There are WC apologists but no Oswald apologists? That's a good one. How would an Oswald apologist act differently than coming here day-after-day, week-after-week, year-after year defending him? Literally thousands of posts, hundreds of hours defending him. What would a "real" apologist do differently?
I can understand defending someone like Alfred Dreyfus or another accomplished person who one thinks was innocent. But Oswald? This miserable wife beater? He was a traitor, he was willing to aid the Soviets. And abandon his family. He wanted to go to Cuba. And leave his pregnant wife and child behind. He turned his back on his family, his friends and his country.
And people spend their time defending this miserable person?
There are WC apologists but no Oswald apologists? Yes, indeed, but that's probably way above your head. The WC apologists will swallow anything the WC told them no matter how questionable it is and will do anything to keep Oswald in play as the lone gun man. There are no Oswald apologists because in order to be one you first need to accept that he was guilty and then defend him nevertheless. I don't know anybody who actually believes he's guilty and still defend him. Personally, I couldn't care less about Oswald. If he did it, I'm not going to apologize for him, but it needs to be proven - not just assumed - that he did it.
Oswald apologists only exist in the mind of die hard WC apologists.
As far as the remainder of you post goes, you've just exposed the emotional side of your argument. To somebody like you Oswald needs to be guilty because you actually hate somebody who you don't know and has been dead for more than half a century. It's Salem stuff.... take a step back and consider what you just said and ask yourself if that's a reasonable stance!
I can understand defending someone like Alfred Dreyfus or another accomplished person who one thinks was innocent. Dreyfus was innocent. It has nothing to do with this case.
