The Carcano: What Oswald Apologists don't want to hear

[Walt Cakebread]

Do you need to attempt to assassinate the president to go to Cuba?  Oswald didn't shoot anyone to go to the USSR.  He just made a nuisance of himself.  And you believe that Oswald thought he had a reasonable chance to reach Cuba after this "hoax" that links him to the attempted assassination of the president?  That's pretty far fetched.  Oswald was not a dumb guy.  He would have realized his chances of escape were about zero.  Even hijacking a plane was a much more feasible way to reach Cuba in those days than what you are suggesting here.

Do you need to attempt to assassinate the president to go to Cuba?

Perhaps you.ve forgotten that Fidel Castro warned JFK that if the CIA attempted to assassinate him the JFK should watch his back....  Lee assumed that he could win acceptance into Cuba  if it appeared as though he had tried to carry out Castro's threat...

[Richard Smith]

Do you need to attempt to assassinate the president to go to Cuba?

Perhaps you.ve forgotten that Fidel Castro warned JFK that if the CIA attempted to assassinate him the JFK should watch his back....  Lee assumed that he could win acceptance into Cuba  if it appeared as though he had tried to carry out Castro's threat...

Maybe, Oswald was a nut after all, but he was smart enough to know that his chances of reaching Cuba after attempting to assassinate JFK would effectively be zero.  He didn't even own a car.  Has limited funds.  It would be a very silly plan to get into Cuba via attempting to assassinate the President when that entailed almost certain arrest or death before he could get out the Dallas.  The only element that rings true here is that it does seem clear that in the months leading up to the assassination, Oswald's main objective was to create a resume for himself that might impress the Cubans into allowing him to gain entry to Cuba.  Thus, the Fair Play for Cuba and arrest etc.  It wouldn't surprise me if he made reference, even in a nonspecific way, to his attempt to kill Walker when he went to the Cuban embassy to impress upon them his commitment to the cause.  But he was using the "normal" channels to reach Cuba.  Maybe he was so nutty that he did envision himself perhaps somehow reaching Cuba after assassinating JFK and being given asylum as a type of revolutionary hero but he did seem to realize that the chances of getting away were extremely slim as demonstrated by his leaving his wedding ring and money with Marina.

[Bill Chapman]

re the OP:

[John Iacoletti]

Btw putting an "LOL" after any fact that you object to is extremely juvenile and proves absolutely nothing but it does reinforce your lack of knowledge and/or expertise, so keep it up Johnny boy!

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.  They don't become "facts" just because you call them that.

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald just happened to have a Carcano rifle

Says who?

and it just happened to have a couple of notches that sorta' resembled the ones on the rifle recovered from the sniper's nest.

"Couple of"?

But, no, they were different. "It doesn't look the same". The experts were wrong. Because "LOL."

What the "expert" actually said was "tilt the scales in the direction".  Because moon craters.

Sure, maybe they were wrong. But just dismissing it with the juvenile "LOL" isn't showing it.

The burden is on the claimant to prove his case.

Poor Oswald. He just decided to leave his money to Marina that day, he just decided to leave his wedding ring, he just decided to bring curtain rods to work, he just decided to leave the building shortly after the assassination, he just decided to go see a move and not watch the TV, he just decided, he just decided, he just decided, he just decided.....

If that's not evidence of murder then I don't know what is!   

[John Iacoletti]

Yeah, the overuse of "LOL" when something isn't even remotely funny has greatly diminished the impact that the acronym originally had and now being used as a cheap gag when they have no other answer is simply a product of a juvenile mind that's run out of ideas.

What's cheap and juvenile is the overuse of terms like "Oswald's rifle" as if it were a fact.

also thinking that asking a bunch of "why did Oswald do X?" questions as if that constitutes evidence of anything.

"hiding in the darkened Texas Theatre".  LOL.

[Walt Cakebread]

What's cheap and juvenile is the overuse of terms like "Oswald's rifle" as if it were a fact.

also thinking that asking a bunch of "why did Oswald do X?" questions as if that constitutes evidence of anything.

"hiding in the darkened Texas Theatre".  LOL.

asking a bunch of "why did Oswald do X?" questions as if that constitutes evidence of anything.

Often the,... Why did Oswald do X ?...isn't even something he actually did.   Example....Why did Lee Oswald disassemble the carcano and conceal it in a paper bag?   

There is no evidence that Lee disassembled the carcano.....  If he had done that ...His finger prints would have been all over the parts and pieces of the rifle when the FBI examined the rifle.  They found No prints that could be identified with anybody on the rifle.

The evidence indicates that Lee could not have carried a disassembled carcano in the paper sack that Buell Frazier said he saw on the seat of his 1953 Chevy.