The Many Faces of Lee Harvey Oswald
The one who created the intelligence legend that was Lee Harvey Oswald might lead us to the men behind the death of President Kennedy.
There has been much controversy over the guilt or innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Now, prepare for more controversy as New York Times Best-selling author Jim Marrs and award-winning photo analyst Jack White take you on a mind bending tour of evidence indicating that more than one Oswald existed in 1963.
See for yourself the inconsistencies within government records and examples of impersonation. Laced with dramatic reenactments, this documentary presents a wide array of documents and photographs that will leave you wondering who was the man killed by Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby two days after the JFK assassination.
I should have had a period instead of a comma after what the doctor said, the other comments were mine.
There are other documentaries on this very website which add insight to the JFK assassination. It seems George Bush Sr., CIA man at the time, was on site running the op.
Further, to believe as @Martin does, is to ignore one of the doctor who examined JFK just after he was shot. After the doc became old enough not to care whether "they" killed him or not, he came forward and publicly stated that it was clear a bullet entered from the front, making the Lee Harvey Oswald propaganda, silly as a snowman taking a tour of hell.
Then again people still want to believe arabs took down the twin towers with airplanes and many other propagandas.
It wasn't that the doctor's statements were relegated to the Siberian press. If I watched the special on one of the alphabet TV networks, it would seem other's would recall this fact also; which occurred well before the 50th anniversary of JFK's demise. However, such is not needed because I believe the release of the autopsy report, or whatever was released at some point after the 50th anniv. confirmed that.
Regardless of such actual facts, there were enough other facts, such as another commenter mentioned, the death of so many witnesses, would compel one to suspect that there were other shooters. Not to mention his brain matter blown out the back of his head.
It seems the guy they pinned the more recent Las Vegas mass shooting on may not have fired a shot. Hard to defend yourself when you may have been gassed and when they bust down your door and you wake up to see all these guns in your room and a bullet coming your way. Tell tale is a concert goers video of muzzle flash coming from the adjacent room. Witnesses in the middle of it stating that the shots seemed to come from within the crowd and others stating that they seemed like they came from an above helicopter. Helicopters in the area were rented. Other nefarious activity was going on. It seems the mass shooting was cover for something else, possibly a big casino heist or mafia situation of some sort.
Whatever the case, there seems to be a few too many sick wackos in the world who think nothing of killing others.
America the democracy had been on life support ever since Lincoln destroyed Jefferson's voluntary union of the States. Kennedy was waking it from its long coma of corruption which Lincoln had inaugurated.
Just about sums it up. Well said... very few are aware of that information.
Thanks! You are welcome. You've probably read it but if not I can recommend Thomas Dilorenzo's 'The Real Lincoln'. Cheers.
'merica died with JFK
1963 was a us coup--untold hrs of study have led me and will lead anyone who does the research to this only conclusion--its been all downhill ever since--the day this nation died too.
Another curious thing is, that no heads rolled. Except witnesses .
I've watched this doc a 1/2 dozen times and still am amazed that our government ignores such thoroughly researched information.
We'll truly never know, will we
Just watched the doc and it certainly was interesting with many things brought up as I said below that I have never heard of before. It is difficult to know what to believe and what not to plus with most every new statement comes a bunch more questions that will never be answered. One thing really caught my attention and that was that family members said when he came back from Russia there were a lot of physical changes in him. Now I dont know about you people but if my brother went away for a year or two when he was an adult (therefore his appearance wouldnt change much) and a different person came back saying he was my brother, even if they looked similar I sure as h**l would be able to tell right away that it was a different person. That part just makes no sense to me at all.
I noticed the two clocks on the wall behind the guy too. They were probably just trying to make their set look like a real news room where they tend to have clocks on the wall with names of major cities below them showing what time it is in each of those cities. They just didnt bother to put the names of any cities below the clocks, they probably blew their budget on the sign the said in big letter "Special Report". The doc was clearly not filmed with a high quality camera and while the picture shook a few times at the start the quality was not that bad, lol it wasnt HD but also wasnt 8mm either.
Havent watched the doc yet but I have noticed people commenting on the poor quality of the film and the excuse being used is "it was made 20 years ago". By my math that would make it 1991, admittedly video has come a long way since then but 1991 is hardly the dark days of video. From the sounds of it this doc was filmed in 8mm, maybe they borrowed the camera from Abraham Zapruder lol. I have to watch it to see the quality (and the clothes that Curious & Critical seemed to like so much lol) but also because it sounds like a fascinating doc. While it is 20 years old and I am mostly going by the description of it written above I have never heard any of these claims they are making before.
They're also choosing to ignore the fact that this is about information and not cinematography.
Read Vincent Bugliosi's book "Four Days in November" or Gerald Posner's "Case Closed" and you will learn and believe that there was absolutely no conspiracy or any clandestine plot to kill our beloved JFK. Oswald was just a worthless piece of driftless excrement who needed to justify his worthless, piece (ditto) life. Jack Ruby was (like everybody else) appalled at what happened. There was no "magic bullet" or patsy or conspiracy!!
I've read both those books, and became even more convinced there was a conspiracy. Their evidence and theories are laughable.
You have to be a complete fool or living in denial of thousands of pieces of evidence to believe what you wrote. Both those books blatantly ignore much of the witness testimony or simply dismiss it with no reason. Wake up. Every doctor who saw Kennedy said the head wound was an exit wound and that the throats and head shots came from the front. How is that not clear to you?
Read JFK & the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, by James Douglass and Me & Lee: How I Came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald, by Judyth Vary Baker to get more information about Oswald and those who set him up as the patsy. Both checked as favorites by Jesse Ventura.
Did I comment on what they were wearing? Oh I might have, it was so long ago now, I probably *DID* comment on what they were wearing, but I was really bent out of shape by that set and those clocks, as I recall...
I like how some people are making rediculous comments about what people are wearing and production quality of a film made 20 years ago.
I think the conspirency theories that abound this case are so numerous who knows who did committhe assasination of one of the greatest presidents ever to hold office. JFK. RIP.
Time,
THANK you! I agree 100%. If you scroll up 8 or 9 posts you will see my lengthy critique of same.
As I maintain, any legitimacy this may hold is compromised by poor set/production standards, and, yes, bad suits...
Was this made in someones garage?
The two clocks on the wall have a time differential of 3 hrs and 50 minutes....where in the world is there that kind of time difference?
Also, the his suit looks like a rental....
on the time thing- they are in different cities perhaps? like L.A. and Chicago- or they were flat filmed at different times- and edited- really not much of a thing to make an issue of-it has nothing to do with the inconsistencies in the supposed evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald
Good doc,well worth the time. Thanks for sharing,
(P.S.: and yes, in the heat of the moment, I too made some typos in that last post - "your" instead of "you're," and "conecture" instead of "conjecture," et cetera. I hate that - but it happens; however the folks compiling presentations for the sale of Lee's coffin and snippets of leather REALLY should know better. I mean Jeez...)
A Clix,
Yes, you do indeed bring up some salient facts regarding my observations about this piece - I realize this was shot some time ago, yes, so I am willing (now, after much criticism of my views re: purported legitimate methods of "reporting") to let the embarrassing shoddiness go somewhat (though I recently saw a macabre auction for a snippet of leather from the limo, and of the three period photographs depicting the back seat, one image was
UPSIDE DOWN
and there were typos in the description. Again, if your peddling something of such historical significance, I think some proofing is in order (to quote you, "Jeez")...
As these documentaries focus quite a bit on the facial comparisons and effects of lighting and such, again, THIS is what struck a chord of legitimacy and interest with me. Though many would question it, I find it compelling, from an artistic point of view. If his head was stuck on someone else, WHERE are the original photos with "that" head in them that they were taken from? Logically destroyed prior to presentation, but mightn't Lee have recognized them? Given the size and shape of his face in said backyard images, I would place them as early 60's Minsk. His face was fuller then. But he is obviously peering right into the camera, these do not look like photos snapped with a secret camera hidden in a ballpoint pen. Wouldn't he remember? But he never got to say...
I digress.
As acknowledged by other viewers in the forum regarding the assassination (see Healer's comments re: conspiracies), admittedly I have little to say/shed on that, as no one but no one may ever know until "they make public/release the documents," in 2038 or whatever the last date was. To touch on that would be opening multiple cans of worms and conecture all of which has been said before that I think it would cause more upheaval among intelligent viewers and go too far off track. In short,
I just don't know.
Honest and to the point, as far as the actual murder. It happened, sadly, and is done; my focus was on the actual dynamics of the documentary itself, as asked in the "what did you think" forum following said piece, not intense speculation on Kennedy's demise.
I might, if I were you, find more critical the observation of Rob, who merely states Jean Renee Soutre did it -one sentence -sort of an out-of-left field non sequitur than my recurring theme of Oswald's physical appearance and stature ("cute and small"). If other wish to cast their opinions, to a degree that Cute and Smallness would be mine. Why not? In light of all else, does anyone even go there? I do. I sympathize to a degree with the man - while no saint, if he was set up and so on and so on, who thinks about HIS morbid death and the consequences thereof? He was a human being too, and was dealt undue violent pain in a vastly "unfair" scheme of things that never allowed him to talk. Now THAT is nasty. I don't follow his beliefs, have a shrine erected to him or light candles in his name, but he WAS a person who was dealt an unfair blow.
As far as being Cute and Small, well, this is a strictly subjective observation I reserve for "well, in the final, most BASIC and perhaps absurd analysis, if NONE of this is ever resovled, why, let's peek at Lee's sick mom, Marguerite the Impractical Nurse, and let's point a finger at her for poor Lee's background; and hey, as a last resort, Lee was just - too Cute and Small to do that (be it be a spy OR a killer).
I mean, we KNOW what Hitler did - we KNOW what Manson commanded his "family" to do - we KNOW what Chapman and Bundy and Cunanin did - but Lee is an enigma.
An enigma.
And I have found a few who have shrugged and said, in regard to those horrible events of 1963, "H*ll, I dunno, but Lee was sure hot."
In some ways this shallow, infinitesimal analysis may be the only truth to be found. Add "too young" to Cute and Small and maybe we have it all homogenized in a nutshell.
Dulles? The mayor of Dallas? Lyndon? Hoover? Cuba?
No one'll ever know.
What we can say (albeit subjective, SUBJECTIVE), is that Lee Harvey was just
a little too Cute and Small to commit such heinous obscenity.
Simply my admittedly biased viewpoint, which I am entitled to have, eccentric artist or not.
@Curious & Critical
What is your obsession with 'little and cute Oswald'? It is so pronounced that you have a hard time staying on topic, which is the assassination of JFK. You think he's too little and cute to be a spy, but make no mention that he's too little and cute to assassinate the president of the U.S. You espouse such acuity and reason, yet in the face of the evidence presented by these men, all you can come up with that Oswald was too little and cute to have been a spy.
Also, for all the time you spent criticizing the graphics and set decoration of this documentary, have you cared to check that it was made nearly 20 years ago, before many of the high tech visual equipment and software were widely available?
Jeez, what a waste of time if that's all you got out of this documentary.
Soutre, eh?
That is fine with me, anything so that little Lee is not a bad guy, I mean not completely.
He was allegedly working on a bioweapon with Ferrie and two other women (who were doing cancer research) to take out Castro so Cuba could not do in the President.
I still say
*Lee was maybe messed up, but BLAME THAT on that sick MOTHER;
and, again,
*he was too cute to do that.
Biased, yes.
The killer of Kennedy was a Frenchman named Jean Rene Soutre.
Funny they don't mention that JFK signed executive order 11110 to effectively take the power to manipulate interest rates by printing currency from the PRIVATE Federal Reserve bank...but was shot before he could utilize the order...which still stands today, although no President since him has touched it..
Healer,
Indeed, I was very critical of this peice because of the sloppiness, but you see, to me, that takes AWAY credibility. If a person happened to be reporting the "straight dope" from a shack, I would rather see the shack than an attempt to dress it up. I.e., hearing an eyewitness account about a car bombing or a natural gas explosion, for example, from the actual eyewitness, as opposed to someone much more attractive saying the same words on their behalf simply because he or she is more "camera friendly." Even if the eyewitness has third degree burns from the scene, or even if he was 100 yards away but looked like a hunchback, the words coming from THAT person would be far move believable than the same words coming from a polished model in formalwear with professional backlighting setting off his or her hair...
So if they are going to be talking truths here, then just let themselves be filmed in a shack (although any interior would be fine), just don't fake it up and dress a cheap set to resemble a news center (with, yes, clocks that do not have moving hands...)
In short my point is, credibilty is compromised when less than perfect circumstances force producers to try and make it "legit" by tarting the piece up with suits and props and "official-ness." Just tell the story, perhaps saying from the start, "look, we have no budget, so we pardon the bad lighting, but we feel it's more important to just give it to you straight."
Instead, they take this pretend "Breaking News!" approach that just makes the piece laughable, which it should most definitely NOT be, given the subject matter.
In reading my review anew after all this time, you are right, it WOULD appear I am saying "no it can't be, it must be wrong because of the frozen clock," I think it's just that as a visual person, THAT screamed out at me right away - but a lot of the information they were imparting I did not have a problem with, and as I said, was quite compelling; and by the same token, my interest in the visual is what made all the photo-comparisons and such seem most legitimate indeed.
Perhaps they were concerned it would "look too boring" if they didn't take the "Breaking News" "look," but it's the substance that matters, not the polish (which they attempted, and, sadly, did not pull off...)
Many of the arguments they made and such were very valid, I just really have trouble with that goofy approach to telling them.
And still.
Little Lee was too cute to have pulled any of that.
I adhere to this.
Curious & Critical, I find your criticism have less base than the video here. Maybe because I seen so many bad things done by the american government, that it is no longer hard for me to believe in any conspiracies, unlike you perhaps. Your criticism concentrates mostly on the estetical and irrelevancies about the document, like how the setting in commentator's studio was. So what if he was commenting it naked in an old moldy shack, that wouldn't make the words any less credible, because he's the man who delivers the words, not the one who has investigated. The investigation has been done by other people, as the video claims. People like Mr. Hoover and the old fella appearing occasionally telling about the picture research.
I'm not so good with associating people with pictures so I can't tell if the picture associations on this document are valid, but I can tell that it's not impossible for consipiracies like that to happen. Mr. Kennedy was the hope of United States of America, I'm a foreign person but it saddened me to know such a good man had been assassinated, and certain evidences concerning the assassination made classified by the higher authorities. Look for a conspiracy and you find one... damn right you will, because there's more of them than you'd believe! Just wait for a few years, maybe ten or twenty, or fifty years, or even a hundred years... if you live that long. But eventually history will come clear to people about all these conspiracies, because there's so much evidences about them. What do you need, you need to see all the conspiracies first-hand to believe? Then don't believe it, but that doesn't stop it being there, and it won't stop people noticing these things.
I can't form a constructive comment about this document because I've not familiarized myself with the assassination's unofficial details before. But I can't see you even trying to comment those details, you only say "no it can't be, it must be wrong because the clock in the background isn't moving". You got a point in saying this document is done in a bit more sloppy way than a document one would fully trust. There's no evidence, no paper article or video clip whatsoever, shown on this document about a few things like claims about Ozwald's family members claiming him to be different when he returned from Russia, and some changes in his condition and speech might be explainable by passing of time and different environment. But I wouldn't just assume these are lies either, if I wouldn't had seen any proof pointing that out.
Well.
This one was put together a LITTLE less sloppier than the prequel to this (which the "commentator" refers to in the beginning). The other one was SO poorly shot and assembled to "look" like a "Special Report," complete with this same Pretend Anchorman and the same gang of contributers badly superimposed over Dallas locales (Lee's residences, the boarding house on Beckley, etc)as if they were "on the spot." It was literally like a parody of a "Special Report" and quite laughable, though the photo-comparisons were compelling. This sequel documentary had the added interest of the split-face examinations, which, as an artist, I have done myself and could grasp a LOT easier than I can the usual trying rhetoric about Russia, KGB/FBI/CIA and the Mafia, Mexico, imposters, gypsies, tramps, OR thieves, etcetera.
This program also suffers from some technical gaffs that don't lend it any further credibility - just plain sloppy soundwork, odd jump-cuts where parts of sentences vanish, and other el-cheapo things, like the clocks that never change time behind our commentator (who actually used the phrase "turned up missing")and the fact that NO one, save for the commentator, seems able to pronounce Lee's name correctly - "OZ-wooled;" "OZZ-woll." It is pronounced "OZ walled" (Oswald). At least say his name right, guys. So - dull and droning as this was, it DOES ask some interesting questions re: facial comparisons, photos, height discrepancies, etc. That was about all I got out of this that seemed "valid" or of interest. Lee was a kid, to be a spy is incredibly involved and for all that they allege he did, it just seems like - too much. Way too much. It all seems conveniently contrived - "look for a conspiracy and you'll find one-" but, by the same token, I am not certain of any incidents linking little Lee Harvey to the death of a President, as I feel he was too cute to do anything like that.
I think this documentary sheds some light on the subject of who killed J.F.K. The evidence presented needs alot of concentration to watch, the story twists everywhere, so it ends up telling you essentially that Oswald was not the assassin. But, it lead me to believe that it would shed light on who killed J.F.K. At the end there is a twist that the man in the grave that is supposedly Lee H. Oswald, may not be..but that's all. That's the key thing...but I am suspcious of this, because they say he had a craniotomy..he was shot in the chest! All you need is dental records.