• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. Long-term susbcribers will receive a free coupon code for the James Fox UFO documentary "The Phenomenon" while supplies last. It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

a thought about Lee Oswald

trl985

Paranormal Novice
Let me start off by saying this came to mind as I sat watching Mad Men and the series is up to 1963. Everybody was watching on TV as Kennedy was shot, Oswald was interviewed, and then Oswald was shot. I've seen JFK and heard all sorts of theories, I honestly don't know what to think of the whole situation.

But during the Oswald interview (archival footage that they worked into the episode) he said "I'm a patsy." I never really thought about it before, but what kind of assassin/terrorist says that? These days anytime something blows up it seems like within minutes somebody is taking credit for it to make their point. If Oswald acted alone, wouldn't he have taken the opportunity to tell the world why?

I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir on this forum, but this really makes me wonder. I'd be curious to hear anybody else's thoughts.
 

Kandinsky

Curious Cat
I'm rarely keen on conspiracies..at least not the exotic illuminati crap that thrives on the internet. JFK's killing is one that just suggests there was more to to it. One way or another, Oswald was a patsy. Koreans, Mafia, CIA, Russians and Republicans have all had credible cases made against them. Maybe there was a similar element to 9/11? Perhaps some powerful people became aware it was coming and turned a blind eye in pursuit of their own interests?

Someone shot the guy and Oswald was nailed for it. It's the layers around the case that remain intriguing.

I've just done reading Bowart's Operation Mindcrime. It's old, but also interesting and discusses JFK's killing. If anyone wants a copy I can email the pdf.
 

Xylo

Paranormal Adept
With the numerous witnesses that said they saw suspicious activity and heard a gunshot coming from the infamous "grassy knoll" there are many unanswered questions about Oswald's guilt, and the level of his participation in the assassination.
 

Tom From Hong Kong

Sleeping with one eye open . . .
I am not an expert in ballistics, but the Zapruder film seems to show a shot coming from the front and right, not the rear. Not be be gross, but the violent head wound comes at an angle more consistent with the grassy knoll. There is also a disconnect vis-a-vis the autopsy photos, which show a neat, small entry hole in the rear (cf., the gore of the Zapruder film). I think that the evidence is quite substantial that the notoriously bad shot Oswald did not get off three shots alone and did not deliver the kill shot.
 

Simonemendez

Skilled Investigator
Back in (I --think-- it was 2000 (or 1999?) ) I was watching The History Channel's series called 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy'. They showed these --photographs-- someone took, of suspiscious men behind the legendary 'grassy knoll', and on that bridge. One of them I saw, for sure, was firing a rifle. You could see a slight puff of smoke from this weapon. I recall this shooter dressed as a policeman. It bothers me, that I NEVER see this photo shown anymore, anywhere. It's shockingly significant.

---------- Post added at 08:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 PM ----------

Below, is a quote I copied from some other place on the net. But, what did I watch in 2000? I feel pretty sure it was the History Channel, 2000.




The Men Who Killed Kennedy is a video documentary series by Nigel Turner that originally aired in 1988 in England with two one-hour segments about the John F. Kennedy assassination. The United States corporation, Arts & Entertainment Company, purchased the rights to the original two segments. Three one-hour segments were added in 1991. A sixth segment was added in 1995. Finally, three additional hourly segments were added by the History Channel in November 2003. The ninth segment, titled "The Guilty Men", directly implicated Lyndon B. Johnson. Within days, Johnson's widow, Lady Bird Johnson, more of his surviving associates, ex-President Jimmy Carter, and the lone, living Warren Commission commissioner and ex-President Gerald R. Ford immediately complained to the History Channel. They subsequently threatened legal action against Arts & Entertainment Company, owner of the History Channel. "The Guilty Men" segment was completely withdrawn by the History Channel. Also during the series, French prisoner Christian David named Lucien Sarti as one of three French criminals hired to carry out the assassination of Kennedy, when he was interviewed by author Anthony Summers. This claim is one of the most strongly investigated theories presented on the show. - googler
 

Simonemendez

Skilled Investigator
I believe that the above-named French assassin Christian David, aka Lucien Sarti, is the rifle shooter in the photo I saw.
 

vonmazur

Skilled Investigator
Guys: I thought everyone knew, E Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, Eugene Hale Brading, Lucien Sartie, John Harrelson, and the Smoking Man form X Files were the assassins. The met in Ruby's Strip Joint and planned the whole thing...

Dale
 

Tom From Hong Kong

Sleeping with one eye open . . .
There is a very interesting 90 minute presentation by Daniel Sheehan that you can pull of off Vuze or one of those other file sharing program entitled "Daniel Sheehan: Conspiracy Theories and the UFO Phenomenon." (sorry, I don't know how to attach it to this post). While I recognize Sheehan has his perspectives on things, in the presentation he offers a reasoned view on the JFK assassination with a great deal of specificity, claimed to be backed up by some amount of public evidence, which he cites. In short, assassination teams originally assembled to target Castro and other Cuban leaders at the behest of then Vice President Nixon, were re-directed towards Kennedy and his brother once the Kennedys closed down the covert operations against Castro. The CIA and FBI were NOT involved according to Sheehan, although the Mafia was employed as a means of getting the job down outside of official channels (the quid pro quo is that the mafia gets its casinos, heroin and hooker trade back once Castro goes). Oswald was indeed a patsy (he couldn't shoot to save his own life), and his assassination was directed so the cover up could be maintained. Shanheen does do a good job of tying together various facts from the case to other strange facts (e.g., the check from the Mexican bank found in E. Howard Hunt's jacket when busted at the Watergate). Whether you believe him or not, I would recommend watching -- it certainly gets you thinking and does indeed accurately represent how the government executes "off-the-books" programs (ala' Iran Contra).
 

NTS

Skilled Investigator
Let me say up front that I accept the Warren Commission's conclusion that Oswald killed JFK. So you can weigh what I say in context.

The thing that bothers me about the film of Oswald is how cool he is about the whole thing. If you or I were going about our lives, and then were suddenly arrested for shooting a policeman (the initial charge) and then accused of killing the President, we'd be freaking out. "It wasn't me, it wasn't me, I don't understand, this is crazy" or words to that effect. But Oswald is Mr. Calm. When a reporter asks about JFK's assassination, Oswald replies something like "I haven't been charged with that yet." Not "Oh my god" which I think would be the reaction of someone who was innocent. So even if I didn't believe the Warren Commission I'd sure as hell think Oswald was in it up to his neck.
 

Ron Collins

Curiously Confused
There is a very interesting 90 minute presentation by Daniel Sheehan that you can pull of off Vuze or one of those other file sharing program entitled "Daniel Sheehan: Conspiracy Theories and the UFO Phenomenon." (sorry, I don't know how to attach it to this post). While I recognize Sheehan has his perspectives on things, in the presentation he offers a reasoned view on the JFK assassination with a great deal of specificity, claimed to be backed up by some amount of public evidence, which he cites. In short, assassination teams originally assembled to target Castro and other Cuban leaders at the behest of then Vice President Nixon, were re-directed towards Kennedy and his brother once the Kennedys closed down the covert operations against Castro. The CIA and FBI were NOT involved according to Sheehan, although the Mafia was employed as a means of getting the job down outside of official channels (the quid pro quo is that the mafia gets its casinos, heroin and hooker trade back once Castro goes). Oswald was indeed a patsy (he couldn't shoot to save his own life), and his assassination was directed so the cover up could be maintained. Shanheen does do a good job of tying together various facts from the case to other strange facts (e.g., the check from the Mexican bank found in E. Howard Hunt's jacket when busted at the Watergate). Whether you believe him or not, I would recommend watching -- it certainly gets you thinking and does indeed accurately represent how the government executes "off-the-books" programs (ala' Iran Contra).
Hmmm, so with the Kennedy's out of the way how come they didn't kill Castro? Sounds a bit fishy.
 

Tom From Hong Kong

Sleeping with one eye open . . .
Let me say up front that I accept the Warren Commission's conclusion that Oswald killed JFK. So you can weigh what I say in context.

The thing that bothers me about the film of Oswald is how cool he is about the whole thing. If you or I were going about our lives, and then were suddenly arrested for shooting a policeman (the initial charge) and then accused of killing the President, we'd be freaking out. "It wasn't me, it wasn't me, I don't understand, this is crazy" or words to that effect. But Oswald is Mr. Calm. When a reporter asks about JFK's assassination, Oswald replies something like "I haven't been charged with that yet." Not "Oh my god" which I think would be the reaction of someone who was innocent. So even if I didn't believe the Warren Commission I'd sure as hell think Oswald was in it up to his neck.
Oswald may have not been the brightest light bulb, but he certainly was smart enough to realize, at that point in time, what in fact was playing out around him and his true role in it ("I am a patsy"). I believe he therefore was more guarded as to what he said (he could be gotten to, even in prison).

One only needs to watch the Zapruder film and it is clear that the rifle shot comes from the front and right, not the rear. Also, isn't it really odd that someone of Ruby's background whacks out Oswald out of some supposed love for Kennedy? I am not a conspiracy type, nor am I a Kennedy supporter, but this whole thing genuinely does smell to high heavens.

To paraphrase my favorite line from the book Liar's Poker: In every market, just as in every poker game, there is a fool. And the person who doesn't know who the fool is probably is the fool. Oswald realized who the fool is once the assassination played itself out and the cards had been laid on the table.
 

Ron Collins

Curiously Confused
Let me say up front that I accept the Warren Commission's conclusion that Oswald killed JFK. So you can weigh what I say in context.

The thing that bothers me about the film of Oswald is how cool he is about the whole thing. If you or I were going about our lives, and then were suddenly arrested for shooting a policeman (the initial charge) and then accused of killing the President, we'd be freaking out. "It wasn't me, it wasn't me, I don't understand, this is crazy" or words to that effect. But Oswald is Mr. Calm. When a reporter asks about JFK's assassination, Oswald replies something like "I haven't been charged with that yet." Not "Oh my god" which I think would be the reaction of someone who was innocent. So even if I didn't believe the Warren Commission I'd sure as hell think Oswald was in it up to his neck.
Psychopaths are "characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct, masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal." (wikipedia). DING DING DING! I dunno, I'm like the Ross Perot presidential campaign on the JFK conspiracy thing. I'm in, I'm out, I'm in, I'm out...
 

Tom From Hong Kong

Sleeping with one eye open . . .
Hmmm, so with the Kennedy's out of the way how come they didn't kill Castro? Sounds a bit fishy.
Sheehan didn't address that, but it sounds as if the assassination teams moved into damage control mode at that point rather than getting organized to go back after Castro. There may have also been hopes that LBJ would take appropriate action against Cuba at some point, only to get swallowed by the Vietnam War.

Watch the presentation and come to your own conclusion -- it is well worth the time. Again, Sheehan has his perspectives, but he certainly isn't a dumb guy.
 

tyder001

Paranormal Adept
This is interesting. I was watching a documentary one night (History Channel I think.) Anyway, very main stream approach it wasn't about conspiracy's just the reaction in Dallas to the shooting. Anyway, they quoted a local cop in passing and I thought it was interesting. He said somthing along the lines of "Jack Ruby is certainly no Patriot" in response to a reporter asking if Ruby simply killed Oswald out of rightous anger at the death of the president.
 

Han

piscator ψ
my five pence:

I believe that if and when "Oswald" was found guilty by the court, he would have been executed. as in the cases of "Charles Julius Guiteau"* and "Leon Czolgosz"**

Why did someone kill him before the trial. It is my opinion he was "silenced" for a reason.

It is a fact that president Kennedy had "enemies" both at home and abroad.

My view is that "Oswald" was part of bigger scheme, and did participate in the assassination.

A dead mans word is muted
! so i dont think we will ever know the "truth".

Another reson I dont think we will ever know, is that admitting to participation would be admitting to "treason".


*Found guilty of killing president Garfield exicuted by hanging on the 30th of June , 1882

**Found guilty of killing president Mckinley exicuted by electric chair on the 29th of October , 1901
 

NTS

Skilled Investigator
An interesting (if sometimes murky post-modernist) take on Oswald as Fortean Man. This has been published elsewhere in a different format, but I think the originals are best:

diary 17

diary 17
 


Top