Watch the trailer for new JFK documentary, ‘Killing Oswald’


The film is called Killing Oswald. I haven’t seen it but Mark Groubert has and here is what he said in his review for Crooks and Liars:

“Shane O’Sullivan’s new documentary, Killing Oswald is simple in design and stunning in its veracity. It assembles some of the top JFK assassination scholars and authors and lets them speak. This is something the American media is apparently too reluctant or simply too terrified to do. Possibly both.”

“Here we finally see authors Joan Mellen (A Farewell To Justice), Dick Russell (The Man Who Knew Too Much), John Newman (Oswald and the CIA) and David Kaiser (The Road To Dallas), among others, telling the audience what they have uncovered after years of research.”

46 comments

  1. G. Albert says:

    I purchased the video and would recommend it to anybody who wants to see the many sides of Oswald – particularly as they relate to his association with intelligent agencies (CIA, FBI)… The video includes interesting film footage and/or photographs of Phillips, Veciana, Nagell, De Mohrenschildt… The documentary clearly shows the parts of Oswald story which the mainstream media avoids…

    By the way, Shane O’Sullivan was recently interviewed on BlackOpRadio and discusses this documentary project…

  2. Jonathan says:

    I request readers to compare the photo of the person above (before the trailer starts) with famous marine photo. We’ve been told countlessly that they’re photos of the same person, Lee Harvey Oswald. But if we block that message and just use our own eyes and brains, it’s pretty easy to see those are photos of two different persons. Different noses, chins, hair, cheeks, eyes.

    • Mitch says:

      People change. What would be the point of the wacky ‘Harvey and Lee’ theory? If two kids start out looking alike, won’t they change over time anyway? I know identical twins that just look like your average brothers. It’s one thing to claim that an individual represented himself as Oswald as part of an unconnected intelligence operation, or even to set up Oswald as the assassin, and another to claim some decade long operation to confuse unknown parties for unknown reasons.

  3. Warren says:

    I eagerly await an open-minded presentation of the Lee Harvey Oswald story. The basis to understanding the nature of the unsolved murder of JFK is determining who manipulated Oswald into his patsy role.

    • larrywheeler says:

      JFK’s political enemies were on the “rightwing” not the left where the “sheepdipping” of Oswald occurred. I used to compartmentalize Kennedy’s enemies -the cia, mafia, oilmen, LBJ, minutemen, JBS, and military industrial complex. all along the threads were so obvious -all were threatened by JFK-RFK and all were deadly. They all overlapped – example-many of the texas oil people were cia and they backed LBJ’s political career. HL Hunt could bankroll the JBS and minutemen who were gunrunners for the anti-castro Cubans. This got into the cia and military intell as they had a psych warfare plan to blame Castro for an attack on the U.S. as a “pretext” to invade Cuba and take Castro out once and for all. The assassination was all about the linking up Castro, the operation worked, but the invasion into Cuba never took place. Vietnam served the cia -military complex well, but i’m at a loss why Castro was avoided.

      • TLR says:

        I totally agree. I used to compartmentalize those groups as well, but they are closely linked by shared politics, business, families, social, college and military ties, illegal operations, etc.

      • Bill Pierce says:

        larrywheeler asks:
        “but I’m at a loss why Castro was avoided.”

        (1) Because Oswald survived the assassination and was in custody. And government insiders – LBJ and Hoover – knew within 24 hours that he had been impersonated in Mexico City. They knew exactly what it meant. Would Oswald eventually name names, including FBI and CIA? In a fair trial led by a non-government team of world-class attorneys/investigators, how much evidence would the government have to suppress? And how would that look to citizens and jury members who were being asked to believe that Oswald was an unaffiliated nut or a hit man for Castro?
        (2) The civilian government had to make sure that it was in control. In a coup, the plotters try to dominate the narrative so they can manage public perceptions. In this instance, a potential nuclear confrontation with the Soviets was on the line . . . or at least LBJ thought so. [Examples of the importance of narrative: the Gulf of Tonkin lie; the Hill & Knowlton PR campaign preceding HW Bush's Desert Storm; the Cheney administration's management of lies leading up to Shock & Awe.]
        (3) Did the government have enough evidence to successfully link Castro to Comrade Oswaldskovich? No. Castro would have been the LEAST likely person to order JFK’s assassination. Castro certainly would not have relied on Oswald to do the deed. Everyone in Washington knew it.

        • John Kirsch says:

          Bill Pierce, you wrote, “Because Oswald survived the assassination and was in custody.”
          That comment really sparks my interest. Do you believe the plan was for Oswald to NOT survive the assassination? I hadn’t thought of that but it makes sense.
          If there was a conspiracy, the people involved must have been very uneasy knowing that the Dallas PD was interrogating him (assuming the Dallas PD wasn’t in on the conspiracy). And the prospect of a trial must have terrified them.
          In any event, I’ve always been struck by the extremely public and shocking nature of Oswald’s execution. It was as if the conspirators were sending a message: keep your mouth shut or this could happen to you.

          • GM says:

            Oswald got the job in the TSBD around a month before the assassination. Ruth Paine got him the job. The route that the motorcade took was not in the newspapers until a few days before the assassination. Jesse Curry said that he could not place Oswald at the sniper’s nest on the sixth floor of the book depository. If Oswald did it by himself then he got hell of a lucky with the route, and the fact that he had access to a relatively high vantage point. If he was set up then he would have a lot of explaining to do, as the photo of him with his rifle was in circulation. Oswald’s case history: his training as a Marine, the apparent defection to the Soviet Union, and his apparent support for Marxism, would be awfully attractive to those with dangerous agendas.

  4. JSA says:

    I would be interested in having someone who knows a lot about Oswald, Jean Davison, watch this film and then comment. She might be able to point out if there are any inaccuracies in it.

    • Jean Davison says:

      Thanks, JSA. I’ve only watched the trailer but noticed a couple of things.

      It’s very unlikely that Oswald knew any “secrets about the U-2″ to take to the USSR (the Russians already knew more about it than he ever did).

      A narrator claims that while Oswald was in New Orleans he was “definitely being watched at that time, closely, by the CIA’s counterintelligence people.” Since I don’t plan to rent the video, could someone who’s seen it please tell me what is being referred to there?

      • Neil says:

        “A narrator claims that while Oswald was in New Orleans he was “definitely being watched at that time, closely, by the CIA’s counterintelligence people.” Since I don’t plan to rent the video, could someone who’s seen it please tell me what is being referred to there?”

        The film touches on the fact that the Fair Play For Cuba Committee was being targeted by the FBI at the time when Oswald’s public appearances as a representative of the organization began. It also mentions Oswald’s interactions with the DRE group and the fact that Carlos Bringuer was a CIA asset. It’s very likely that both the FBI and CIA were watching Oswald closely that summer and were aware of what he was doing in New Orleans.

      • Jordan says:

        I am of the opinion that LHO did have technical knowledge that would have been very highly classified.
        Oswald was a radar operator, and according to his superiors a pretty good one.

        I don’t expect most to be aware of the fact that radar and comms gear are not exactly user-friendly devices and to achieve proficiency requires some level of understanding and obviously the intelligence to do so.

        Given the technology of that time and the fact that Oswald also appears to have also had some maintenance duties, I’d say he had a lot of classified knowledge.

        At Atsugi, he would have been using state of the art materiel from Collins, Raytheon, Hughes et al, which was all part of a classified program.

        You cannot assume that since the Soviets could “track” Sputnik they could detect U2 flights because they are rather dissimilar tasks.

        Knowing the height, speed, the rates of ascent and descent and other flight parameters as well as the radar parameters such as sweep rate and pulse frequency and bandwidth was highly valued information.

  5. Mike Zilis says:

    Excellent documentary. Highly recommended.

  6. Neil says:

    I just finished watching it. This is a very slow paced documentary but highly informative and lays out the many reasons it appears that Lee Oswald was an intelligence asset and how his activities in New Orleans and Mexico City were part of a larger plot to frame him.

    There’s a good amount of time spent laying out the background behind JFK’s Soviet and Cuba policies (something that the NatGeo film ‘Killing Kennedy’ only skimmed through).

    I mostly liked how they used actors to dramatize some of the statements of Lee Oswald and David Atlee Phillips.

  7. John Kirsch says:

    The vital fact about Oswald that is often overlooked (not entirely by accident, I suspect) is that he was never CONVICTED of killing JFK, for the obvious reason that he was murdered before a trial could be held.
    What that means is that Ruby murdered a man who, under our legal system, was presumed INNOCENT, yet another of the many, many irregular things that happened during that 48-hour period in Dallas (and afterwards).
    If Oswald hadn’t been murdered and a trial had been held, the burden would have been on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald murdered JFK. In that connection, it’s worth remembering that after he retired as Dallas police chief, Jesse Curry stated, “We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody’s yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.”
    Even though the WC was set up as an investigative body it effectively put a dead man on trial and, surprise, surprise, the dead man was found guilty.
    The defenders of the official story like to describe Oswald as a life-long loser. I think it’s worth bearing in mind that he was all of 24 years old when he was murdered. His life had barely begun.

    • Photon says:

      Wouldn’t be to Curry’s benefit to have an excuse as to why the President was killed in Dallas while under his protection, why they let Oswald have a press conference and turn it into a media circus, why they completely threw away normal security procedures and allowed a passerby to walk down into a police garage and gun down the most important suspect in the history of Dallas?
      Curry and his department were probably the most incompetent in American legal history. If that idiot and his department had done their jobs Oswald would have been convicted in a brief trial and the conspiracy industry would never have been born.

  8. Bogman says:

    Watching the documentary. It’s become to clear to me that Oswald was supposed to get a visa to Cuba so it would be in his possession to frame him as a Castro assassin who would try to escape to Cuba. Barring that, they at least had ‘evidence’ of his attempt to do so.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Hmmm. Your observation, in conjunction with Joaanides paying for the first “Oswald/Castro did it” disinformation article within 24 hours of the slaughter of Democracy might lead a reasonable thinking person to conclude some were conspiring to murder JFK. FREE THE FILES and prove these theories wrong.

  9. John Kirsch says:

    Oswald turned 24 on Oct. 18, 1963, just over a month before the assassination. Two days later, the couples’ second daughter, Audrey Marina Rachel Oswald, was born … at Parkland Hospital.

  10. JG says:

    How did the real conspirators get him to not have an alibi then flee the scene, kill a cop and attempt to shoot another cop ?

    • rollo says:

      I think he was part of the conspiracy-assuming there was one. Does anyone doubt that he brought a rifle(“curtain rods”) to the TSBD that day? That doesn’t necessarily mean that he fired it at JFK.

      • b binnie says:

        the Package LHO brought was 24 inches long- A dissassembled Carcano is 38 inches long- there is a doubt-
        The Major Question remains: How and why is LHO alive after the presidents execution? Was he supposed to take missed shots ala Gen Walker and realizes he better get a gun and hide pronto when JFKs head explodes? If shots are taken that miss and then LHO dissapears presumably to Cuba, the plotters still get their US invansion of Cuba and this threat to our Security is eliminated- If LHO is a pure patsy he is dead long before the ford turns on Elm Street- Something goes very wrong at some point and Ruby who has been engaged from Parkland to the Police Garage basement must be coerced to clean things up. What was the intended role of LHO that day and How and why is LHO alive after the presidents execution?

        • Photon says:

          Who measured it?

          • B Binnie says:

            Frazier said the gun was held at one point under the arm pit and in a cupped hand – for a man of Oswalds size this would mean 2 feet or less- WCR says he must have been mistaken- Ruth P offered 2 feet as an estimate which would be a significant departure from 38+ Inches when accounting for packaging- All of this is fairly secondary- LHO brought something special that day to the DSBD (Communication Devices?) and must have had a role to play in a conspiracy but he seems to have gone off the rails when JFK was actually killed- What I think anyone who wants to argue against the WCR findings must do FIRST is come up with a realistic scenario about what LHO was doing that day and explain why a Patsy would be allowed to freely travel around the building before and after the killing. In my 40 years of study I have never heard a convincing explanation for the verifiable chain of events concerning LHO’s actions that day since what we know for certain does paint him as a lone nut killer. It is all the strange events surrounding the execution and the fact that JFK is shot in his Adams Apple and slaughtered by high tech ordinance that strikes him just forward of and above his right ear that is an issue- I think my theory that Oswald was taking Pot Shots at JFK ala Gen Walker takes this problem on squarely- It would be interesting to hear if someone can offer something more tangible.

  11. Hans Trayne says:

    Joan Mellen’s work (A Farewell To Justice) is extremely important to understanding Lee Oswald’s world in 1963. Joan says in her most recent updates to her book at her website that ‘Lee Oswald was never alone; he was always in the company of intelligence operatives’. Professor Mellen also discloses that RFK knew about & was monitoring Lee Oswald, making him an additional high level figure interested in Lee Oswald prior to JFK’s murder. According to Mrs. Mellen, preventing the public from learning RFK knew about Lee Oswald pre-assassination is why RFK used his right hand man to wreck Jim Garrison’s investigation. Joan has been answering many questions I have about Lee Oswald & his public support of Fidel Castro in 1963 enacted without arrest from the FBI or Federal Marshals.

    • Photon says:

      That is about the most bizarre story that I have heard . RFK knew Oswald? He wrecked Garrison’s “investigation” ? That is absolutely sick- how can anybody take that individual seriously? To imply that RFK had a part in a plot to kill his own brother is beyond the pale -and reflective of the utter bankruptcy of the conspiracy movement after 50 years of inability to exonerate Oswald.If “South Park ” ran a parody of Mellen’s work they would run scripts on the bottom saying ” yes, she really believes this”- because nobody in their right mind would believe the story possible.

      • Brad Milch says:

        Those familiar with Professor Mellen’s work can spot your 2 straw man setups. RFK being routinely briefed on active CIA & FBI covert operations does not mean he actually knew the operatives & he was NOT briefed of any active operation to kill his brother eithers. What RFK was told about Oswald will be known when the withheld JFK files are released and after the RFK files are scrutinized & analyzed. It doesn’t take much to guess what RFK was being told about Lee Oswald by those monitoring him simply by looking at Oswald’s actions in New Orleans & (allegedly) in Mexico City. RFK was most likely being told an operation was underway to get an operative into Cuba. Oswald had a pro-Russian & pro-Cuban resume that his handler assumed would appeal to Castro enough to let him inside the country. After the assassination RFK was probably told Oswald flipped for Castro or went rogue on his own. The files will tell us.
        You owe Joan Mellon a huge apology, Photon.

    • John Kirsch says:

      I’ve read conflicting things about RFK and Garrison. Some of the material has suggested that RFK dispatched one of his top aides, Walter Sheridan, to New Orleans to scuttle the Garrison investigation. I read somewhere else that RFK passed a note to Garrison praising the investigation.
      If RFK did assign Sheridan to undermine Garrison, that actually sort of undercuts the notion that Garrison was running a bad investigation in the first place. The fact that the jury summarily rejected his case suggests that he did run a bad investigation. But the fact, if it is a fact, that RFK felt it necessary to undermine Garrison suggests that Garrison was on to something, at least in RFK’s eyes.
      It doesn’t seem totally implausible to me that RFK would have known of Oswald before 11/22, even if only on a very superficial level, since RFK was the administration’s point man for so many covert activities.
      The other possibility is that RFK planned to launch his own investigation of 11/22 after becoming president, and was afraid that Garrison would make that more difficult if Garrison continued.
      During his campaign in the California primary, I think RFK came pretty close to saying, if in fact he didn’t actually say, that he was going to re-open the investigation.
      Yes, he did say that he supported the WC, but I think his son has given good reason recently to conclude that RFK’s statement was strictly for public consumption and that he privately believed, and said, that the WC did a poor job of investigating 11/22.

      • Bill Pierce says:

        John Kirsch writes:
        “It doesn’t seem totally implausible to me that RFK would have known of Oswald before 11/22, even if only on a very superficial level, since RFK was the administration’s point man for so many covert activities.”

        It would be implausible if RFK did NOT know about the one and only member of FPCC in New Orleans. I think he knew the name and the arrangement. Can’t prove it, though.

        Which brings up the important question: how well does the official version of history represent reality? And how do we fill in the blanks? Examples: Who planted the yellowcake forgery that enabled US neo-cons to accuse Iraq of nuclear ambition? (Was the forgery just a coincidence or is there more to the story?) Was LBJ ignorant of the Gulf of Tonkin (non)event or did he help plan it? Was April Glaspie’s communication of non-intervention policy to Saddam an innocent misunderstanding or was it a sucker punch? Did HW Bush know that the “incubator” story was a tall tale from a PR firm or was he just blissfully ignorant?

        Seems to me that we’re either willing to be gullible dupes . . . or to look at things as rational, skeptical, objective individuals, giving due consideration to the realities of historical chicanery, double-dealing and propaganda.

        • John Kirsch says:

          Bill, you wrote, “how well does the official version of history represent reality?”
          In the case of 11/22, I would say the official story is at odds with much of what most people would call common sense. Accepting it requires a willful suspension of disbelief.
          Example: Oswald,the alleged assassin, not leaving Dallas but instead going to his rooming house, a known address where the police could have found him.
          Example: The lack of a clear motive on Oswald’s part. Even the WC threw up its hands in frustration over this.
          Example: The WC’s “star witness,” poor Howard Brennan, who failed to provide a positive ID of Oswald to the police.
          Example: The “planes, trains and automobiles” nature of Oswald’s journey to his rooming house. He did everything but take a helicopter back there.
          Example: The fact that Oswald, the alleged assassin, was shot and mortally wounded in the basement of the police station while nearly surrounded by law enforcement officials, and the fact that this shooting was carried out by a man with organized crime connection.
          I could go on, as you well know.
          Fifty years later and the government has yet to provide a believable account of what happened in Dallas. When citizens ask questions, they are stigmatized.

        • JSA says:

          “Which brings up the important question: how well does the official version of history represent reality? And how do we fill in the blanks? ”

          My sentiments exactly! I find it amusing (and sad) that Americuns think propaganda only happens in other countries. I’m proud of the many great things our country has done, but it’s brain-dead to think nothing bad ever happens here. What do the CIA propagandists take us for anyway? Robotic, knee-jerk flag waving morons? If the Kennedy assassination teaches us anything, it’s that people in authority don’t always tell the truth, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely (CIA).

      • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

        John, as odd as it may sound, I have at times wondered if RFK discovered at least in part who was involved with JFK’s assassination. Then pondered the possibility that he may have been connected to any retaliation. Say for instance Sam Giacana, Jimmy Hoffa or others.

        • John Kirsch says:

          S.R. “Dusty” Rhode, I’m working from memory here, but I remember reading once that RFK did a fair amount of traveling in the course of researching the assassination. He had, after all, been his brother’s point man on covert operations. Jack Newfield, a journalist who wrote about and admired RFK, said once that no one knew more about how power really worked in the U.S. than RFK.
          Defenders of the official story like to point out that RFK publicly supported the WC’s report. But I think his son has given us a pretty good indication that RFK said that for public consumption only. It wouldn’t be the first time a politician said one thing and believed another.
          The more I look at the assassinations of the 60s, the more I’m struck by the timing of them. JFK assassinated just months after his American University speech; Oswald assassinated (in the police station) before a trial could be held; and RFK assassinated the night he won the Calif. primary, a victory that put him in a strong position going into the convention. He had given some indication during the campaign that he would re-open the investigation if elected president. If there was a conspiracy in 11/22, the prospect of a president Robert Kennedy bringing the full weight of the federal government to bear on a real investigation (and RFK knew how to run an investigations) must have been terrifying to the conspirators.

  12. Alan Dale says:

    Joan Mellen has a new book: The Great Game In Cuba: How The CIA Sabotaged Its Own Plot To Unseat Fidel Castro.

    Recommended.

  13. Tom says:

    Frontline special on Oswald says 8 seconds to shoot all shots. How is there a discrepancy, what is the origin of our knowledge of the timing here.

  14. Tom says:

    Found this:
    http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=73541

    …apologies. Although born in 58 I’m a neophyte when it comes to getting into the weeds of this. …but I like it.

  15. John Kirsch says:

    This is from the WC report, concerning a man presumed to be Oswald and his actions after the shooting, as told by a Mr. Whaley, a cab driver:
    “The man asked, “May I have the cab?”, and got into the front seat.467 Whaley described the ensuing events as follows:

    And about that time an old lady, I think she was an old lady, I don’t remember nothing but her sticking her head down past him in the door and said, “Driver, will you call me a cab down here?”
    She had seen him get this cab and she wanted one, too, and he opened the door a little bit like he was going to get out and he said, “I will let you have this one,” and she says, “No, the driver can call me one.”
    So here is the scenario, apparently: Oswald has (supposedly) just assassinated the most powerful person in the world, which means he is (presumably) the most hunted man in the world, and as Oswald makes his presumed escape, he offers to give up his cab to an elderly lady?
    No wonder most Americans reject the WC findings.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more