That, and there are just so many anomalies which are so hard to swallow. Oswald moves to the USSR. Leaked records indicate they were suspicious of him. Nevertheless, he's allowed, in a country where almost nobody could own a gun (worse than NYC and Illinois today), he's issued a rifle and a shooting club membership. He marries, and, of all things, she just happens to be the daughter of an NKVD colonel, who would normally never be allowed to leave the country. However, she's granted an exit visa and moves with him. And it goes on and on.
Is there any wonder at all that there are conspiracy theories. Had I drawn up a movie screenplay with that many factors, I would be ridiculed for being so obvious with so many clues...
No, but you just presented what a RATIONAL person could use to derive the notion of "possible conspiracy." That's one thing. I don't agree with that conclusion but that's at least rational. But by nature your very point here requires Oswald be involved, not the Oliver Stone-Jesse Ventura nonsense. I went to Dealey in 2003 with my Mom, and there was a class of students from SMU there (there's apparently a course in JFK Studies or something there). They interviewed both of us for the class. I said basically what I'm saying here - "I believe the evidence points to Oswald as the lone assassin but that there are enough 'strange variables' involved that a rational person could pursue a conspiracy theory provided he involves Oswald").
All that stuff about Oswald getting into and out of Russia only even applies if Oswald was involved in the killing. It's pointless otherwise. To frame Oswald for it as the Garrison conspiracy suggests requires a bunch of people getting involved - and obviously the more people are involved in it, the less likely it is to succeed (or even if it does succeed - to remain a secret). And then you get into motive - the government killing the President. Well, wouldn't it have been a whole lot easier for the government to have rigged the 1960 election Nixon's way? He only lost by two states and in the popular vote by a little over 100,000 votes. You (generic "you" obviously) telling me these folks needed Oswald but couldn't print up enough phony ballots in a few states to get the "right-winger' (which is an anachronism since Nixon was actually a pragmatic centrist) elected?
But yeah, I can buy some of the WHY regarding the speculation, I just don't think the extant evidence supports it. I have a zinger I've used more than once in theological debates regarding the mythical missing manuscripts of the Bible that would supposedly vindicate the KJV as the best English translation. Every time I run into these "Emmy award winners," they appeal to evidence that not only does not exist - there is no evidence it EVER existed. I usually fire off the line, "So what you're saying is that if evidence that does not exist actually did exist, you would be proven right." That very notion usually speaks for itself.
Let's take an imprecise parallel but it's something everyone knows about: OJ Simpson killing his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. He did it, folks. When I run into his apologists online, they make Flat Earthers seem absolutely rational. I so cornered one idiot that his only comeback was, "Well, you weren't there, you don't KNOW that he did it." I pointed out that by that definition, nobody who was not there could ever know anything about anything - and that if we applied his logic consistently, we could never convict anyone for murder without an eyewitness to the murder. But those folks go on and on about conspiracies and invariably invoke the EDTA defense (which is stupid to do with me since uh I work in the lab DAILY with EDTA tubes). You then find out they know nothing about EDTA at all (it is NOT ONLY in blood tubes, it's in paint, cooking oils.......oh, and should I point out as it was in the blood on the sock it is also found in....yikes! WASH DETERGENT!!!).
My point being - no matter what you point out to the irrational ones, they have a comeback. It never makes any sense - and you wonder how these folks raise kids or deal with life on a daily basis - but they're vociferous in their views.
Rational people can at least connect some dots and speculate an Oswald conspiracy; no rational person - from my POV - can possibly think OJ didn't do it or that Oswald didn't at least pull the trigger.
