[QUOTE=ngant17]
is that Oswald was not the shooter. The public record indicates he was involved with some local New Orleans politics, such as Fair Play for Cuba, but I’m not convinced he was ever a real and dedicated Marxist, I’ve seen nothing to convince myself he ever understood or appreciated classical Marxist theory like dialectical materialism and class struggle, ect. OTOH I don’t think he really was much of a rightwing shill either and he likely was tired of all the rightwing extremism that was rampant at that time. Oswald actually admired JFK. His marriage with Marina was entering an unstable period.
--------excerpts from Ophra interview with Marina Oswald Porter, 1996-----------
Tell me this: do you believe that your husband had nothing to do with the killing – or – do you believe . . .
MOP
Absolutely nothing.
OW
You believe he had nothing? Zero?
MOP
Okay, for 20 years I agreed with the Warren Commission. …So 25 years after (the) assassination, I knew he was not guilty,
Well, at least Marina isn’t a Lone Neuter anymore!
As for myself, I believe there were multiple shooters, skilled assassins from several areas around Dealy Plaza.
When I read about all the different things that Oswald could have done, would have done, might have done, it is something like making him into a pliable, play-dough doll that the Lone Neuters use to shape, manipulate and counter all the logical and rational theories which have been introduced to challenge the WC.
Oswald’s shots were the result of one-in-a-million luck shots. Unable to duplicate but theoretically possible. Oswald made mutiple purchases of MC ammo during different times of the year and happened to mix them up all together to shoot JFK. And one of these mixed-up bullets became a “magic bullet”. Eventually you have to call all this BS for that is exactly what it is. Because it isn’t rational thinking.
I don’t have any problem assuming Oswald behaved in normal, predictable ways.
[/QUOTE]
Well, at least you are admitting to one of your presuppositions. If one starts from the premise that Oswald could not have been involved, it’s not surprising that the only evidence that registers is stuff that seems to support one’s position. Try this some time (think of it as an interlectual exercise): what evidence is there that Oswald was involved? If you’re honest with yourself, you will find there is a pile of evidence pointing towards Oswald’s guilt and nothing strong enough to exonerate him.
Regarding Oswald’s Marxism: you’re not alone in doubting that Oswald’s grasp of Marxist theory was not as good as he fancied it was. For example, William Manchester said something along the lines of “Oswald hadn’t the political sophistication of a goldfish.” But so what? Since when is the pool of assassins limited to guys who have passed the exam for Marxist First Class?
Regarding Marina: you really should ponder the fact that for more than two decades following the assassination, Oswald’s wife thought that he did do it. Usually the initial reaction of the accused’s kin is “Surely he didn’t do this. Did he?” The first thing Marina thought upon hearing of the shooting in front of the TSBD was, Oh, God, it must be Lee. By the end of the day she was convinced. Who knows a man better than his wife? Certainly, no one knew more about Lee’s capacity for violence than Marina, who sometimes had the bruises to prove it.
By the way: the term is Lone Nut, not Lone Neut. As someone said about Norman Mailer’s use of the euphemism “fug” in an early novel, “If you can’t spell the word, don’t use it.” [Explanation for the Teeming Millions: in some circles the sides of this debate are denoted by the terms CTs (Conspiracy Theorists) and LNs (Lone Nuts, i.e., folks who think the assassination was the work of a lone nut [Oswald]).
Please, please explain to us how, with a plaza full of highly skilled snipers, the only one to score any hits was the poor SOB who got stuck with a lousy war surplus Italian carbine?
Your paragraph beginning “When I read . . .” is hard to respond to because, from this side of the tracks, it appears to be as genuinely irrational as you claim the other side to be. One huge error of fact: there isn’t a lick of evidence one way or the other about Oswald purchase of ammunition.
Well, let’s see if you really believe Oswald behaved in normal, predictable ways:
Immediately after the shooting, he assumes he has the rest of the day off. No one told him that. [By the way, how’d he figure out so quickly that his building was part of the crime scene. I mean, the shooting happened outside, down the block; no reason that should effect his building, right?]
He walks a few blocks and boards a bus. Not the bus that would drop him off right across the street from his boarding house, but some other bus. Why didn’t he wait for the right bus? What was his hurry?
The bus soon becomes stuck in traffic. Right after a motorist tells the driver and all passengers within earshot, “The President’s been shot!”, Oswald leaves the bus.
He walks a few blocks, comes upon a taxi stand, and hires a cab. During his interrogation Will Fritz asks him if he’s ever ridden a cab before. Oswald: “No.” Why was this occasion so special?
So anyway, he takes the cab to his rooming house. Well, not exactly. He actually tells the cab driver to take him to a location a few blocks beyond the house, but then asks to be let out a block before his announced destination (and after passing the rooming house). That’s odd.
(Incidentally, he told his interrogators the took the bus home. After the cab driver came forward Oswald changed his story.)
Oswald walks back up the street to the rooming house where he changes clothes and stuffs his gun in his pants. Says the housekeeper, “My, you are in a hurry!” Oswald ignores her.
About a dozen minutes later Oswald shoots and kills a Dallas policeman.
About a half hour after that a disheveled Oswald enters a movie theater without paying the price of admission. When police approach him a few minutes later he says, “Well, it’s all over now,” slugs the nearest cop, and pulls out his weapon. He is quickly subdued.
So tell us, what does your sense of normal behavior tell you about Oswald’s behavior that afternoon?
It tells me that the guy was on the lam.
Isn’t that required in Texas? 
