A question about Oswald

[Richard Smith]

Well that solves the problem of trying to pin down a motive.

When all else fails, fall back on the "lone-nut" defense.

Jack Ruby was a "lone-nut" too apparently.

Maybe something was in the water in Dallas that week... 

It's not necessary to prove motive.  Particularly in crimes committed by nut jobs like Oswald.  The evidence confirms beyond any doubt that LHO assassinated JFK.  It is almost impossible to contemplate how there could be more evidence.  After nearly 60 years of CTers beating the bushes, there is no credible evidence of the involvement of any other person.  Oswald did it.  We don't have to understand why to reach this conclusion because the evidence proves it.  State of mind as some contrarian loons remind us can't be known with certainty.  But we don't have to understand the motivations of murders to conclude that they are guilty when they leave ample evidence to reach that conclusion.

[Jon Banks]

It's not necessary to prove motive.  Particularly in crimes committed by nut jobs like Oswald.  The evidence confirms beyond any doubt that LHO assassinated JFK.  It is almost impossible to contemplate how there could be more evidence.  After nearly 60 years of CTers beating the bushes, there is no credible evidence of the involvement of any other person.  Oswald did it.  We don't have to understand why to reach this conclusion because the evidence proves it.  State of mind as some contrarian loons remind us can't be known with certainty.  But we don't have to understand the motivations of murders to conclude that they are guilty when they leave ample evidence to reach that conclusion.

If you don’t think motives matter then maybe you should sit this discussion out.

The thread was started with a question related to potential motives.

[Richard Smith]

If you don’t think motives matter then maybe you should sit this discussion out.

The thread was started with a question related to potential motives.

I never said it didn't matter.  Everything Oswald did is of interest.  His decision to assassinate the president made him a person of historical interest.  Exactly as he wanted.  Again, what I very clearly said was that it is not necessary to prove his motive with certainty (nor is it possible to do so with certainty) but that in no way precludes us from concluding that he was guilty of the act.  It is certainly not necessary to prove his motive to biased CTers who apply their subjective standards to the topic.   CTers want to go down another rabbit hole.  It goes like this.  We can never know Oswald's motive, so that somehow casts doubt on his guilt and makes all the evidence go away.  And he didn't act exactly like they think he should have.  This was a guy who decided to assassinate the president from a building.  He is not exactly acting like a rational person but CTers expect him to have done everything like a rational person.  It's all the old CTer trope to mix apples and oranges to get grapes. 

[John Iacoletti]

It's not necessary to prove motive.  Particularly in crimes committed by nut jobs like Oswald.  The evidence confirms beyond any doubt that LHO assassinated JFK.

LOL.

The evidence confirms beyond any doubt that "Richard" is delusional.

[John Iacoletti]

He is not exactly acting like a rational person but CTers expect him to have done everything like a rational person. 

So say the same people whose "evidence" consists mostly of the way they interpret how Oswald "acted" that day.

[Michael Walton]

So here we can go again. The usual people say one thing to fit a square peg into a round hole. Then on another thread they'll say something to fit a round peg into a square hole.

There's always a motive.

The Kennedys were despised. They thought he gave the game away during the Bay of Pigs. They also thought he was too soft during the Cuban Missile Crisis. They knew he was going to win again in 1964. Then, there was a possible Bobby run into the decade. Way too much Kennedy. They couldn't depend on the media to create a controversy about him with any maritial affairs he was having because, the Kennedys had good connections in the media.

And they thought he was soft, that he going to ruin the country in their warped minds.

Oswald didn't know what was going down on 11/22. Look at the pictures of him coming out of the theater.

[Walt Cakebread]

I've been lurking on this forum for a while, and finally decided to participate. I've read numerous threads, read a lot of comments from LNs claiming that LHO was a loner seeking fame, wanted to make a name for himself, wanted to go down in history, would have shot any president given the chance, etc. etc.

If this was the case, then why would he deny his involvement? Why not just come right out and say "Yep, I did it." Why all the denials on camera and in the supposed interrogations?

I'm not saying this proves he's innocent or anything, it just doesn't make any sense to me for this given theory. Any thoughts?

Dickie, this reply from Mr Walton is the best you're probably get in answer to your question.


I completely agree with Mr Walton.     In a nut shell ....Lee Oswald was a sucker who was used by rich and powerful men .......at the top of that list is LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover.  Lee Oswald probably did even know who had made a "patsy " of him.

[Richard Smith]

So here we can go again. The usual people say one thing to fit a square peg into a round hole. Then on another thread they'll say something to fit a round peg into a square hole.

There's always a motive.

The Kennedys were despised. They thought he gave the game away during the Bay of Pigs. They also thought he was too soft during the Cuban Missile Crisis. They knew he was going to win again in 1964. Then, there was a possible Bobby run into the decade. Way too much Kennedy. They couldn't depend on the media to create a controversy about him with any maritial affairs he was having because, the Kennedys had good connections in the media.

And they thought he was soft, that he going to ruin the country in their warped minds.

Oswald didn't know what was going down on 11/22. Look at the pictures of him coming out of the theater.

You can look at a picture and conclude that Oswald "didn't know what was going on"?  Wow.  Of course there were people who disagreed with JFK's policies.   Every president is disliked by someone.  That is not evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate them.  Don't you think that if Oswald was a Marxist that he might have some of these same reasons for disliking JFK or does this work only one way?