We do know some of what he was doing but details are thin on the ground which is in itself an indication that he wasn't up to much at all. Despite 55 years of inquiries by hundreds of people there is no proof of Oswald being a key player in any organised group. He even had to make up his own group with a membership of one. I guess when it came time to pay his membership dues he'd take a dollar from the right pocket of his trousers and slip it into the left pocket. He was a legend in his own lunchtime but a nobody to most people.
We do know some of what he was doing but details are thin on the ground So now it's only some of the time?
which is in itself an indication that he wasn't up to much at all. Really? How do you figure, when you don't know what he was doing all of the time? Do you often jump to conclusions for which there is no factual evidence?
Despite 55 years of inquiries by hundreds of people there is no proof of Oswald being a key player in any organised group.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence
He even had to make up his own group with a membership of one.So we are told? but, even if true, what does that actually prove?
I guess when it came time to pay his membership dues he'd take a dollar from the right pocket of his trousers and slip it into the left pocket. He was a legend in his own lunchtime but a nobody to most people.
Something else you've just been told and want to believe, right?