CTs Views on Oswald

[Jon Banks]

Interested to see what CTs think of Oswald: assassin, patsy, good guy, a**hole. Should be fun.

Oswald to me seems like someone who thought he was smarter than most people yet capable of being manipulated or guided by other people.

I think Oswald may have been an Intelligence asset for one or more organizations at different times in his life.

It's plausible that his training in Russian and trip to the USSR after leaving the Marines was guided by the CIA or State Department.

It's plausible that Oswald was first contacted by Cuban Intelligence while living in the USSR and had been in contact with them again between the time he lived in New Orleans and 11/22/63.

It's plausible that Oswald was an informant or asset for the New Orleans FBI office while living in New Orleans in 1963.

I believe he did try to take a shot at General Walker due to Walker's virulent opposition to the Civil Rights movement.

I believe it's plausible that Oswald alone shot JFK. It also seems plausible that he was guilty as part of a conspiracy.

Whether Oswald acted alone or was part of a conspiracy, I don't have any idea what his motive for shooting JFK might've been.

I don't find it plausible that Oswald was framed.

[Dillon Rankine]

Oswald to me seems like someone who thought he was smarter than most people yet capable of being manipulated or guided by other people.

I think Oswald may have been an Intelligence asset for one or more organizations at different times in his life.

It's plausible that his training in Russian and trip to the USSR after leaving the Marines was guided by the CIA or State Department.

It's plausible that Oswald was first contacted by Cuban Intelligence while living in the USSR and had been in contact with them again between the time he lived in New Orleans and 11/22/63.

It's plausible that Oswald was an informant or asset for the New Orleans FBI office while living in New Orleans in 1963.

I believe he did try to take a shot at General Walker due to Walker's virulent opposition to the Civil Rights movement.

I believe it's plausible that Oswald alone shot JFK. It also seems plausible that he was guilty as part of a conspiracy.

Whether Oswald acted alone or was part of a conspiracy, I don't have any idea what his motive for shooting JFK might've been.

I don't find it plausible that Oswald was framed.

I agree with good chunk of that. He commonly regarded as having an inflated and arrogant view of himself and showed grandiosity at times (historic diary; arguing with the cops about the BYPs; ?what, no reporters??). I think the word ?sociopath? adequately describes him: lying/conning, use of aliases, egocentrism, impulsivity, irascibility/hostility, and callousness. He also showed irresponsibility and recklessness (Mexico City, Cuban/hijack plot, shooting at Walker) and paranoid ideation (believing governmental agents were after him in Mexico City).

I used to see a high probability of a minor conspiracy (no greater than an extra shooter), but these days I tend to think he did it alone. Everything significant can be explained by three bullets from the sixth floor of the depository. Occam?s razor: simplest explanation likely correct. The details of the three shots is highly technical, though it fits. The fact that much of everything can be explained by the relatively simple act of an antisocial tends to make me think that?s what happened.

[Walt Cakebread]

Example: Oswald takes a a shot at Kennedy but misses. He then notices someone else is firing shots at Kennedy from a different location. At that point he realizes he's been unwittingly part of a larger conspiracy.

Oswald takes a a shot at Kennedy but misses.

Lee Oswald told the interrogators that he was in the first floor lunchroom when the parade passed by the building....And he had solid proof that he was in fact there on the first floor just a couple of minutes before JFK was murdered....   

Where do you think he fired from?

[Jon Banks]

I agree with good chunk of that. He commonly regarded as having an inflated and arrogant view of himself and showed grandiosity at times (historic diary; arguing with the cops about the BYPs; ?what, no reporters??). I think the word ?sociopath? adequately describes him: lying/conning, use of aliases, egocentrism, impulsivity, irascibility/hostility, and callousness. He also showed irresponsibility and recklessness (Mexico City, Cuban/hijack plot, shooting at Walker) and paranoid ideation (believing governmental agents were after him in Mexico City).

I used to see a high probability of a minor conspiracy (no greater than an extra shooter), but these days I tend to think he did it alone. Everything significant can be explained by three bullets from the sixth floor of the depository. Occam?s razor: simplest explanation likely correct. The details of the three shots is highly technical, though it fits. The fact that much of everything can be explained by the relatively simple act of an antisocial tends to make me think that?s what happened.

I remain open-minded on the Conspiracy narrative due to the problems with the evidence, the strange associations with people connected to the Intelligence Community, and the lack of a clear motive for shooting JFK.

But I also see it as plausible that he acted alone for reasons we will never know.

[Rob Caprio]

Example: Oswald takes a a shot at Kennedy but misses. He then notices someone else is firing shots at Kennedy from a different location. At that point he realizes he's been unwittingly part of a larger conspiracy.

The firing of one shot would make him "heavily involved."

[Dillon Rankine]

The firing of one shot would make him "heavily involved."

By ?heavily involved? I meant deep into the planning/a top conspirator. Not being that involved would mean, say, just being told to point and shoot, not knowing the full depth of the plot.