a certain amount of logical inference from the facts
Before you make any kind of inference you first need to establish that the so-called "facts" are in fact facts. You just believe whatever they have told you about Oswald, regardless of it being true or not.
You are not making any kind of "logical inference". Instead you are making stuff up based on what you (often mistakenly) think you know.
Jerry posed the question as to why Oswald would target Walker, a right winger, and JFK, a leftist, for assassination. What facts do I "need to establish" to respond to this question? There is no debate that a sniper attack on a public figure is an extremely rare crime. There is no debate that both crimes occurred in Dallas. There is no debate that both crimes occurred just a few months apart. From those widely known and accepted facts, we can logically infer that the crimes were related due to their rarity and proximity in time and location. It would be extremely unlikely that two such rare crimes would occur in Dallas within such a relatively short time frame and be unrelated. So the same shooter almost certainly committed both crimes.
Are you suggesting these facts are incorrect and that the two crimes are not related? If Oswald committed both crimes (as the evidence confirms including his confession to Marina regarding his involvement in the Walker attempt), then we can infer from these facts certain conclusions as to why Oswald choose these specific targets for the reasons that I've discussed. Most importantly opportunity and political grievances. Walker lived in Dallas. He was a right winger who Oswald hated for his political views. His presence in Dallas made him accessible to Oswald who had limited means of transportation and funds. Similarly, JFK's motorcade passed Oswald's place of employment. Oswald had grievances against the US that he freely expressed. JFK was the literal and symbolic head of the country that Oswald detested. Oswald had motive and opportunity to commit both crimes. There is nothing made up about any of this. Certainly nothing you have articulated since your responses have been limited to contrarian commentary directed at me instead of addressing the facts and circumstances of the case.
