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?
Martin, It all leads to Oswald acting alone. I don't know what part if any you think Oswald played in a conspiracy but I haven't seen credible evidence that he was in cahoots with anyone. People build their conspiracy sand castles each day but when the tide comes in it's all washed away. If anyone has rock solid evidence that Oswald is either innocent or that he was a key player in a grand conspiracy then I'm yet to see it. After 55 years I'm as close to certain that such evidence won't be forthcoming as it simply doesn't exist.
I started out many years ago as someone who loved a good conspiracy but before I was 'sold' I insisted on seeing the 'evidence' stack up. The more I read about the assassination the more (much to my initial disappointment!) I was swayed by the LN evidence. It's not as exciting as a conspiracy theorist's fantasies must be but I much prefer to live in the real world.
I don't expect anyone to be persuaded by the above. I don't care either. It's simply an honest statement on what I know to be true.