I've already explained this to you. I didn't have to personally know Oswald as you stupidly suggest to formulate reasoned conjecture as to his personality. There WERE many people who knew and left accounts of Oswald. Many people testified about him including his personality. Many competent historians and law enforcement investigators have analyzed him and written books on the topic. I've explained to you as to a small child that there can be reasoned conjecture as to Oswald's state of mind based upon the large volume exiting information. Instead of addressing that issue, you took the thread down the contrarian rabbit hole that nothing could be known about Oswald's state of mind because I didn't meet him personally. It goes beyond just that, however. You apply this same idiot logic to the determination as to whether Oswald was the assassin. Suggesting the evidence is dubious for similar reason. Thus, no fact can ever proven that lends itself to Oswald's guilt no matter how well supported in your contrarian fantasy world while every manner of baseless alternatives can be entertained if it suggests doubt.
I didn't have to personally know Oswald as you stupidly suggest to formulate reasoned conjecture as to his personality. A great example of a complete fool considering his opinion to be reasonable.
Let's go back to your initial post;
Oswald entertained a delusional fantasy that he could become someone of importance in the Soviet Union. He likely blamed American society for his invisible presence. He held out hope that things would be different in the USSR. When that didn't work out, he became embittered and disillusioned.
There is no indication this is conjecture on your part. You just state this BS as if it is fact.
there can be reasoned conjecture as to Oswald's state of mind based upon the large volume exiting information.Sure, as long as that "large volume of information" is verifiable. If it isn't, you are just making up stuff in accordance with your bias.
People can give you all their opinions about an individual's state of mind, but you will never know if it is true or not. When you, nevertheless, accept their opinions as true and use it as basis for your so-called "reasonable conjecture" all you are doing is showing us all just how low your bar is, if it exists at all.
I'll say it again; you have no idea whatsoever about what Oswald's state of mind was some 60 + years ago. Period!
You apply this same idiot logic to the determination as to whether Oswald was the assassin. Suggesting the evidence is dubious for similar reason. Nope. I only say that evidence is dubious if and when there is a good reason for saying that. It's not my fault or problem that the WC produced a massive number of claims that are simply not supported by the evidence. When there is no chain of custody, the evidence can not be authenticated. You may not like it but that's how it works in the real world.
