Motive

[Richard Smith]

Assassinating the president is not the act of a rational person.  Therefore, there cannot be a neat, tidy explanation of Oswald's motives that everyone can agree on.  Even Oswald likely could not explain it in a way that makes any real sense.  The best anyone can do is look at his life and make certain inferences.  Oswald was a lifelong malcontent.  Unhappy with his lot in life and blaming society for his grievances.  Americans were just too stupid to recognize his merits.  His political affiliations provided an opportunity to feel like a big shot.  In his mind, he was attempting to cultivate an image of himself as some type of revolutionary fighter.   I think his political motivations were important but shallow though.  He used a fringe political cause to make himself feel important.  He could be a person of note only within a fringe element like marxism.  Shooting the president was, however, as much a personal as political act.  Oswald's beef was with society in general.  And what better way to express his anger than blowing the head off the most charismatic and powerful member of that society in broad daylight?  And in that respect, he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.  Thanks in large part to Zapruder's film Oswald let the genie out of bottle in the mass media age for every nut who wants his moment of fame.  Rather than politics, Oswald's lasting legacy is as the destructive instrument of chaos.   The angry nut who wants to go out in a blaze of glory doing as much harm as possible.

[Bill Chapman]

Oh the irony.....

'Fight fire with fire' goes the saying
 

[Bill Chapman]

Bill, I've apologised to Colin, he wasn't being sarcastic, I was mistaken. It was me that was completely at fault. BTW, my remark "does every post have to get nasty these days" was directed at both camps. It's certainly not every member but generally speaking, nastiness/rudeness is becoming the norm on the forum. So much so that I rarely post anymore and I wonder how many other long-standing members aren't posting either.

"Were the fares $1.23? He would have taken at least $15.10. He needed the dime to reassemble the rifle no doubt." - Colin Crow

That's sarcasm, Denis.
Unless you think Colin a WC supporter.

And 3 dimes were found in Oswald's pocket.
Just sayin'

[John Mytton]

"Were the fares $1.23? He would have taken at least $15.10. He needed the dime to reassemble the rifle no doubt." - Colin Crow

That's sarcasm, Denis.
Unless you think Colin a WC supporter.

And 3 dimes were found in Oswald's pocket.
Just sayin'

That's sarcasm, Denis.
Unless you think Colin a WC supporter.

Of course, Colin's comment was dripping with sarcasm, if you don't reply to one of Colin's questions with his answer then you just get another question and on and on it goes, question after question till he funnels you down into his unique version of events which usually boils down to cherry picking the evidence. For instance, it doesn't matter how many cops saw and testified under oath that there was a long bag in the sniper's nest, because there isn't a photo it seems that the long bag was never there, Colin logic!

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Bill, I've apologised to Colin, he wasn't being sarcastic, I was mistaken. It was me that was completely at fault. BTW, my remark "does every post have to get nasty these days" was directed at both camps. It's certainly not every member but generally speaking, nastiness/rudeness is becoming the norm on the forum. So much so that I rarely post anymore and I wonder how many other long-standing members aren't posting either.

Since day 1 of my membership here(10 years ago in August) I have been continually insulted, had bucketloads of sarcasm thrown at me, had my name twisted every which way, my heritage bashed and to be honest I never remember a time where we all held hands and sang kumbaya? And this is to be expected, the subject matter is "Murder and Cover-up" and enthusiasts are all passionate but fortunately I reckon Duncan runs a pretty tight ship and doesn't let things get too out of hand.

JohnM

[Bill Chapman]

Assassinating the president is not the act of a rational person.  Therefore, there cannot be a neat, tidy explanation of Oswald's motives that everyone can agree on.  Even Oswald likely could not explain it in a way that makes any real sense.  The best anyone can do is look at his life and make certain inferences.  Oswald was a lifelong malcontent.  Unhappy with his lot in life and blaming society for his grievances.  Americans were just too stupid to recognize his merits.  His political affiliations provided an opportunity to feel like a big shot.  In his mind, he was attempting to cultivate an image of himself as some type of revolutionary fighter.   I think his political motivations were important but shallow though.  He used a fringe political cause to make himself feel important.  He could be a person of note only within a fringe element like marxism.  Shooting the president was, however, as much a personal as political act.  Oswald's beef was with society in general.  And what better way to express his anger than blowing the head off the most charismatic and powerful member of that society in broad daylight?  And in that respect, he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.  Thanks in large part to Zapruder's film Oswald let the genie out of bottle in the mass media age for every nut who wants his moment of fame.  Rather than politics, Oswald's lasting legacy is as the destructive instrument of chaos.   The angry nut who wants to go out in a blaze of glory doing as much harm as possible.

"his political motivations were important but shallow though"

It was either Michael Paine or George deM who remarked that during political 'discussions', Oswald seemed to be just talking by 'rote', and would get angry (and leave the room) when disagreed with.

[John Iacoletti]

Hi Denis, wouldn't that be $13.87 + bus + taxi + possible morning tea truck + coke.

Tea truck.  LOL, you're so Australian.

[John Iacoletti]

What we see here in this thread is people assuming that the Warren Commission conclusions about what happened are true and then interpreting Oswald's history and behavior in hindsight in order to fit that narrative.