Both of these videos come from an infamous series that aired on the History Channel, The Men Who Killed Kennedy. You're welcome to watch the other episodes on YouTube, if you like.
Episode 4, "The Patsy," examines the problematic evidence that implicated Lee Harvey Oswald.
Episode 9, "The Guilty Men," is no longer sold as part of the DVD collection. When you watch it, you will see why: It directly implicates Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson and his Texas oil buddies in the assassination.
If you are wondering which of the other episodes to watch, might I recommend Episode 7, "The Smoking Guns"? :-) (Note: You don't have to watch this episode for class.)
The first video was made up of different theories and so called evidence that haven't been brought to much light before. I would say this was a video more so covering the apparent innocence side and evidence of Osawld bringing in the evidence such as close friends and family and simply evidence that is hard not to believe. For example how he only had 90 seconds to talk to the cop on the second floor, then travel all the way up to the sixth floor in time to shoot the President. And that he would have also had to be carrying the gun without anyone seeing him. In other theories they were saying how they didn't even find any finger prints on the rifle that was found in the building that was supposedly Oswald's. Obviously this film was very one sided and did show decent evidence that could pursued some, but then there is the question who killed kennedy?
ReplyDeleteIn the second video I find it really interesting at right in the beginning they were talking about how something wasn't right off the get go. That when Kennedy arrived in Dallas the secret service backed off the their regular security duties. This implies that before even getting into the video we know that they are implying it could of been an inside job. Before he Kennedy even went to Dallas the secret services were aware of the situations that had been going on prior that could of potentially but the presidents life in danger, but its weird how especially at a time like this they decrease there security towards the president. Another thing that makes the secret services looking guilty of something is how they flew the car back to Washington where it was supposed to be investigated, but soon went onto to Michigan to wipe all the "evidence" clean, but getting a new interior and windshield.
Video #1: The video is basically the viewpoint about Oswald from family, friends and anybody who knew him. I thought that the video was also providing evidence to different conspiracies or we could say this video bought evidences that were not very highlighted whether Oswald shot the President John Kennedy or not. Evidences were in favour of Oswald, for example; he being a family man like an ordinary man, who loved his daughters and watched footballs games on Saturdays and Sundays, he served marine core and worked at a good positions, and also evidence that raised my thinking about he being innocent was the encounter by motorcycle cop within 90 seconds where he states that Oswald was calm as it states in the video that the shooting took place at sixth floor and Oswald walked all the way through stocks of boxes hiding the gun on the way and looked calmed at the second floor because if a person who shot the president and had to walk all the way within 90 seconds would be anxious and scared. Another incident about Oswald killing officer Timothy which made everybody believe that he shot John Kennedy was proven not eligible because the women who had her house across the street testified that there were two men and the other was standing close to the cops car and they both ran in different directions so it can’t be proven that Oswald killed the officer. The question after all these evidences still remains did Oswald killed The President?
ReplyDeleteVideo #2: this video brings up the actual theories that people had thought about but did not actually dare to speak it a loud, the truth that Mr. Johnson was behind the assassination of John Kennedy. The video makes it very clear that Mr. Johnson even in his earlier years could do anything to get what he wanted and so in order to gain power by becoming the president he planned to assassinate John Kennedy as he would have to take his seat automatically and therefore it became easy for him as he had the power to build up cover ups and blame Oswald for the murder of John Kennedy. There are also many reasons stated in the video that why would all the people supporting Johnson would want to kill Kennedy. Conclusion is after 40 years of assassination the people have the answers to who killed Kennedy but the agencies are still scared to release the truth to its citizens.
In the first episode, 'The Patsy', I found to be much more easy to follow because of the evidence presented. What made this episode interesting was the interviews with the people closest to Oswald, and the people who had been in contact with him not only on the day of the assassination, but quite a while before as well. I found it strange that they said he didn't take much interest into the president at the time of his visit to Dallas, but he never had anything bad to say either. Although the mystery behind if Oswald was the killer, or was assisted may never be solved as he died so soon, this assortment of evidence was quite convincing in a way that the 'murder' committed by Lee Harvey Oswald was typically impossible.
ReplyDeleteIn the next video including Lynden Johnson, I found it quite an interesting follow-up after just watching a video describing that Oswald was not guilty in the assassination. It seemed to attempt to answer the question of, 'who DID kill Kennedy, if not Oswald?' This episode seemed very underrated in a way that I don't think many people blamed Lynden to have had part in this tragic event to begin with. The group of witnesses they had to support their case were excellent, especially the mistress who claimed that she still loved this man, but the night before the assassination he was angered with the Kennedy's. This documentary episode was clearly biased in the assumption that Lynden Johnson and his 'buddies' were behind his assassination, but with all of the malicious things he was claimed to have done, including planning people's deaths, if true, does not seem like a ridiculous assumption.
-Jordan Walker
Before watching the video, I thought that it will provide evidence or conspiracy theories regarding the assassination of John F. Kennedy but after watching it, I found it quite interesting how they only interviewed Oswald's family and closest friends. This makes the video one sided and bias in a sense that it was only showing the innocence side of Oswald and was supporting the claim that Oswald did not do it. The video shows how Oswald was a loving man specially to his two lovely daughters and his wife and how nice he was to his closest friends. It also shows that Oswald was an ordinary man who watches football every weekend. Another evidence that proves Oswald's innocence was his interaction with the police cops within 90 seconds looking relaxed which is nearly impossible for a person who killed the president to not show feeling of nervousness. These evidences shows that Oswald may not have killed Kennedy and he is not guilty of the crime. So, If not Oswald, who really assassinated Kennedy then?
ReplyDeleteThe second video was really fascinating that it seems to give theories that the assassination of Kennedy was an inside job done by the secret agents, was a conspiracy and that the possible culprit of the crime was Mr. Johnson. Also, Some of the secret agencies looks like they were aware of the danger that Kennedy will be in, in Dallas. Some of the event in the video, like they were trying to remove the security group that was assisting Kennedy while he was in Dallas, was one of the evidences for this crime. Another thing was that, Mr. Johnson might have killed Kennedy in order to gain the power and that if Kennedy died he will be the newly elected President of the United States.
Episode 4, “The Patsy,” for the most part argues the unfair persecution of Lee Harvey Oswald and the questionable evidence that convicted him in the assassination of John F, Kennedy. The video presents a more personal view of Oswald from the perspective of his family and his friends. The viewer receives a lot more information on his past, personal life, and demeanor the day of the assassination that Oswald’s Ghost does not. The video brought up conflicting evidence against the actual plausibility of Oswald being the shooter as well. Oswald’s Ghost left out the information about Oswald being seen in the lunchroom 90 seconds before the shooting. If he were the shooter, he would have been at the window four floors up, waiting for JFK’s car log before that, especially since the president’s car was late. Other new evidence presented in this video include; the length of the parcel that supposedly help the rifle, the conflicting witness reports after the murder of Officer Timothy, bullets that couldn’t be linked to Oswald’s gun, the suspicious visit to the funeral home that left ink on Oswald’s fingers. The purpose of some arguments and evidence were to completely dissociate Oswald with the assassinations and disprove the lone gunman theory; however, others made efforts to connect him with the “inside job” conspiracy theory. Speakers in the video tried to link him to the CIA through his service in the marine core, the defector program, his attempt to denounce his American citizenship in Russia and interest in a mental hospital. The evidence and information opposing Lee Harvey Oswald’s conviction was rather convincing, but even if Oswald was proven not guilty, it still wouldn’t solve JFK’s murder.
ReplyDeleteEpisode 9, “The Guilty Men,” directly implicates Vice President Lyndon Johnson as the organizer behind the assassination of JFK. I found this video a lot more interesting, as it actual names someone responsible for the assassination. Watching these videos one after the other gives you information on why Oswald wasn’t the assassin and then answers the question of “then who is.” Oswald’s Ghost really doesn’t touch on any of the ideas presented in this video. They presented the idea that Johnson benefited the most from the assassination, which seems obvious, so why did it take to long for people to come to this conclusion? Why didn’t people notice the aggressive contrast in governing that took place when Johnson sat in the oval office? After JFK’s death, as President, Johnson proceeded to undo everything Kennedy stood for. Johnson gave support to the CIA where Kennedy wouldn’t, he sent 3 million more soldiers to Vietnam instead of bringing 16,000 home, and secured J Edgar Hoover’s position at the FBI. The video also presented sufficient witness statements by attorneys who became whistleblowers against Johnson, along with a mistress to whom Johnson admitted his feelings towards the Kennedy’s the day before the assassination. I thought that this group of speakers, the obvious motive, and the evidence of past illegal and unethical behavior made a convincing case against Lyndon Johnson and his supporters.
Before watching the first video 'The Patsy’, I too was sceptical like most people; In the sense that Lee Harvey Oswald was probably some loser in society, who did not have many friends and shot the president. However, the videos show another side of Lee Harvey Oswald’s life that I am sure most people did not know. In the first video many of Oswald’s close friends, neighbours and family were interviewed. They all seemed to say the same thing about him, that he was friendly, quiet and loved kids ("the kids in the neighbourhood would evidently find their way to the plain house to play with him and his daughter”). In the first video a lady named Ruth was interviewed and recalls the day of the assassination, and Oswald’s demeanour that day. She claims she remembers passing him as she walked to her house, and she said in Russian that the president was coming. Knowing him, she says he did not say much, but that was expected of him because he never really said much in the first place. The video also presents evidence against Oswald that were questionable. I remember one incident presented in the video was of the day before the assassination of the president. Oswald asked his colleague Mr.Fraser for a ride into town; Mr.Fraser who thought it was a bit strange since he only gave him rides on friday evenings and monday mornings. Mr.Fraser recalls Oswald carrying an item wrapped around in some brown wrapping type paper, that was about two feet long - “give or take an inch or two”. When he asked Oswald, he told him that it was a curtain and that his wife asked him to get curtain rods for her. The neighbour was of course skeptical and linked the “package” as that of being the rifle that was later used in the assassination. However, evidence showed that the bullets used in the murder were not even linked to the rifle that Oswald “supposedly used” - so how could he have been the shooter?
ReplyDeleteThe second video ‘The Guilty Men” was a bit more mind-boggling. Here I am, and the rest of the world thinking that Lee Harvey Oswald is the real killer - and then evidence and small talk come up that perhaps it wasn’t him all along. That perhaps it was someone who was much more closer to JFK than we all thought. The ‘Guilty Men’ seems to incriminate Lyndon Johnson as the perpetrator. Lyndon Johnson was the Vice President at the time that JFK was the president. The assassination of JFK was of course later suggested to perhaps being a conspiracy, that it was an inside job involving secret agents and that of course Lyndon Johnson was the man behind it. A piece of information that was presented in the video that I found was pretty important was how Mr.Johnson was trying to get rid of Mr.Kennedy’s security that protected him. I find that very odd because the president being who he was, was a man of great power - and of course there would be people who were not too happy with him. So why would Mr.Johnson want to remove his security knowing that his life was in danger all the time? Even after the death of the president, it seemed that Mr.Johnson very much benefited; perhaps he didn’t like the way things were run when the president was alive and so as soon as he died he began to change the things he had done. For instance; he sent more soldiers to fight in Vietnam instead of bringing them home, after Kennedy had promised to bring them home. It seemed that in order for him to move up and become president, the current president had to die first.
The first video started off with an emphasis on the human side of Oswald. It showed that Oswald had a family, and that he spent time playing with his kids and watching football. His neighbors also have generally good things to say about Oswald. The video also present some very compelling evidence in support of Oswald, such as the fact that Oswald would have had 90 seconds after allegedly assassinating the president to maneuver through boxes and make it down six flights of stairs and maintain a calm demeanor to deceive the police officer he encountered. It also raises questions as to whether it had actually been Oswald who had murdered the police officer, by providing evidence stating that Oswald had been travelling in the other direction, and that there were multiple people on the scene. Also the fact that semi-automatic fire was heard and Oswald’s so called ‘murder weapon’ was a six-shot revolver. It was obviously a one sided video, focusing its efforts entirely on presenting a case for Oswald, and I feel it accomplished its task.
ReplyDeleteThe second video presented Lyndon B. Johnson as the person who orchestrated the assassination along with many other powerful people. These people had the means, motive, and the opportunity to pull it off. Lyndon Johnson himself is shown as a person who is not unfamiliar with murder to accomplish his goals. He also has access to the underworld resources of his allies, and these connections are also presented in the film. These people definitely had the motive, as JFK presented an ideal that differed greatly from their own, and could have become the cause of their downfall. Johnson even risked ending up in jail, as his past was catching up to him. The opportunity also arose when JFK came to Texas, home turf for many of the people who would have wanted him dead. Immediately after the assassination, as president, Johnson began to take apart everything that Kennedy had done and stood for, such as advancing the war in Vietnam, and saving major oil companies. Obviously the country took a very different turn in many ways after the assassination, and all factors considered, these people had every reason to do such a thing. However this is all speculation, and we still lack definitive evidence that shows that these people were behind the entire thing. I would agree with the viewpoints presented in the video, and think it is highly likely that these people were involved.
The first video focused around the person that Lee Harvey Oswald was and brought forth the human element. Throughout the video, Oswald was shown as an ordinary man who was kind to others and was entrenched in his family life. The video showed people who knew him personally and described him with words that don’t paint out the person that he is framed of being. It showed a different perspective of Oswald and showcased him as a human instead of an insane individual. I found it interesting of how they touched on how he was discharged with honor at first from the navy, a point that wasn’t highlighted in Oswald’s Ghost. The video also provided evidence that showed how Oswald couldn’t have been responsible for the assassination. For example, his coworkers who described him to be calm and collective after minutes of the assassination, which as explained by the video would have been quite impossible if he just assassinated the president. The death of the policeman that authorities link to Oswald shows quite a few contradictions in the video. For example, the man thought to have shot the policeman was short and the weapon used couldn’t be matched to Oswald’s weapon. Oswald’s Ghost made it clear that Oswald did indeed shoot a policeman but never addressed how the witness testimony and unmatched weapon weren’t considered. The part about how Oswald’s casket was damaged at the bottom was really an interesting fact that was never considered. The man in charge of his burial mentioned how the head of Oswald was different and also noted on how it would impossible for the casket’s bottom to break unless tampered with.
ReplyDeleteThe second video was quite interesting since it showed evidence of how the Vice President and his stakeholders decided to assassinate the President. It mostly dealt with how the President’s decisions would cause these stakeholders an outflow of investment and money. Due to possibly losing money these stakeholders with the Vice President had intention of assassinating the President, and with having full power of the case after the assassination they would be able to fully cover it up. This theory or even evidence from this video was never touched in Oswald’s Ghost, the idea that the Vice President and his stakeholders had any hand in the assassination were completely dismissed. The video also gave reason of why nothing has every come forth about the assassination by stating psychologist were hired to any of those who were involved to always remain silent. By using the evidence of the finger, the stakeholders and insiders the video made a legitimate standpoint of who was responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy.
In Episode 4, I found that a more personal approach was taken towards Oswald. Mainly, the video represented a memorial for the man, including accounts from people who knew Lee from childhood, all the way up to his very last day. They all seemed to say the same thing, that Lee Harvey Oswald was a compassionate man, and a very passionate advocate for each of his causes. From being the most lovable man on the block to all of the children to play with, to being a devout Marxist (not a communist), Oswald devoted every part of his soul to whatever he was doing. What shocked me the most about this video was that mention of him leaving money and his WEDDING RING at home on the day of the Kennedy Assassination was very miniscule. There was no further mention of the concern felt by his wife or his landlord, even though Oswald "never went anywhere without the ring". Given the circumstances and his past - trying to shoot Walker, his designated marksmanship, the way that he carried the bag of "curtain rods" - I would have hoped to hear more about the suspicion felt by onlookers about the situation. Perhaps what set me aback was that his landlord mentioned how a few hours after getting news about the assassination, "life went on", and it never raised any questions in her or Oswald's wife that he left early in the morning, left money and his ring, AND worked in the school book depository building, where Kennedy was said to have been shot from.
ReplyDeleteEpisode 9 was far more enjoyable to watch for me. This episode was far more theoretical, and included testimonials from people who did not feel comfortable speaking up while the investigation was going on. Not only were testimonials given, but the video quite literally convicted Lyndon Johnson of being the killer. I do not appreciate the abrupt directness of this, however, I did appreciate the break from planting Oswald in the middle of a conspiracy. I do not believe, personally, that it is possible for an individual to act alone given the circumstances of that day. Bullets were fired at an alarming rate, and pushed into the body from different directions. Also, the secret service - as mentioned in the video - kind of gave up their duties for the day. They dismounted the president's vehicle with precise timeliness, too poetic to not question.
The two slightly contrasting views of these videos allow viewers to mould their own opinions on the matter, providing two situations to consider.
In the first episode, the main analysis was that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent. Despite his peculiar behavior that was mentioned in the beginning of the film such as going to bed early and seeing his family on a day that is different than the usual for “curtains”; the video raises the topic that he was not responsible for the shootings of the president and the officer. It is arguable that the video emphasizes more on his innocence considering the people who were interviewed were family and close friends of Oswald’s; all of whom initially described his odd behaviour prior to the shooting then finally stated that he is incapable of the shooting due to his character. However, the physical evidence that were explained in this video is what impacted my perception the most. In relation to Oswald’s Ghost which is a film that focussed primarily on the idea that Lee H. Oswald was guilty of the crime, The Patsy spent majority of the film informing the viewer of physical evidence that Oswald’s Ghost failed to mention such as : the fact that Lee only had 90 seconds to get out of the building and talk to the cop, the fact that the package he held mentioned in both films was not big enough to be the rifle, the fact that his body was tampered with in the casket and the fact that the gunman who shot the officer was heading in the opposite direction as Lee. Did Oswald’s Ghost deliberately leave these important pieces of information out in order to hide the evidence that Lee is innocent and if so, what is their objective on hiding his innocence?This film also mentions that Lee H. Oswald had a relationship with a sinister figure named Guy Banister who was related to the FBI and who was his “mentor”. Additionally, this film explains his “dishonorable discharge” from the marine due to his intention of giving up his American citizenship for Russia which Lee claims was never one of his intentions. Considering all of this, this film is evidently suspicious of the idea that a secret organization is behind the assassination of JFK and that they misrepresented Lee Harvey Oswald’s character in order to make it believable that he is the gunman. In other words, Lee Harvey Oswald was framed. In comparison to Oswald’s Ghost which as I mentioned earlier, focusses on Oswald’s character and history which apparently proves that he is completely capable of being the gumnman, this film focusses on his history and physical evidence that he is not the gunman and is innocent.
ReplyDeleteContinued.
The second video was interesting as it rarely focussed on Lee Harvey Oswald’s cased; but rather the vice President Lyndon Johnson. In my opinion, I found this video more credible than Oswald’s Ghost as I personally don’t believe Lee Harvey Oswald was the killer of JKF. The fact that this video wasn’t aired while Oswald’s Ghost was actually made into a movie makes everything very questionable. Also, even before watching this video I had the suspicion that LBJ was involved in the assassination because he out of everyone actually has an objective and this video made it very clear. The main arguments in this film that I found to be of interest was the fact that Johnson was extremely close with the Governor of Texas and was the one who got him in Texas, Madelaine Brown’s statements, the fact that it was joyful in the Murchison’s home after the killing of JFK, and finally, Wallace’s fingerprint that was a match but took 18 months for the FBI to say it is not and then burry the fingerprint so it is no longer accessible. In relation to the previous episode watched, this episode raises the question as to if the other person who was walking the opposite way of Lee. H Oswald was in fact, Wallace. Considering these two episodes, I can make the conclusion that the FBI and marine are closely related to LBJ and that is how the entire plan was executed. However, I think that ‘The Guilty Men’ could have included a little more information about Lee Harvey Oswald in order to further support his innocence. In relation to Oswald’s Ghost, the fact that it was made into a movie further supports the idea that it is a government cover up.
ReplyDeleteComparing all three films,I find that the two episodes support each other while Oswald’s Ghost is on the opposite side of the spectrum. I find that there is certain evidence that is mentioned in the episodes and Oswald’s Ghost, however in Oswald’s Ghost, the information is a tad distorted.For example, Oswald’s Ghost mentions that his wife was left the wedding ring and a bit of cash which apparently proves that Oswald was the killer; while on the other hand, The Patsy says the same thing but then continues to state that his wife argues that Oswald is the killer and even demands to see if it is his body buried. I found the least amount of bias in The Guilty Men; an example being if it was a bias film, Madaleine Brown would not have had any say in the film as she is in love with LBJ and would not have talked against him, but the fact that she did makes it seem even more legit.
Upon finishing the first video I came to the conclusion that this video portrayed the innocent side of Oswald. This is because majority if not all of the interviews were with people that Oswald held dear to his heart such as his family and friends. These individuals described Oswald as a loving caring father figure. The video provided evidence that ensured Oswald’s innocence. In the video it talked about how Oswald had 90 seconds to go through flights of stairs and have a conversation with a Police Officer and race back up to the 6th floor to get the kill shot on President John F Kennedy. This bit of evidence really shined a new light on Oswald. Was he innocent? To me believing that he could of accomplished this was just naïve. On the contrary in Oswald’s Ghost the movie failed to identify this important detail. Another piece of information that forced me to change my view on Oswald’s guilt status was the package in the brown wrapping. Dissembled the rifle would have been 3 feet long, however his friends testified that it was about 2 foot long. If his friend were being truthful there would be no way Oswald smuggled the rifle in the packaging. This video portrayed Oswald as an individual that didn’t fit the description of someone who would commit these crimes because of the sophisticated nature of it.
ReplyDeleteIn the second video Vice President Lyndon Johnson was portrayed as someone who had many connections in political field. It was suggested in the video that his associates were behind assassination. The fact that this video was not aired leaves the question of what were they trying to hide. Another thing that made Johnson’s seem shady was the fact that his elections were rigged which suggested that he had very little morals and corruption ran through his blood. Additionally another thing that added to the shadiness of Johnson was the fact that his mistress, Madeleine Brown was even skeptical that Johnson was behind the assassination of JFK. The words he whispered to her being “Those Kennedys will never embarrass me again” proved that there was tension between LBJ and JFK that provided a motive. Comparing the two episodes one episode showed innocence of Oswald while the other spoke very little of the suspect and focused more on the vice president and his motive.
Both videos explored the same theme that the official government conclusion of Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone to assassinate President John F. Kennedy is not accurate. Additionally, both videos explored not only physical evidence but delved deeply into the personal lives of Oswald and of President Johnson before the assassination. Both episodes interview several people from several different facets of both men’s lives. The commonalities between the two episodes include the theory that government intelligence agencies were involved somehow in the assassination. The exact role of those organizations vary depending on which theory you may subscribe to.
ReplyDeleteThe episode titled,“The Patsy”, was a very well done defense for Oswald and gave a very convincing argument that even if Oswald did act alone he was representing elements of the federal government. They explore Oswald’s life and evolution of his ideologies up until his murder by Jack Ruby. The episode looks at the logistical impossibility of Oswald being the ‘lone nut’. The fact that Oswald would have needed to ditch his rifle, descend from the sixth floor down to the second floor in 90 seconds and still be able to deal with a police officer immediately in a calm and collected manner. The interesting thing I found about this was that I had never heard of this piece of evidence. Oswald’s coworker who drove him to work that day said that the parcel Oswald was carrying with him was approximately two feet long, even though when the rifle found at the scene when collapsed could only shrink down to three feet. I do believe that the eyewitness that gave that report would have been able to discern between two feet and three feet. I enjoyed this episode because it brought evidence forward that is not as popular as some other evidence including a second shooter or the ‘magic bullet theory’. They did a good job at putting the evidence out there that Oswald may have been innocent but I felt like they lacked the ‘nail in the coffin’ piece of evidence they needed to really persuade me.
The second video, “The Guilty Men”, was very similar in style to “The Patsy”, episode in that they focused on the personal life of one man, President Johnson. The episode attempts to prove that Johnson was a corrupt man willing to do anything for power before the JFK assassination. After illustrating LBJ’s ability and history to do the unthinkable they hope that will persuade people to think that Johnson could then be more likely to be a part of the November 22 assassination. Rather than using physical evidence it seemed like this episode was filled with what many may consider circumstantial evidence. Such as LBJ’s connections to many powerful and influential men in Texas, The phone call to the operating room and the accusations from Johnson’s mistress that he told her that, “Those Kennedy’s won’t embarrass him anymore, that’s not a threat that’s a promise”. All of these reports do put the thought in my head that President Johnson was involved however it did not convince me. The one piece of evidence that really stood out was the lone fingerprint of a known Johnson confidant. That one clue stood out even more when the documentary revealed that the FBI later said it did not match and buried the evidence. That fact is what the first episode was missing to really plant the idea that Oswald was not solely responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Both videos clearly depict the fact that there is no way that Oswald acted alone and or that he did it at all. The two films just solidified my opinion that Oswald was not guilty of the killing of JFK.
ReplyDeleteIn the video the patsy I found it interesting how they were using witnesses and people who were close to Oswald to help back up there statement of his innocence. This video reminded me of the reading that tried to show how Oswald must have been guilty coming from a psychological stand point.
The second video offers its viewers another theory of events surrounding the presidents killing. This view point is seldom talked about. I can understand why this video was removed just because of how much justifiable evidence there is to prove that Linden had a motive and a means to carry out such a terrible act. Another reason they removed it would be because they cannot have the American people finding out how Linden had assassinated the present and then controlled every aspect of the investigation through the CIA to cover up the crime. In other words Liden didnt want the American people to revolt against the government for his actions. Liden also would want his involvement know because they the American people would lose faith in the presidential system all together.
Clearly after watching both videos there is enogh evidence to prove Oswald was set up and that the government was behind every step.
In video number one we are presented with a lot of evidence, but this evidence is new to the public. Evidence that is shown in video one is stranger how it was not presented right after the assassination. Some of the evidence brought to light like how long it took him to get up to the sixth floor, and the way they used to the fingerprint to find Oswald. Another example is how the women across the street mention two men shooting the officer. This proves that Oswald did not work alone or also that maybe he didn’t do it at all. Video one is more one sider, its on Oswald’s side, and talks about is good side. The second video takes a different turn and makes us think lf this was an inside job or not. The secret service is really questioned for their actions on this day. Example one is when one of them is told to get off the presidents car, when usually they are supposed to be hanging on. Another example is how the car was taken back right away when they wanted to keep it for investigation
ReplyDeleteIn the first video it questions whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald actually did murder JFK, as opposed to Oswald’s Ghost, which gives the impression that Oswald did commit the assassination of the president. This video takes a more personal stance on Oswald; looking into his friends and family and portraying a different point of view than Oswald’s Ghost. The movie Oswald’s Ghost talked about the ‘brown package’ that Oswald took from his car and took into the Depository building. Yet it omits the Frasier testimony where he claims the package was only about 2 feet long and able to be held under Oswald’s his arm, and yet the rifle found on the sixth floor was 3 feet long. By omitting this information it more efficiently portrays that Oswald brought the murder weapon inside with him. Oswald’s Ghost doesn’t elaborate much on Oswald’s death, but what these documentary shows is that even on his death bed during surgery when he knew there was no chance of survival he never admitted to killing JFK. Even with the agents shouting at him, he never confessed to more than hitting a police officer. This documentary also gives a different angle to why Oswald went to Russia at all. One person believes that Oswald was a part of a training program for defectors in order to play a double agent, per say, for America based on the fact he had perfect Russian before going to the country. Many of these would never be portrayed in the movie Oswald’s Ghost because these ideas show Oswald more innocent than he is guilty.
ReplyDeleteThe second video was claiming that Vice President Lyndon Johnson was responsible for JFK’s assassination. Oswald’s Ghost didn’t even touch or mention this idea, and completely ignored the possibility of Johnson’s involvement. With this new take, that usually goes undiscussed, sheds some light on the character and motives of Lyndon Johnson. It was believed that Henry Marshal was investigating Johnson’s illegal funding sources, and was murdered on behalf of Johnson; however, it was covered up and immediately assumed as a suicide. Another aspect of the Johnson case was the millionaire Texas oil men such as Murcason or Clint who controlled Texas and in a sense Johnson. The governor of Texas was good friends with Johnson and convinced JFK to make a stop at Texas. It is believed by some that JFK was enticed to Texas in order of Johnson and the oil men of Texas to control the case. Through this they were able to control the officers, trial, and case of JFK. Oswald’s Ghost completely ignores any of these facts and only focuses on Oswald and him being the lone suspect. There are many plausible conspiracies that are rarely surfaced such as the Johnson theory.
The fact the first video allows Oswald's family/friends to make a personal case for his innocence gives the movie a relatively biased slant of the events that transpired. There is so many conflicting reports and evidence that it becomes nearly impossible to dissect it all with any degree of certainty. Although I felt there was a degree of bias towards Oswald's innocence I still feel it's important that all sides are heard in order to better understand what may or may have not happened that fateful day.
ReplyDeleteVideo 2: On the surface an accusation that a vice-president co-conspired to have Kennedy killed would seem ludicrous. However, the video makes some interesting assertions to Johnson's potential involvement. It wouldn't be too far fetched to assume or at least consider the thought that Johnson may have played a role in the assassination based on ulterior motives and pressure of his friends and allies (Murcason/Clint). Although each theory is compelling in its own right, I always come back to the fact that in the many decades that have past since Kennedy's assassination there has been little new evidence to bolster either of the many theories that still exist.
In the first video, they do a very good job of making the viewers see Lee Harvey Oswald as a family man. I found it interesting that they used Oswald’s family and friends to do so, however; it came across as very bias. Even though this video came off quite bias, I found some of the evidence difficult to believe. There were many opinions that seemed to contradict one another as well as evidence that didn’t quite seem to add up. In the end, I was still was questioning who actually had killed JFK.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the way the second video questioned who else could have killed Kennedy. I find it difficult to believe that there was a lone gunman in this situation. The bullet entry points don’t necessarily line up with Oswald’s alleged position; it is hard to believe that Oswald was the only one involved in the assassination of JFK. Therefore, I appreciated the fact that this film looked at the assassination from different angles. It isn’t far fetched, when looking at the evidence, to believe that Johnson had something to do with JFKs assassination.
In the first video it is very interesting seeing the neighbours and coworkers of lee harvey oswald. That is a side rarely seen. You always see the cops or the agents that worked they case and already had their opinions about Oswald. This video showed who the human Lee Harvey Oswald was instead of just this villain. His past was furthered flushed out later on in the video and it was interesting hearing him talk about his past. On a side note who's to say that Oswald wasn't brain washed by a Russian version of MK Ultra and he was activated in 1987 to kill an American president. I also found it interesting that the rifle Oswald used was out in the open so much without a bag or case or anything protecting/covering it! That palm print could've been one of the officers miss handling the evidence. It also seems like the Dallas police tried too hard to try and frame Oswald by blaming him for the murder of a cop too when there was no solid evidence behind it. Also, it is pretty suspicious that his grave was exhumed. Where and what did they do with Oswald's real head?
ReplyDeleteI had never known Lyndon B. Johnson was a corrupt politician, so I was quite surprised by the information in the second video. He kind of reminded me of kevin spacey's character in house of cards. After watching this video I completely buy into the thought that Johnson was part of the assignation of JFK. It is interesting that Johnson had a connection to Oswald. So, maybe Oswald did kill JFK but the mastermind behind the incident was Johnson. The story Johnson's mistress told was very incriminating; but at the same time can you really trust the words of a mistress? It is also crazy to think about how much Johnson and his group had to gain from JFK's murder. There is no way that is a coincidence.
Video 1 provides an alternate point of view of Oswald in comparison to the video we watched in class "Oswald's Ghost." The video is biased towards Oswald's innocence, but if watched along with Oswald's ghost it provides watchers with both sides of the story, allowing for a more informed decision to be made. In using people who knew Oswald personally in the documentary i found it allotted for biases to be easily formed by viewers. If the video would have used more accredited informants i believe the video could be taken slightly more seriously.
ReplyDeleteVideo 2 i found to be extremely informative and realistic in its correlations between President Johnson and the assignation of JFK. I found this video to be more factually solid. Prior to this video i didn't realize LBJ as a strong contender towards the assassination. It would be interesting to have a more up-to-date discussion of evidence, however as the event took place decades ago i fear that a definitive answer is seemingly out of the question.