marina rebuffed him? No. She said he was upset but not angry, and he went to bed early. She accepted his excuse that he had come to Irving to try to make peace after their tiff on the phone.

It seems to me that the main aspects of Oswald's personality were (1) he knew he was intelligent and could have done more than he would ever be able to do with his lack of education and opportunity, which had to be extremely frustrating; (2) he was idealistic and thought he had world-changing ideas if only he had a forum to express them; (3) he wanted to be, and thought he should be, taken seriously and placed in an important position; and (4) he had a very big chip on his shoulder in regard to all forms of authority and derived enjoyment from thumbing his nose. By the time of the JFKA, his big hopes and big ideas had hit rock bottom.

The willingness to simply leave his young family to fend for themselves, as he was apparently willing to do with both the Walker attempt and JFKA, is extremely puzzling since Marina and everyone who knew him emphaiszed his love for his children. It's a complex picture, but I think it's overly simplistic to try to portray Oswald as some evil character and the JFKA as the natural consequence of who he was. It makes the LN narrative more compelling, but I don't think it's the reality. I find the Walker attempt and the JFKA puzzling precisely because of who he was.

[Richard Smith]

In my experience, many CTers believe that those of us who conclude that Oswald is the lone shooter somehow have a vested interest in that outcome.  As though we have a vendetta against Oswald who died before most of us were born or just want to accept the "official" story without being open to their claims.  Nothing can be further from truth.  I believe that John Wilkes Booth WAS involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln.  I came to that conclusion based upon the evidence and nothing else.  I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK all by his lonesome and was not involved in a conspiracy because the evidence links Oswald to this crime beyond any doubt and there is no credible evidence that links him to any other person or organization.  There may be some things that can never be known about Oswald's motivation and actions because only he would know and took precautions not to be detect before committing this crime.  There can be reasoned conjecture based on common sense and known facts but we can't ever have perfect knowledge to explain every actions.  None of that, however, should be conflated with creating any doubt as to his guilt in light of the existing evidence that links him to this crime.  I've read all manner of explanations and conjecture by CTers on this forum and elsewhere and have never come across an iota of real evidence that gives me pause about Oswald's guilt.  Again, not because I'm not open to the possibility of conspiracies or hate Oswald or am programmed to accept the "official" story but because there is no such evidence.

[John Corbett]

In my experience, many CTers believe that those of us who conclude that Oswald is the lone shooter somehow have a vested interest in that outcome.  As though we have a vendetta against Oswald who died before most of us were born or just want to accept the "official" story without being open to their claims.  Nothing can be further from truth.  I believe that John Wilkes Booth WAS involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln.  I came to that conclusion based upon the evidence and nothing else.  I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK all by his lonesome and was not involved in a conspiracy because the evidence links Oswald to this crime beyond any doubt and there is no credible evidence that links him to any other person or organization.  There may be some things that can never be known about Oswald's motivation and actions because only he would know and took precautions not to be detect before committing this crime.  There can be reasoned conjecture based on common sense and known facts but we can't ever have perfect knowledge to explain every actions.  None of that, however, should be conflated with creating any doubt as to his guilt in light of the existing evidence that links him to this crime.  I've read all manner of explanations and conjecture by CTers on this forum and elsewhere and have never come across an iota of real evidence that gives me pause about Oswald's guilt.  Again, not because I'm not open to the possibility of conspiracies or hate Oswald or am programmed to accept the "official" story but because there is no such evidence.

I agree with pretty much all of that except for one. I do hate Oswald. Intensely. Maybe it's because I was alive when Oswald murdered JFK. It was 6 days before my 12th birthday. Those of my generation had a connection to JFK and know what was taken from us by one very evil little man. Even those who did not agree with him politically couldn't help recognizing his charisma.

[Lance Payette]

I agree with pretty much all of that except for one. I do hate Oswald. Intensely. Maybe it's because I was alive when Oswald murdered JFK. It was 6 days before my 12th birthday. Those of my generation had a connection to JFK and know what was taken from us by one very evil little man. Even those who did not agree with him politically couldn't help recognizing his charisma.

I was 13 years, 8 months, so perhaps I have a more mature perspective. I never felt the slightest connection to JFK, positive or negative. Nor do I hate Oswald any more than I hate John Wilkes Booth or the obscure assassins of Garfield and Mckinley. What was supposedly taken from us, other than JFK himself? Is charisma a big loss? LBJ to me was about as uncharismatic as they get, but he was far more qualified to be President. Am I still supposed to be grieving something? I truly don't get what, in 2026, the "JFK angst" is all about.

[John Corbett]

I was 13 years, 8 months, so perhaps I have a more mature perspective. I never felt the slightest connection to JFK, positive or negative. Nor do I hate Oswald any more than I hate John Wilkes Booth or the obscure assassins of Garfield and Mckinley. What was supposedly taken from us, other than JFK himself? Is charisma a big loss? LBJ to me was about as uncharismatic as they get, but he was far more qualified to be President. Am I still supposed to be grieving something? I truly don't get what, in 2026, the "JFK angst" is all about.

Then why are you here?