The intensity of outwardly expressed sentiments does not correlate with propensity towards violent action to further those sentiments.
Loud, angry talk does not necessarily lead to action. Some people just like to talk big. Ever heard of “All hat and no cattle”?
Conversely, a lack of outward signs of strong feelings does not necessarily mean that someone is passive or non-violent.
For the record, I was old enough to vote for Kennedy. I am college educated, and taught not to let society tell me what is right or wrong. I am not a Marxist or Communist nor have I ever leaned that way.
Among college educated people in that era, many of us did, though, admire Castro, Che, and any other Communist who rebelled against the tyrants of the time, trying to give the people a better, fairer life. You think that Oswald was a terrible anti-American for looking for a way to support that effort? You are right that many people would have hated him for his efforts, but that is not the point. doing those things (handing out leaflets) is hardly on a par with the overt matter of assassination attempts. One doesn’t lead to the other, not at all.
I am not unaware that the American government had a policy at that time of trying to kill any communist leader of any country in the world that had previously been ruled by a dictator. Chile, for example. It was the heyday of both Russia and the US trying to expand and consolidate their power. We fought a horrible and ineffective and unnecessary war in Vietnam just a few years later. We confronted Russia’s quid pro quo placing of missiles in Cuba to offset our placement in Turkey and managed, finally, to remove both.
I was there, guys.
Oswald still doesn’t seem to me to be so out of the curve for post university intellectuals (or would be intellectuals) who tried to get attention for themselves in relatively harmless ways. Many people might have also been of the opinion that Cuba was being targeted unfairly by the US and might have passed out leaflets… or, they might have talked Oswald into shooting Kennedy. I just don’t think he did it because he talked himself into doing it. To me, it doesn’t fit.
Sorry others feel so strongly the other way, and I ask why you need that strong assurance? It has been 50 long years. Shouldn’t we be focusing our attention today on those who openly offer to shoot the president if someone will just give them a chance?
I’ll note in passing here that “rational” Oswald tried to kill himself when he believed he was going to be deported from the Soviet Union, and I think he beat his wife.
I am allowed to post my opinions here just like everyone else. I’m not acting as an administrator and ordering you to agree with anyone.
The police found photographs Oswald took of Walker’s home, a note that he left for his wife in case he was captured, and analysis suggests the bullet was made by the same company that made the bullets that killed Kennedy. He bought his rifle (also the one that killed Kennedy) shortly before the attempt to kill Walker and after the federal government ended an investigation of Walker.
Dogmatic? Who the hell is being dogmatic? Not me. I am getting a lot of dogmatic responses, but…
Anyway, in historical context, there were a lot of people in our country and abroad who were openly anti-Kennedy and whose ‘hat and no cattle’ talk was clear. Not every person who expressed a lack of empathy for the Boston Democrat who got elected by the mob in Chicago was without any means of doing something about it.
Bobby Kennedy didn’t believe Oswald acted in a vacuum. He had access to far more information than anyone on this board, and he remained convinced there was a conspiracy. In the absence of any other true evidence to the contrary, I’ll lean toward his view.
okay, didn’t know that. What do the police say the note said? Copy of it released?
But, no note to Marisa? when he decided to shoot Kennedy?
[QUOTE=crucible;15946010
Bobby Kennedy didn’t believe Oswald acted in a vacuum. He had access to far more information than anyone on this board, and he remained convinced there was a conspiracy. In the absence of any other true evidence to the contrary, I’ll lean toward his view.[/QUOTE]
Umm, I haven’t heard this before. Even Jackie Kennedy believed it was simply a silly little Communist.
So in what reliable document is this?
Will you at least consider the evidence, links and books mentioned in this thread before deciding?
Alright, this is my last post. Nothing can be done about any of it this much afterwards, anyway. I urge folks to focus on the situation existing today, and not worry overmuch about 50 years ago. Anti-government domestic terrorists are far more of a threat today than 50 years ago. Bigots, haters, wingnuts of all kinds exist in far greater numbers today than 50 years ago.
Translation from Russian here.
Her name is Marina. I don’t think he left a note on the 22nd.
okay, the translation of the note is remarkable. Surely not a person with any mental disruptions, in my opinion. He knew what he was doing and accepted possible consequences. A lot of people would have agree with his assessment of Gen. Walker, but no one I know would act as Oswald did.
yes, a Rosetta stone for the Commission. Agreed. Very likely Oswald acted of his own free will, and, I would guess, from his apparent lack of funds, independently.
Case not closed, but close to closed 
Kennedy was certainly acting like a complete Anti-Communist, too. Seems like enough motivation, I guess. If he was willing to shoot Walker, why not Kennedy?
Now, let us worry about the wingnuts out to kill Obama for wanting to steal their guns.
Not really. We’ve always had jackasses with agendas, and there is no evidence that their relative abundance has changed, your feelings notwithstanding. Go read some newspapers or pamphlets from 1900 or 1850 or pretty much ever. The internet has merely given dumb shits a much bigger platform to spew their hateful brain-damaged drivel. Talk is not action.
When you’ve read Vincent Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History, get back to me (us).
The amount of absolute hogwash about the JFK assassination is just staggering and based on the screeching of conspiracy theorists who selectively picked one or two elements, dismissed the rest, and built entire fragile cases on them. Every question you’ve asked and every position you’ve taken is addressed by Bugliosi, exhaustively, and I believe that any further discussion of the topic has to go through his work, not around it. Don’t wave your hands and talk about anti-Kennedy sentiment; read B’s detailed summaries and tell me where he got it wrong. Whether he is right or wrong, his unbelievably exhaustive and complete compilation of every scrap of information creates a level field for argument; no longer can the uninformed, misinformed or disinformed make vague claims without finding a way to dismiss B’s presentation of it.
As for what Bobby Kennedy may or may not have believed, he is no more immune to wishing away the terrifying notion of a lone nut than any of the rest of us - maybe more so, since he knew his chances of exactly the same thing happening were very high.
Do you have a psychologist’s office or just the armchair? 
I don’t know if Oswald had paranoid delusions, as TriPolar said, but it’s not unreasonable to describe the guy as a failure who had delusions of grandeur. He tried to kill Gen. Walker in April 1963. In October he took a job at the Texas School Book Depository. A few days before JFK came to Dallas, his parade route was changed. It happened that this route would take him by the book depository. Oswald had some training as a sharpshooter in the Marines, he owned a rifle, saw an opportunity, and went for it. His wife said the gun used in the assassination looked similar to the one he owned and she recognized the ‘package’ he took to work that day- which contained the disassembled rifle. Oh yes, and after killing JFK he shot and killed a police officer while trying to escape.
Following on Marley23’s comments, crucible, you seem to think that someone who is mentally ill can’t write a perfectly rational and sensible statement. That Oswald did write a perfectly lucid and realistic note is not any slightest indication that he wasn’t deeply disturbed on some level.
That was after sneaking out of work right after the assassination, of course - just as police were sealing off the building. He later tried to kill the police officers who tried to arrest him at the movie theater. All of this is very hard to explain if you think he’s a patsy or wasn’t involved in the shooting. Why did he of all people leave work and feel he was being pursued? Where was he going if he wasn’t trying to escape?
By your logic, John Wilkes Booth couldn’t have possibly killed Lincoln. Booth was one of the most famous actors of his day. Woman adored him. He had everything to live for. Even being a southern sympathizer didn’t give him a reasonable motive to assassinate Lincoln since the war was all but over.
To put it mildly, Booth had poor impulse control. He had been part of a conspiracy to kidnap Lincoln & exchange him for Confederate POWs. He couldn’t pull it off. When Booth learned that Lincoln would be attending Ford’s Theater, he made the snap decision to kill Lincoln & make his mark on history.
Oswald was in no way famous or adored, but God knows he wanted to be. He had a very high opinion of himself. He was very disappointed in the lack of news coverage he received upon his return from the Soviet Union. His antics in New Orleans on behalf of Cuba were meant to draw attention to himself. His attempt on General Walker’s life had a certain logic in that Walker espoused far right-wing views. But, Oswald failed at everything he tried. He even beat his pretty wife.
When Oswald learned that JFK’s motorcade would be passing the building where he worked, I believe that, like Booth, Oswald saw his chance to make his mark on history. It didn’t matter if JFK was left, right, or center. JFK was THE PRESIDENT. Oswald would have thoroughly enjoyed being the center of attention had he gone to trial. If his self satisfied smirk was an indicator, he seemed to enjoy the media attention he received in the days after the assassination.
It’s kind of apt that Oswald’s smirk drew the ire of yet another attention whore.
He left her his wedding ring & (I think) most of his cash.
I don’t believe so; he was surrounded and surrendered without a fight, saying something like “Well, I guess this is it.” But he did shoot Tippit in front of several witnesses, just a block or two from the theater.
ETA: He did have a pistol in his jacket pocket, but I don’t believe he tried to draw it.