Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

One really does have to be a blithering idiot to believe that Oswald was a shooter in a conspiracy to kill JFK. 

First: Whether you think it was the Mafia or the CIA, there is no evidence that Oswald was PAID. Now, I realize that people often do things for other people for absolutely nothing, but that's like crippled children and such. But, why would Oswald do the bidding of the Mafia or the CIA for no pay? It's ridiculous. 

Look: you can either claim that Oswald shot Kennedy for his own reasons or at the behest of others. And if it was the latter, then he had to be paid. So, show me the freakin' money.    

Second: Why would they hire Oswald? And don't tell me it was because he was willing to work for free. Oswald was not an assassin. He wasn't even a marksman. Not really. He was just a guy who did the minimal amount of shooting that was required by the Marines. And if they didn't require it, he may not have even done that. Oswald got out of the Marines in 1959, and the only shooting he admitted to doing after that was to go hunting with his buddies in Russia.  And that was with a shotgun- which was the only kind of weapon they allowed over there. He practically failed his last marksman exam in the Marines. One point less, and he would have failed. Why would anyone think that Oswald was the right man for this job? They actually wanted it done, didn't they?  

Third: The kind of shooting that was involved from the 6th floor, Oswald had NEVER done in his life. He had never shot at a moving object before. He had never shot under rapid-fire conditions before. He had never shot under conditions in which the target moved between shots and had to be refound through a telescopic sight after recocking the bolt. And he never shot under the cramped, angled, mechanically difficult, and visually challenged conditions of shooting at Kennedy from the 6th floor of the Book Depository. All of that was foreign to him. Plus, he wasn't the least bit experienced at killing another human being. Remember that he wasn't actually in combat in the Marines. He only shot at paper targets, and there is a bridge to gap there. Why would he think that he was up for doing this? 

Fourth: Why would anyone else think that he was up for doing it? Why would anyone hire him or assign him to do something for which he had no experience, no training, and not even any inclination? When you hire someone to perform brain surgery, don't you usually try to get someone who has done it before? And more than once? Well, this was like brain surgery in reverse; instead of repairing the brain, the idea was to blow it up. Still, you want someone who is experienced and with a proven capacity for it.  

Fifth: What about the risk to others? In having the inexperienced, unproven, and unqualified Oswald shoot in the direction of that limo, wasn't there a chance that he would hit Jackie by mistake instead? Do you think the Mafia or the CIA were indifferent to that? Well, I can tell you one guy who wasn't indifferent to it, and that's Lyndon Johnson. You know the swearing-in photo? What legitimizes it? That is to say: WHO legitimizes it? Answer: Jackie does. And that is why LBJ REFUSED to begin the ceremony until Jackie got there. He waited until she got there. He would not begin without her. He needed HER standing by his side, the embodiment of JFK himself looking down from above and giving his blessing to the transfer of power. I guarantee you that it mattered a lot to LBJ that Jackie not be hit.

Sixth: Whether you think it was the Mafia or the CIA who put Oswald up to it, don't you think they could have gotten him a better weapon than that beat-up Mannlicher-Carcano, which was known as "the humanitarian weapon" because of how difficult it was to hit anything with it? And, Oswald's rifle the FBI had to correct with shims before giving it to their sharpshooters, and even then, none of them could duplicate Oswald's supposed shooting feat.     

Seventh: What about the aftermath? Even if they hoped that Oswald would be killed, didn't they consider the possibility that he would be captured? On what basis did they have any confidence that he wouldn't talk, that he wouldn't break under pressure, giving them away? How does it usually go in cases like that? Don't the police usually find out who was behind a murder-for-hire? 

Note that there are two ways that the Oswald-as-shooter-in-a-conspiracy lunacy is fashioned: with him as the ONLY shooter, and with him as one of SEVERAL shooters. Those who endorse the latter are quick to grant the lunacy of the former. But, all the objections of the former apply to the latter- assuming that Oswald's rifle was loaded. 

Look: this is insane. The official story is bad, but this is worse. Oswald as shooter in a conspiracy is the dumbest, most stupid and most harebrained idea that any nincompoop ever came up with. That it was the official conclusion of the HSCA is understandable. But for anyone else to think it? Are you out of your freaking mind?