Your willingness to think critically and challenge "the truth" is great, especially questioning whether Howard Brennan's testimony is reliable and free from manipulation.
There are certainly many dubious points about Oswald as the shooter, but if he was not the shooter, why go home, change clothes, arm himself, then shoot Officer Tippit?
His post-assassination actions are incriminating, and hard to reconcile with an innocent man.
If he was looking for grandeur, why wouldn't he blare it to the press?
The anti-Cuba speech is interesting and could help establish motive.
The most damaging elements against Oswald are that he went home, changed clothes, armed himself, and shot Tippit.
If innocent, why do those things?
One final set of dangling questions: if he didn't care about getting caught, it makes sense that he brought a rifle to work in a bag then left it on the 6th floor with his fingerprints. If he did care, however, why not at least wear gloves and try to be more discreet in transporting the rifle (e.g., at night)? Ineptitude is a reasonable explanation, but there's a difference between stupidity and being unaccomplished. There only seems to be evidence he was unaccomplished. Also was the bag ever found?
Thanks for recommending the book above. It seems helpful in separating fact from fiction.
From skimming Oswald's Wikipedia's page, a few questions emerge suggesting both guilt and innocence.
* Why did he walk home, change clothes, and arm himself?
* Why did he shoot Officer Tippit?
* If grandeur was his motive, why deny the crime instead of claiming credit for one of history's most notorious assassinations? Aiming for Connally, not JFK, seems more plausible, but he evidently idolized JFK. Why risk hurting his idol? If neither of these, what was his motive? Being plain crazy is valid, but this motive is not highly documented.
* He seemed protective of his wife, which suggests he loved his family. What was his emotional state before the shooting?
Was he excited about the birth of his second daughter or still resentful toward society? It would be great if someone analyzed his psychological state in the weeks before the assassination.
* He seemed to be doing well at the Texas School Book Depository according to Wikipedia. Was he in jeopardy of losing his job? (If yes, this supports the theory he was angry at society and lashed out.)
* Why did he ask for the ACLU attorney? This seems like a strange request for someone who murdered the nation's president.
* Why did he claim the photograph of him holding the rifle was fake? Was it even possible back then to forge something so accurately? A lot seems to hinge on this photograph. If you can prove the photograph was authentic, and that the markings match the rifle at the scene, it presents overwhelming proof Oswald was the shooter, especially since he denies buying the rifle, let alone posing with it.
There are certainly many dubious points about Oswald as the shooter, but if he was not the shooter, why go home, change clothes, arm himself, then shoot Officer Tippit?
His post-assassination actions are incriminating, and hard to reconcile with an innocent man.