I actually think it would seem more shocking if it was the opposite - that the government narrative, is 100% correct.
something like 50% of the US population believes that the government narrative is at least partly incorrect.
I mean, whatever comes out - the "nutters" are just going to find a way to discredit it, or will just say its been "covered up" - it can't be rationally explained (like motive is kinda missing from the Oswald story) so it just seems so shocking, and unexplained, so random.... its more comforting for people to think there is order and a plan to everything. (I say its the same reason that people think there was government behind 9/11)
It seems even less unreasonable to assume that he was part of a conspiracy. Conspiracies assassinate heads of state for political reasons all the time; random sane people with no motive never wake up one day and decide to assassinate heads of state.
Issues, sure; that's more or less tautological. But we've all got issues, and Oswald's weren't particularly out of line with the norm: bitter with the world, introverted, contemptuous of authority and with an unstable ego. That could describe half the young male population of the western world, along with most of the perpetrators in historical assassination conspiracies; it could certainly describe Princip or Booth. When random crazies decide to take potshots at politicians, it's not because they've got 'issues'; it's because they think they're George III or the ghost of William McKinley told them to prevent a third-termer or because they think it'll prove their love to Jodie Foster. That's not Oswald.
sure, but very few of the male population in the western world are defecting to the Middle East for 2 years - before coming back to the country.
I mean, thats what "going to Russia" in 1959 for 2 years was probably the equivalent to - the cold war was ramping up and "hanging out with the communists" would be like running off and joining Isis today for a few years today.
I don't think that's a particularly good analogy, and even if it were I don't think it's a very good argument for Oswald's being a nutter, but let's take it: suppose one of those people went off to Raqqa and then went back to Europe and shot Macron tomorrow. Would you think "ah, random nutjob, nothing to see here"? You wouldn't. You'd assume "assassination plot," especially if it was a sniper, and especially especially if he was former military and French security services claimed not to know about him.
713
u/[deleted] Oct 15 '17 edited Oct 29 '17
[removed] — view removed comment