LN perspective v CT perspective

[Charles Collins]

Gawking at a motorcade is not “politics”.

Exactly!

That’s why he was on the sixth floor shooting at the most dangerous adversary and threat to Castro’s revolution In Cuba! ... Now, THAT’S politics, LHO style!!!

[Ted Shields]

Too many threads get derailed by bickering and mudslinging, hopefully keep this on topic as i'd be interested in others thoughts.
Whether your a LN or CT what piece of evidence or turn of events has / had you questioning your stance? As a CT it's always concerned me that LHO interested in politics wouldn't show any interest in the president driving bye or make the effort to go watch the parade? I do believe he was manning the lifts assisting in what he believed was a possible mock attempt to drum up a Castro invasion.
Lets keep it on topic eh?

I always assumed it was a conspiracy until I started reading about it really.

On that note, one of the things thaat at least points to Oswald being the shooter or at the very least part of a plot was - as you say someone interested (obsessed) with politics - just leaving fore the day after the president is assassinated outside the building he worked in. Kind of shrug of the shoulders and may as well go to the cinema kind of thing.

Nah.

[Charles Collins]

Too many threads get derailed by bickering and mudslinging, hopefully keep this on topic as i'd be interested in others thoughts.
Whether your a LN or CT what piece of evidence or turn of events has / had you questioning your stance? As a CT it's always concerned me that LHO interested in politics wouldn't show any interest in the president driving bye or make the effort to go watch the parade? I do believe he was manning the lifts assisting in what he believed was a possible mock attempt to drum up a Castro invasion.
Lets keep it on topic eh?

The most significant question in my mind at this point in time is whether or not Castro or his intelligence assets encouraged LHO and/or knew that LHO was likely to take a shot at JFK.

[Joffrey van de Wiel]

Too many threads get derailed by bickering and mudslinging, hopefully keep this on topic as i'd be interested in others thoughts.
Whether your a LN or CT what piece of evidence or turn of events has / had you questioning your stance? As a CT it's always concerned me that LHO interested in politics wouldn't show any interest in the president driving bye or make the effort to go watch the parade? I do believe he was manning the lifts assisting in what he believed was a possible mock attempt to drum up a Castro invasion.
Lets keep it on topic eh?

-David-

It is not so much a piece of evidence that makes me question the Government's conclusions as laid down in the Warren Report, but rather the methodology used to arrive at those conclusions. It is clear that the Report contains omissions, misrepresentations and blatant untruths. The FBI, the Commission's main investigative body, altered witness statements and falsified reports. The Commission chose to believe testimony given by questionable witnesses, and ignored or labeled as mistaken witnesses who gave statements at odds with the Commission's theories.

All this leads me to conclude there is something more to the assassination than the odd Oswald and his ancient rifle.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I always assumed it was a conspiracy until I started reading about it really.

On that note, one of the things thaat at least points to Oswald being the shooter or at the very least part of a plot was - as you say someone interested (obsessed) with politics - just leaving fore the day after the president is assassinated outside the building he worked in. Kind of shrug of the shoulders and may as well go to the cinema kind of thing.

Nah.

Exactly. As noted above, Oswald was a political person. He read radical political publications (even though he had almost no money; that CIA paycheck kept getting lost in the mail), he defected to the USSR, agitated for Castro, joined the FPCC, read biographies on political persons. The only interest he had was politics.

So the president is perhaps shot right outside the building he worked (never mind about him showing no interest - none - in seeing the president) and he just leaves? He's told (but wasn't) he could have the rest of the day off? Because of the shooting? . A shooting he never inquires about? Is the president dead? Did they catch the shooter? Was it a Walker supporter? What happened?

The evidence is that after the shooting he showed no interest at all in what happened to the president. None.

If one doesn't find that strange - and evidence of some role - then one is either very ignorant or very disingenuous. And some Oswald apologists (see above), are both.

[John Iacoletti]

Exactly!

That’s why he was on the sixth floor shooting at the most dangerous adversary and threat to Castro’s revolution In Cuba! ... Now, THAT’S politics, LHO style!!!

Easy to claim.  Harder to prove.

[John Iacoletti]

The evidence is that after the shooting he showed no interest at all in what happened to the president. None.

The leap here is assuming that "showing interest" involves talking to people about it.  Oswald was a loner.  It's not even clear that Oswald knew that the president had been shot at this time.

[Bill Chapman]

Exactly. As noted above, Oswald was a political person. He read radical political publications (even though he had almost no money; that CIA paycheck kept getting lost in the mail), he defected to the USSR, agitated for Castro, joined the FPCC, read biographies on political persons. The only interest he had was politics.

So the president is perhaps shot right outside the building he worked (never mind about him showing no interest - none - in seeing the president) and he just leaves? He's told (but wasn't) he could have the rest of the day off? Because of the shooting? A shooting he never inquires about? Is the president dead? Did they catch the shooter? Was it a Walker supporter? What happened?

The evidence is that after the shooting he showed no interest at all in what happened to the president. None.

If one doesn't find that strange - and evidence of some role - then one is either very ignorant or very disingenuous. And some Oswald apologists (see above), are both.

I would find it strange if the little prick had all-of-a-sudden undergone a massive personality change and actually became talkative, engaged, and friendly.

And he already knew more than anyone else anyway.