Oswald once considered hijacking a plane to Cuba

[Richard Rubio]

Summary of Conclusions:
27.   With the restrictions and reservations stated in each panel member's final report,* the members conclude, generally, that the signatures and handwriting purported to be by Oswald are consistently that of one person. Because of the poor condition of the historical diary, they are unable to conclude firmly whether it was written at one or more than one sitting. On balance, it appears to have been written at one or a few sittings.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/hand.htm

Perhaps some exact references are useful

[Richard Rubio]

Mr. MCNALLY - What we have here and what we have examined and compared was writing which covered a period from 1956 until 1963. And over that period of time in all of these particular documents and just to restate what I have said before, it was our considered opinion, all three members of the panel, that all of the original documents were written by one and the same individual. The photo reproductions with the exception of the so-called Hunt letter, in our opinion again, with the caveat that they are photo reproductions and cannot be microscopically examined, that we feel that these letters were written by the same individual; in other words, Lee Harvey Oswald. The Hunt letter, because of the circumstances surrounding it, it is extremely poor reproduction, and also because of the circumstances surrounding--the suspicion surrounding the signature we were unable to make any definite decision regarding that particular letter.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/mcnally2.htm

If the Diary is an "original document" with the others, the conclusion is they were still written by the same individual... except for the Hunt record. Hardly phony as the author asserts. I could be wrong though.

[Walt Cakebread]

If the Diary is an "original document" with the others, the conclusion is they were still written by the same individual... except for the Hunt record. Hardly phony as the author asserts. I could be wrong though.

The "Historic Diary" is actually a debriefing report that Lee wrote about his mission to the USSR.   He wrote that report on the ship as he traveled back to the US in June of 1962.

"as for the fee of $__blank_ ($10,000 ? ) I was supposed to receive for this _blank_ (mission? ) I refuse it.  I made pretense to accept it because otherwise I would have been considered a crack pot and not allowed to appear to express my views, after all who would refuse money??."

Lee wrote the above as part of the debriefing report....  It is written on the ships stationary ....

At the time Lee wrote the above,  he was angry at the CIA agent who had accused him of working for the Russians by accepting money from them in December of 1959.   The money was given to Lee under the guise of a Red Cross gift and Lee accepted it while unaware that it was money from the Russian government. 

Clearly Lee had accepted the mission of infiltrating the USSR and had agreed to a lump payment for the mission when he returned to the US....  But the agent had accused him of working for the Russians and that really xxxxxx him off.....   

[Jerry Freeman]

It has been pointed out [from this diary] that there are significant problems with each of the sources utilized to reconstruct Oswald?s thoughts and activities while in the Soviet Union.

Certain dated things had described events that had not happened yet. [time traveler Lee]
If Oswald was such a 'diary keeper' why didn't he just continue to keep a diary?
 
 
 

[Richard Rubio]

Lee's "Historic Diary"

Among Oswald's possessions originating in Russia was something he called his "Historic Diary," an account of the time he spent in that country. The use of the phrase "diary" is a misnomer, however, since Oswald did not write up the accounts contained in its twelve pages until long after the dates he wrote on each page.(8 ) The Warren Commission noticed a number of anachronisms in the document, since some entries referred to events which had not yet occurred. Also, the exceedingly melodramatic tone (and title) of the diary indicated that Oswald was attempting to spice up the events to hold the interest of future readers. For instance, the diary asserts that Oswald was offered citizenship in the Soviet Union, but he refused; similarly, it states that he was asked to address a meeting of workers in Minsk, and that he humbly declined that proposal as well.(9)

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leeslies.htm

Posting, is not directly on-topic to the OP.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

It's interesting to me that we have nothing in Oswald's writings about his views on JFK. Nothing at all that I know of. So why didn't the "conspirators" -  the FBI, CIA et cetera - who framed him (allegedly) also plant incriminating comments/statements by Oswald about JFK? Things like he hated JFK, he found JFK a fascist et cetera?

We have some conspiracy advocates who argue all or much of the evidence against Oswald is faked. So, why not have the Paines say he told them JFK was a monster? Or have Marina - who was allegedly coached - to say "Lee hated JFK". Remember, she said Lee liked the Kennedys and they cried together when the Kennedys lost their prematurely born son Patrick. Why not plant writings where Oswald says JFK must be killed?

Most of what we have on Oswald about JFK is that he, Oswald, admired JFK. Or liked him. Or praised his policies on civil rights. This is what DeMohrenschildt said Oswald said about JFK. We have an account by a German geologist, Volkmar Schmidt, who says Oswald told him he detested JFK; and it's this description, in my view, that is closer to his true feelings about JFK. But curiously that's about it.

The conspiracy advocate response will be "They just didn't" or "How do you know how they should have framed him"? Those are pretty weak responses because they would answer the question as to motive.

[Walt Cakebread]

It's interesting to me that we have nothing in Oswald's writing about his views on JFK. Nothing at all. So why didn't the "conspirators" -  the FBI, CIA et cetera - who framed him (allegedly) also plant incriminating comments/statements by Oswald about JFK? Things like he hated JFK, he found JFK a fascist et cetera?

We have some conspiracy advocates who argue all or much of the evidence against Oswald is faked. So, why not have the Paines say he told them JFK was a monster? Or have Marina - who was allegedly coached - to say "Lee hated JFK". Remember, she said Lee liked the Kennedys and they cried together when the Kennedys lost their prematurely born son Patrick. Why not plant writings where Oswald says JFK must be killed?

Most of what we have on Oswald about JFK is that he, Oswald, admired JFK. Or liked him. Or praised his policies on civil rights. This is what DeMohrenschildt said Oswald said about JFK. We have an account by a German geologist, Volkmar Schmidt, who says Oswald told him he detested JFK. But that's about it.

The conspiracy advocate response will be "They just didn't" or "How do you know how they should have framed him"? Those are pretty weak responses because they answer the question as to motive.

It's interesting to me that we have nothing in Oswald's writing about his views on JFK. Nothing at all. So why didn't the "conspirators" -  the FBI, CIA et cetera - who framed him (allegedly) also plant incriminating comments/statements by Oswald about JFK? Things like he hated JFK, he found JFK a fascist et cetera?

"It's interesting to me that we have nothing in Oswald's writing about his views on JFK. Nothing at all."
 

There are no known records of Lee Oswald denouncing or criticizing JFK.....  Because he held no animosity toward John Kennedy, In fact he respected JFK....  And he sure as hell didn't murder JFK.

[John Iacoletti]

Yawn.  Yet another "Conspirators didn't do something that I think conspirators would do, therefore Oswald killed JFK" argument.  Anything to avoid actually presenting evidence that Oswald killed JFK.