They taught me how to kill, and I liked it.

[Charles Collins]

On October 19, 1963 LHO reportedly watched two movies about assassinations. Here is a snip from “Marina and Lee” by Priscilla McMillan:

Every now and then after that she felt him sit up straight and strain toward the television set, greatly excited. She had very little idea what he was watching.
 Lee saw two movies that night, both of them saturated in violence. One was Suddenly (1954), starring Frank Sinatra, which is about a plot to kill the president of the United States. In the film Sinatra, a mentally unbalanced ex-serviceman who has been hired to do the job, drives into a small Western town where the president is due to arrive by train, debark, and get into a car that will drive him into the High Sierras for some mountain fishing. Sinatra finds a house overlooking the railroad station and seizes it, subduing its occupants. He leans out of a window and gets the railroad tracks into the crosshairs of his rifle sight. He waits and waits; finally, the train comes into view. But it chugs through town without stopping, and in the end Sinatra is killed.
 Marina dozed through the first movie, and the one that followed—We Were Strangers (1949). This, too, was about assassination. Based on the actual overthrow of the Machado dictatorship in Cuba in 1933, the movie stars John Garfield as an American who has come to help the cause of revolution. He and a tiny band of cohorts plot to blow up the whole cabinet, including the president, at a single stroke. The plot fails and Garfield dies, but the people rise up in small groups all over Cuba and overthrow the dictatorship.


The movie “Suddenly” was broadcast recently and I was able to record it. Yesterday I watched it and was impressed with the acting of Frank Sinatra. The title of this thread is a line (paraphrased) from that movie. If I remember correctly, there is a YouTube video available for anyone who might want to watch it.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

On October 19, 1963 LHO reportedly watched two movies about assassinations. Here is a snip from “Marina and Lee” by Priscilla McMillan:

Every now and then after that she felt him sit up straight and strain toward the television set, greatly excited. She had very little idea what he was watching.
 Lee saw two movies that night, both of them saturated in violence. One was Suddenly (1954), starring Frank Sinatra, which is about a plot to kill the president of the United States. In the film Sinatra, a mentally unbalanced ex-serviceman who has been hired to do the job, drives into a small Western town where the president is due to arrive by train, debark, and get into a car that will drive him into the High Sierras for some mountain fishing. Sinatra finds a house overlooking the railroad station and seizes it, subduing its occupants. He leans out of a window and gets the railroad tracks into the crosshairs of his rifle sight. He waits and waits; finally, the train comes into view. But it chugs through town without stopping, and in the end Sinatra is killed.
 Marina dozed through the first movie, and the one that followed—We Were Strangers (1949). This, too, was about assassination. Based on the actual overthrow of the Machado dictatorship in Cuba in 1933, the movie stars John Garfield as an American who has come to help the cause of revolution. He and a tiny band of cohorts plot to blow up the whole cabinet, including the president, at a single stroke. The plot fails and Garfield dies, but the people rise up in small groups all over Cuba and overthrow the dictatorship.


The movie “Suddenly” was broadcast recently and I was able to record it. Yesterday I watched it and was impressed with the acting of Frank Sinatra. The title of this thread is a line (paraphrased) from that movie. If I remember correctly, there is a YouTube video available for anyone who might want to watch it.

The, or "a", problem with trying to psychoanalyze Oswald - "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?" - is that the one in the Soviet Union was fundamentally different than the one who lived in the US. The violence, the anger, the alienation simply wasn't there in the USSR where he had friends, socialized, showed little violence. Priscilla McMillan put it this way: "The anger and violence that were to characterize Oswald’s behavior after his return to the United States were barely visible during his time in Minsk."

So what happened? Why the change?

[Charles Collins]

The, or "a", problem with trying to psychoanalyze Oswald - "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?" - is that the one in the Soviet Union was fundamentally different than the one who lived in the US. The violence, the anger, the alienation simply wasn't there in the USSR where he had friends, socialized, showed little violence. Priscilla McMillan put it this way: "The anger and violence that were to characterize Oswald’s behavior after his return to the United States were barely visible during his time in Minsk."

So what happened? Why the change?

It is difficult for me to say what happened. I certainly am no expert; but the article linked below seems interesting to me.

https://psychreel.com/jekyll-and-hyde-personality/

[Richard Smith]

The, or "a", problem with trying to psychoanalyze Oswald - "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?" - is that the one in the Soviet Union was fundamentally different than the one who lived in the US. The violence, the anger, the alienation simply wasn't there in the USSR where he had friends, socialized, showed little violence. Priscilla McMillan put it this way: "The anger and violence that were to characterize Oswald’s behavior after his return to the United States were barely visible during his time in Minsk."

So what happened? Why the change?

Oswald entertained a delusional fantasy that he could become someone of importance in the Soviet Union.  He likely blamed American society for his invisible presence.   He held out hope that things would be different in the USSR.  When that didn't work out, he became embittered and disillusioned. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Oswald entertained a delusional fantasy that he could become someone of importance in the Soviet Union.  He likely blamed American society for his invisible presence.   He held out hope that things would be different in the USSR.  When that didn't work out, he became embittered and disillusioned.

Isn't it just amazing how "Richard Smith" can tell us exactly what Oswald was thinking sixty + years ago?

[Richard Smith]

Isn't it just amazing how "Richard Smith" can tell us exactly what Oswald was thinking sixty + years ago?

Isn't it amazing that responses to questions that call for a certain amount of conjecture because only Oswald himself could know the answer with certainty are criticized by contrarians for being addressed with reasoned inference.  The contrarian makes no effort to rebut the response or contribute to the discussion, however.  Meanwhile these same contrarian kooks entertain every baseless conspiracy narrative to explain away the mountain of evidence against Oswald.  It's amusing.  Like children seeking the attention of their parents. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Isn't it amazing that responses to questions that call for a certain amount of conjecture because only Oswald himself could know the answer with certainty are criticized by contrarians for being addressed with reasoned inference.  The contrarian makes no effort to rebut the response or contribute to the discussion, however.  Meanwhile these same contrarian kooks entertain every baseless conspiracy narrative to explain away the mountain of evidence against Oswald.  It's amusing.  Like children seeking the attention of their parents.

The contrarian makes no effort to rebut the response or contribute to the discussion, however. 

There is nothing to rebut. Your opinion isn't evidence and as such completely worthless, so stop presenting it as "fact".

Meanwhile these same contrarian kooks entertain every baseless conspiracy narrative to explain away the mountain of evidence against Oswald.

Wrong again. I have in fact dismissed most of the conspiracy narratives as they are the same as your LN theory; scant on physical evidence and loaded with speculation and jumping to conclusions not supported by the facts.


Simple question for you; when you tell us what Oswald was thinking sixty + years ago, do you do so based on factual evidence or are your merely making stuff up?

[John Iacoletti]

Since when are any of “Richard’s” claims not based on conjecture?