The Unified Oswald Theory

Mathias Baumann wrote:The longer you look at Oswald the less you seem to understand what kind of person he really was. And that is what makes it so difficult to fit him into any kind of plot. So what we need is some sort of "Unified Oswald Theory" to reconcile all the contradictory aspects of Oswald's biography and his role in the assassination.

Mathias points to the "Harvey & Lee theory" as being a "Unified Oswald Theory". 

I'd have to agree it is just that. However, in science, you are not allowed to invent contradictions where none exist (as in the school and military records), cherry pick evidence (as in ignore witnesses whose testimony works against your theory as happens with some Beauregard and Pfisterer witnesses), make unsupported claims that others have faked evidence (as they constantly do against the FBI unless the FBI report supports them), put words in the mouths of witnesses (as they do with Palmer McBride by inserting "Sputnik" between his lips, though the word never passing that way in the first place) or ignore scientific evidence that has already scuppered your theory before it even crawled out of the primordial slime.

I have my own Unified Oswald Theory which requires no such subterfuge or sleight of hand - nor does it require belief in a spy plot that is part pot boiler, part unintentional self-parody and part sci-fantasy cobbled together L Ron Hubbard style into a pseudo bible that attracts adherents with broken epistemology. 

Mathias Baumann wrote:I myself still do not understand Oswald. He's still an enigma to me.

Because you are looking for anomalies, and assume they must always point to external forces pulling strings in incomprehensible plots which cast your protagonist into a tumultuous swirl of contradictory roles. 

Mathias Baumann wrote:Was he a convicted Marxist? An agent provacateur? A CIA/FBI/ONI agent/asset/informer? Or did he work for the KGB? Did he admire Kennedy? Or did he think he should be killed because of the failure at the Bay of Pigs? Was he in Mexico City? Was he not? Did he want to be a spy for US intelligence? Or did he want to overthrow the government? Was he an expert marksman? Or couldn't he even shoot a rabbit? Was he indispensible to the plot (because of the link to Kostikov)? Or just one of many possible patsies (think Gilberto Lopez, Thomas Vallee)? etc.

For a long time I thought that the answer was quite easy - Oswald was a phony communist working as an agent provocateur for the CIA/FBI. But there's just too much evidence that he was very serious in his belief in equality and justice.

Could Oswald really have been a completely unwitting pawn manipulated by invisible hands? If so how exactly did the plotters manage to maneuver him in the right place at the right time?

The evidence answers each of those questions. But you need to be familiar with the evidence.