4 Months Before He Shot JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald Lectured the Jesuits

[Robert Burrows]

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/4-months-before-he-shot-jfk-lee-harvey-oswald-lectured-the-jesuits

[Greg Doudna]

The author doesn't know much about Oswald and did not research this very well.

Says Oswald was "almost functionally illiterate"--pure nonsense. Oswald read a lot, wrote a lot, showed no difficulty in reading comprehension or writing sensibly and coherently and grammatically.

Says "Oswald, who could barely read..." -- pure nonsense. Oswald checked out many books from public libraries and read them, Marina said he was always reading. De Mohrenschildt wrote of Oswald reading Russian classical authors in Russian. Under other circumstances, Oswald would have been easily capable of completing a college degree or a master's degree if he chose. His dyxlexia and spelling was pretty bad, but supposedly JFK had the same disability and no one has ever accused JFK of being stupid or illiterate.   

The author says Oswald's talk "was obviously not a success" as if somehow the author knows that -- also coming from left field, unsupported from accounts of those who were there. Contrary to this author's description, my impression is Oswald's talk at the seminary at Spring Hill was well-received, and on the basis of Oswald's notes and writing which appear to have been in preparation for it, he said nothing outlandish or unreasonable, but was informative. His basic message was a sympathetic discussion of respective problems in both the Soviet and western systems and he thought the best path forward was to take the best of both, Western freedoms and economic prosperity, and universal medical care coverage and better race relations in the Soviet Union.

From all accounts, Oswald was respectful of his audience, a good guest, told of experiences and knowledge of the Soviet Union of interest to those in the audience. There were no arguments, just thoughtful discussion, the way ideally talks should go in that kind of setting.

[Steve Thomas]

41 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

The author doesn't know much about Oswald and did not research this very well.

Says Oswald was "almost functionally illiterate"--pure nonsense. Oswald read a lot, wrote a lot, showed no difficulty in reading comprehension or writing sensibly and coherently and grammatically.

Says "Oswald, who could barely read..." -- pure nonsense. Oswald checked out many books from public libraries and read them, Marina said he was always reading. De Mohrenschildt wrote of Oswald reading Russian classical authors in Russian. Under other circumstances, Oswald would have been easily capable of completing a college degree or a master's degree if he chose. His dyxlexia and spelling was pretty bad, but supposedly JFK had the same disability and no one has ever accused JFK of being stupid or illiterate.   

The author says Oswald's talk "was obviously not a success" as if somehow the author knows that -- also coming from left field, unsupported from accounts of those who were there. Contrary to this author's description, my impression is Oswald's talk at the seminary at Spring Hill was well-received, and on the basis of Oswald's notes and writing which appear to have been in preparation for it, he said nothing outlandish or unreasonable, but was informative. His basic message was a sympathetic discussion of respective problems in both the Soviet and western systems and he thought the best path forward was to take the best of both, Western freedoms and economic prosperity, and universal medical care coverage and better race relations in the Soviet Union.

From all accounts, Oswald was respectful of his audience, a good guest, told of experiences and knowledge of the Soviet Union of interest to those in the audience. There were no arguments, just thoughtful discussion, the way ideally talks should go in that kind of setting.

Greg,

It's possible that Oswald's visit to the Jesuits had less to do with the Jesuits, and more to with Oswald's efforts to infiltrate Alpha 66 in Fairhope and Mobile, AL.

See my posting on p. 3 of this Forum Thread:
Bolton Ford -- What REALLY happened there in 
By Jim Hargrove

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27593-bolton-ford-what-really-happened-there-in-1961/page/3/#comment-453775

Steve Thomas

Edited Sunday at 01:05 AM by Steve Thomas

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

Greg,

It's possible that Oswald's visit to the Jesuits had less to do with the Jesuits, and more to with Oswald's efforts to infiltrate Alpha 66 in Fairhope and Mobile, AL.

See my posting on p. 3 of this Forum Thread:
Bolton Ford -- What REALLY happened there in 
By Jim Hargrove

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27593-bolton-ford-what-really-happened-there-in-1961/page/3/#comment-453775

Steve Thomas

Steve I read your link but I’m having trouble seeing an Oswald/Alpha 66 connection in Mobile or Fairhope Alabama as plausible related to his Spring Hill lecture. You bring out (a) Jerry Buchanan lived there who claimed he was in a fistfight with Oswald in Miami; (b) Carlos Bringuier lived there in 1976 according to an FBI interview address; and (c) Alpha 66 had an office and was active in that city.

I do not see that as enough to conclude a connection to (d) Oswald’s acceptance of his cousin’s invitation to speak at Spring Hill where the (non-Alpha 66 related) cousin was a student.

Among other things it seems Oswald as a passenger in other people’s car on that trip and with Marina and his cousin with him and hosts around him all the time, would likely account for his time and logistics during his visit leaving little opportunity for clandestine contacts there or whatever. How it looks to me anyway. 

[Michael Griffith]

12 hours ago, Robert Burrows said:

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/4-months-before-he-shot-jfk-lee-harvey-oswald-lectured-the-jesuits

As Greg has correctly noted, Oswald was hardly illiterate. Not only did he read a great deal, but he was fluent in Russian. 

[Steve Thomas]

14 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

during his visit leaving little opportunity for clandestine contacts there m or an imposter

Greg,

Oswald may have had limited opportunities for contact, but was that his intent?

You have him interacting with Bringuer in New Orleans, possible sightings of him at a training camp at Lake Ponchatrain, the house on Harlandale, either him or an imposter trying to board a raiding party in Miami, a meeting with Veciana in September, sightings of him at an exile meeting and/or a picnic in late September or early in October.

Was his intent to establish some kind of contact with the Alpha 66 guys in Fairhope?

I don't know.

Steve Thomas

[Paul Cummings]

Who shot JFK?

[Jonathan Cohen]

47 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

a meeting with Veciana in September

Steve, please don't tell me you actually believe this happened?

[Greg Doudna]

Steve, yes Oswald was involved with some intentional associations with right-wingers in New Orleans, never in-person with leftists or communists as friends or in-person attendance of meetings, which belies the notion that he was a sincere communist acting on his own, with what can hardly be interpreted as other than intentional sabotage by Oswald of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, e.g. this 1986 Third Decade article of Melanson, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48731#relPageId=3. 

I am not disputing that kind of association in principle, also those Miami "Oswald" claims call for explanation (one individual known to have looked like Oswald who is also known to have been involved with those circles in gunrunning, though not known to have been in Miami, would be John Thomas Masen--is it possible the "Oswald" in Miami was a mistaken identification and not an impersonation?). 

My only point is I cannot see any point or anything substantial to an Alabama connection of Oswald in that connection, and all elements of Oswald's Alabama trip are satisfactorily explained in terms of the existing story. My default theory is that Oswald's Alabama speech might be as close or as good as it gets to the "real" Oswald's personal political views, as opposed to Oswald prevaricating for purposes of infiltration or surveillance of extremist groups which, by coincidence, were being targeted by the FBI and related alphabet agencies at the time. This would be in line with Simpich's conclusion that the "real" Oswald was not a communist, not a right-winger, but a pro-American liberal working for the U.S. 

I have recently begun to question whether Oswald was supportive of Castro in 1963 as commonly and so strongly assumed, 100% by LNers, and by a majority of WC critics too. It was possible to be a liberal politically and anti-Castro in 1963, as e.g. the group Oswald was sighted with on Sept 25, 1963 at Silvia Odio's front door, JURE led by Manual Ray, who had some support from RFK--Ray and JURE were left-wing and anti-Castro. Oswald's own writings have him as basically anti-authoritarian socialist which which would agree with opposition to Castro from the left. And Oswald was pro-Kennedy and the Kennedys were liberal (in domestic politics) and working to overthrow Castro. In that context it is not unimaginable that Oswald could be working wittingly in opposition to Castro on behalf of U.S. interests. 

And it has received little attention but the exemplar of LNism interpretation of Oswald--Patricia McMillan in the bestselling Marina and Lee--says Oswald had turned away from Castro and Castro's Cuba in Oct and Nov 1963, disenchanted says McMillan, never said a favorable word of or had any further interest in Castro in all of Oct and Nov 1963 according to McMillan. McMillan's source for that of course was Marina, but McMillan personally endorsed and presented it as true in her book. That's not what most people think, but that's what McMillan says was the fact in Oct and Nov 1963 for Oswald. 

How real is someone's overt persona of pro-Castroism in 1963 when the person has no known personal friend or acquaintance who is pro-Castro (apart from Marina his wife); when there is no known personal live attendance at a pro-Castro meeting; when the persons with whom one does associate or seek to associate in person are anti-Castro Cubans, never pro-Castro; when one's alleged overt pro-Castro activity (Oswald's one-man FPCC show in New Orleans against the expressed wishes and without approval of the national FPCC organization) looks for all the world like a COINTELPRO operation to discredit the FPCC...

The difficult task is to distinguish Oswald the prevaricator (in the service of possible surveillance or operative work) from Oswald's "real" views politically. But this is a larger topic and question.  

[Steve Thomas]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Steve, please don't tell me you actually believe this happened?

Jonathan,

No. You're right. I probably shouldn't have included that.

Steve Thomas

[Ron Bulman]

8 hours ago, Paul Cummings said:

Who shot JFK?

Not Oswald.

[Bill Simpich]

I agree with Greg Doudna that Oswald delivered a fine speech at Eugene Murret's Jesuit seminary.  I have always felt it was very telling about what was going on with Oswald.   I go back and forth about whether he offering his sincere thoughts about politics - he certainly was about his economic system.  I think he was hoping to get picked up by an intelligence agency, as a provocateur or a double agent.

Before we get to the speech, look at Oswald's notes.   I will reprint my favorite two sections below and in the following post.

His original notes are hard to read - happily,Jeremy Bojczuk has transcribed them.  Go to his site and read them, I will reprint my favorite parts here.  I think they are authentic and illustrate his true thinking.

Oswald thought General Walker and his pals in the army were not enough to pull off a coup.  What got him thinking about that?  Probably Walker's relations with the Cubans and the Minutemen.   He thought that the USMC might be the best path to organize a coup.   

I will offer here the first portion of Oswald's notes.   These notes are not the actual speech!!  The speech is quite different.  I will get to that.

Americans are apt to scoff at the idea, that a military coup in the US., as so often happens in Latin American countries, could ever replace our government. but that is an idea that has grounds for consideration. Which military organization has the potential of executing such action?

Is it the army? With its many conscripts, its unwieldy size, its scores of bases scattered across the world?

The case of Gen. Walker shows that the army, at least, is not fertile enough ground for a far right regime to go a very long way. For the same reasons of size and disposition, the Navy and Air Force is also to be more or less disregarded.

Which service, then, can qualify to launch a coup in the USA?

Small size, a permanent hard core of officers and a few bases are necessary.

Only one outfit fits that description and the U.S.M.C. is a right wing infiltrated organization of dire potential consequences to the freedoms of the U.S.

I agree with former President Truman when he said that “The Marine Corps should be abolished.”

 

 

 

 

 

[Bill Simpich]

Here is the second portion of Oswald's notes that I am reprinting from Jeremy Bojczuk.  I believe these notes indicate what Oswald actually thought.  Again, I believe these notes do not represent what Oswald actually said!   That will be in the following post.

Here it is - I correct his misspellings:

A symbol of the American Way, our liberal concession is the existence in our midst of a minority group whose influence and membership is very limited, and whose dangerous tendencies are sufficiently controlled by special government agencies.

The Communist Party U.S.A. bears little resemblance to their Russian counterparts, but by allowing them to operate and even supporting their misguided right to speak, we maintain a tremendous sign of our strength and liberalism.  Harassment of their Party newspaper, their leaders, and advocates is treachery to our basic principles of freedom of speech and press.

Their views, no matter how misguided, no matter how much the Russians take advantage of them, must be allowed to be aired. After all, the Communist Party USA has existed for 40 years, and they are still a pitiful group of radicals.

Nowadays, most of us read enough about certain right wing groups to know enough on how to recognize them and guard against their corrosive effects.  I would like to say a word about them, although there are possibly few other American born persons in the U.S. who know as many personal reasons to know and therefore hate and mistrust communism.

I would never become a pseudo–professional anti–communist such as Herbert Philbrick or McCarthy.  I would never jump on any of the many right wing bandwagons because our two countries have too much to offer too each other to be tearing at each others thoughts in an endless Cold War.

Both are countries that have major shortcomings and advantages. But only in ours is the voice of dissent, and all the abilities of that voice of dissent have allowed opportunity of expression.  In returning to the U.S., I hope I have awakened a few who were sleeping, and others who were indifferent.

I have done nothing but a lot of criticizing of our system. I hope you will take it in the spirit it was given. in going to Russia, I have followed the old principle “Thou shall seek the truth and the truth shall make you free."

In returning to the U.S., I have done nothing more or less than select the lesser of two evils.

Edited yesterday at 02:16 AM by Bill Simpich

[Robert Morrow]

13 minutes ago, Bill Simpich said:

Here is the second portion of Oswald's notes that I am reprinting from Jeremy Bojczuk.  I believe these notes indicate what Oswald actually thought.  Again, I believe these notes do not represent what Oswald actually said!   That will be in the following post.

Here it is - I correct his misspellings:

A symbol of the American Way, our liberal concession is the existence in our midst of a minority group whose influence and membership is very limited, and whose dangerous tendencies are sufficiently controlled by special government agencies.

The Communist Party U.S.A. bears little resemblance to their Russian counterparts, but by allowing them to operate and even supporting their misguided right to speak, we maintain a tremendous sign of our strength and liberalism.  Harassment of their Party newspaper, their leaders, and advocates is treachery to our basic principles of freedom of speech and press.

Their views, no matter how misguided, no matter how much the Russians take advantage of them, must be allowed to be aired. After all, the Communist Party USA has existed for 40 years, and they are still a pitiful group of radicals.

Nowadays, most of us read enough about certain right wing groups to know enough on how to recognize them and guard against their corrosive effects.  I would like to say a word about them, although there are possibly few other American born persons in the U.S. who know as many personal reasons to know and therefore hate and mistrust communism.

I would never become a pseudo–professional anti–communist such as Herbert Philbrick or McCarthy.  I would never jump on any of the many right wing bandwagons because our two countries have too much to offer too each other to be tearing at each others thoughts in an endless Cold War.

Both are countries that have major shortcomings and advantages. But only in ours is the voice of dissent, and all the abilities of that voice of dissent have allowed opportunity of expression.  In returning to the U.S., I hope I have awakened a few who were sleeping, and others who were indifferent.

I have done nothing but a lot of criticizing of our system. I hope you will take it in the spirit it was given. in going to Russia, I have followed the old principle “Thou shall seek the truth and the truth shall make you free."

In returning to the U.S., I have done nothing more or less than select the lesser of two evils.

Oh, I think teen Oswald was a huge fan of Herbert Philbrick. Maybe he moderated his views later. Oswald was absolutely obsessed with the TV show "I Led Three Lives" which was all about a character based on Herbert Philbrick infiltrating communist rings for the FBI. Every episode had a commie ring broken up.

CIA patsy Lee Harvey Oswald’s favorite show as a kid was about counter-intelligence, “I Led Three Lives: Citizen, ‘Communist,’ and Counterspy” – the story of FBI informer Herbert Philbrick

http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/assassination-studies-1/i-led-three-lives.html

QUOTE

Herbert Philbrick, a Boston advertising executive who infiltrated the U.S. Communist Party on behalf of the FBI in the 1940s, wrote a bestselling book on the life of a double agent, "I Led Three Lives: Citizen, 'Communist', Counterspy" (1952).

"I Led Three Lives" was an American television show which was syndicated by Ziv Television Programs from 1953 to 1956 and lasted 117 episodes. The part of Philbrick was played by Richard Carlson.

According to Judyth Vary Baker, Lee Harvey Oswald's girlfriend in New Orleans, "I Led Three Lives" was Oswald's favorite TV show.

This particular film was produced before the Bay of Pigs fiasco which Oswald was believed by some to have participated in with David Ferrie, his instructor in the Louisiana Civil Air Patrol.

Conspiracy theorists believe that Oswald was the "lone nut assassin" who killed JFK.

To maintain this farce requires ignoring his family's long involvement with organized crime in New Orleans, his personal involvement with New Orleans-based anti-communists, and his strange status as a US Marine who "defected" to the Soviet Union and was permitted back in the US with the financial support of the US State Department. In the midst of all this, Oswald posed dramatically, though unconvincingly, as a Castro sympathizer.

UNQUOTE

Robert Oswald said that his brother Lee Harvey Oswald’s favorite TV show was I Led Three Lives about an FBI informant Herbert Philbrick who pretended to be a Communist. I wonder if this is what inspired completely innocent CIA Oswald to go into counterintelligence for the U.S. government?

A key page from Robert Oswald’s book – https://twitter.com/CONELRAD6401240/status/1259856311585583109/photo/1

QUOTE

          The center of Lee’s fantasy world shifted from radio to television when Mother bought a television set in 1948. When it was new, all of us spent far too much time watching variety shows, dramas and old movies. Lee, particularly, was fascinated. One of his favorite programs was I Led Three Lives, the story of Herbert Philbrick, the FBI informant who posed as a Communist spy. In the early 1950’s, Lee watched that show every week without fail. When I left home to join the Marines, he was still watching the reruns.

UNQUOTE

[Robert Oswald, Lee: Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald by His Brother, p. 47]

I Led Three Lives starring with Richard Carlson, ran on TV from 1953 to 1956.

Note: Oswald was born on Oct. 18, 1939: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald

The TV drama I Led Three Lives ran from Oct. 1, 1953 to Jan. 1, 1956. Oswald would have been age 13-16 during this time period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Led_3_Lives

There was also a radio version of I Led Three Lives that I think ran before the TV show did.

Robert Oswald joined the Marines in 1952 and I am sure Lee Harvey Oswald was ALREADY A FAN of Herbert Philbrick and I Led Three Lives by listening to the RADIO SHOW version which preceded the TV SHOW version of I Led Three Lives.

Donald Willis comment on July 5, 2021:

QUOTE

However, Wikipedia notes that the "companion" show "I Was a Communist for the FBI" began April 23, 1952 and was based on the 1951 movie of the same title.  Perhaps the Oswalds confused the two shows and the movie.  At any rate, it's just possible that reruns of this show began before July.  Not likely, but it's not that cut-and-dry....

UNQUOTE

There was a movie released in 1951 that was titled I Was a Communist for the FBI – It was very similar to Herbert Philbrick’s I Led Three Lives. The radio show version of I was a Communist for the FBI encompassed 78 episodes that were on the air from April 23, 1952 to October 14, 1953

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Was_a_Communist_for_the_FBI

QUOTE

 Was a Communist for the FBI is a 1951 American film noir crime film directed by Gordon Douglas and starring Frank Lovejoy.^[3] The film was produced by Bryan Foy who was head of Warners B picture unit until 1942.

The film was based on a series of stories written by Matt Cvetic that appeared in The Saturday Evening Post.^[4] The stories were later turned into a best-selling book, and a radio show starring Dana Andrews that ran for 78 episodes from April 23, 1952, until October 14, 1953.^[5]

The story follows Cvetic, who infiltrated a local Communist Party cell for nine years and reported back to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on their activities.

The film and radio show are, in part, artifacts of the McCarthy era, as well as a time capsule of American society during the Second Red Scare. The purpose of both is partly to warn people about the threat of Communist subversion of American society. The tone of the show is ultra-patriotic, with Communists portrayed as racist, vindictive, and tools of a totalitarian foreign power, the Soviet Union.

UNQUOTE

I Led Three Lives:

https://www.radiotimes.com/programme/b-vzfu7u/i-led-3-lives/

I Led 3 Lives

·         1953

·         Drama

Summary

Herbert Philbrick was a young professional and pacifist in 1939 Boston. He joined an anti-war group and quickly found himself caught up in the secret world of underground communist activity. He agreed to spy on the Communists for the FBI, and spent the next 9 years of his life as a Communist, FBI spy, and Communist counter-spy, since they had asked him to follow other comrades to test their loyalty. Hence the 3 lives; and his family, co-workers, and church never knew. This TV show is based on the TRUE story of how Philbrick (played ably by Richard Carlson) could never relax, but had to sneak to secret cell meetings and meet FBI agents in clandestine places to make info drops, never knowing when he might be found out, and if he would live to see the next rendezvous.

 

Tom Calarco email to Robert Morrow on 8-4-2022 – regarding Herbert Philbrick 

QUOTE

I did a profile on Herb Philbrick.  Nicest guy you'd ever want to meet.  He was in semi-retirement working for a weekly in southern NH, 34 years ago.

UNQUOTE

 

Herbert Philbrick – in December, 1963 article was indicting Lee Harvey Oswald for the JFK assassination! Herbert Philbrick was the man that Lee Harvey Oswald wanted to be!

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP65B00383R000200240072-7.pdf

Rep. Loius C. Wyman of NH spoke about:

“the sickness that tainted Lee Harvey Oswald’s mind”

“Our people should never forget that Oswald was an admitted Marxist.”

Herbert Philbrick in turn wrote about:

 

 

 

 

Teenage Oswald to William Wulff, the head of the New Orleans Astronomy Club: “I like to infiltrate.”

http://www.joanmellen.com/oswald.html

Joan Mellen

QUOTE

Among the most telling details about Oswald emerged in the testimony of William Wulff, who had been head of the Astronomy Club of New Orleans. One day Oswald showed up, wanting to be a member, although it was clear he had no interest in astronomy. Wulff asked him why he wanted to join the Astronomy Club.

“I like to infiltrate,” Oswald the teenager said, even then a person who preferred the company of others to being alone. At the same time, he cultivated invisibility, as if he were transparent. Infiltrating, he could follow the path laid out by that favorite of his fictional characters, FBI informant Herbert Philbrick, hero of “I Led Three Lives.” A caveat: it was Oswald’s brother Robert alone who gave out that Lee watched obsessively “I Led Three Lives,” while, as John Armstrong points in his book, “Harvey & Lee,” Robert is less than credible.

In his book “Lee,” Robert Oswald wrote that when he left home to join the Marines, Lee was still watching the reruns of “I Led Three Lives.” In fact, Robert joined the Marines on July 15, 1952, and the re-runs were not aired until after the series ended, in mid-1956. Oswald may have watched “I Led Three Lives,” but it wasn’t as his brother said. The program was first aired in September 1953.

UNQUOTE

Robert Morrow: I believe there was a radio program of I Led Three Lives that ran before the TV program did. Not sure on this.

I Led Three Lives was a radio program before it was a TV program

Web link: http://www.radiospirits.com/detailsv2.asp?mbprodid=59085&sid=MTAwOTM1OTY6&Svr=.62&l=1&source=&scode=P03CY100

QUOTE

"This is the fantastically true story of Herbert A. Philbrick, who for nine frightening years lived three lives...average citizen, high-level member of the Communist Party, and counterspy for the Federal Bureau of Investigation." Based on the best-selling book, I Led 3 Lives kept TV viewers in nail-biting suspense for three seasons in syndication. It told the true story of Herbert Philbrick, a Boston ad executive who for nine years infiltrated the Communist Party at the request of the FBI. In 1949, the Justice Department called on Philbrick as a witness in the Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders, breaking his cover and effectively ending his usefulness as an FBI operative. Afterwards he documented his experiences in a book, I Led Three Lives: Citizen, 'Communist', Counterspy. This series, inspired by Philbrick's exploits, is a reminder of those heady days of Cold War paranoia, when a Communist spy could be waiting around every corner.SECRET CALL: The premiere episode, in which Philbrick receives a coded phone message about an urgent meeting of Communist Party members. He must relay this information to his superiors at the FBI without making his "comrades" suspicious. DOPE PHOTOGRAPHIC: A Communist narcotics ring is trading illegal drugs for American defense secrets.CAMPUS STORY: Philbrick discovers that the Communists are recruiting future party members at his former alma mater. Guest-starring scream queen Yvette Vickers.THE SPY: The Communists believe that one of their members is a spy for the U.S. government...but it isn't Philbrick! Instead, Philbrick is ordered to kill this supposed spy, who might actually be his ally. Note: Due to the age and rarity of these shows, some picture anomalies exist.

UNQUOTE

Lee Harvey Oswald’s brother Robert Oswald and half brother John Pic attended a deep Southern Christian military academy in Port Gibson, MS in 1945 and 1946. This type of environment is Christian, patriotic, pro-military and not known for producing “Marxists,” “communists,” or “pro Castro sympathizers.”

Chamberlain-Hunt Academy: Chamberlain-Hunt Academy - Wikipedia It’s motto was “Knowledge and Wisdom in Submission to God” – a very un-communist point of view. It was a regional boarding school.

Lee Harvey Oswald’s favorite movie star was John Wayne and his favorite movie was the Sands of Iwo Jima!

My source for this if JFK researcher David Lifton who told me this in 2019. Lifton got this from one of Oswald’s childhood friends who he had interviewed. The macho movie star John Wayne was a hardcore right winger and anti-communist as early as the 1940’s.

 

 

[Bill Simpich]

Robert Fitzpatrick, a student, created a summary of Oswald's speech after the assassination.  He interviewed several other individuals who heard the speech before he created this summary. 

Note how different their recollections - which address Oswald's economic observations based on his time in the USSR - are from his notes, which are edgy political observations based on his time in the USA.

You can also read the FBI interviews with another student - Oswald's cousin Eugene Murrett - or philosophy professor Malcolm Mullen and logic professor John Moore - all of them said Oswald's remarks focused on his time and observations in the USSR.

It is not impossible that the comments about General Walker, the role of the military in a possible US coup, and the best way to deal with the Communist Party USA simply didn't make it into the summary - but it doesn't seem likely after reading the above interviews, and Fitzpatrick's summary:

He worked in a factory in Minsk. When he applied for permission to live in the Soviet Union, the Russian authorities had assigned him to a fairly well advanced area, the Minsk area. He said that this was a common practice: showing foreigners those places of which Russians can be proudest.

The factory life impressed him with the care it provided for the workers. Dances, social gatherings, sports were all benefits for the factory workers. Mr. Oswald belonged to a factory–sponsored hunting club. He and a group of workers would go into the farm regions around Minsk for huntings trips. They would spend the night in the outlying villages, and thus he came to know Russian peasant life too. In general, the peasants were very poor, often close to starvation. When the hunting party was returning to Minsk, it would often leave what it had shot with the village people because of their lack of food. He spoke of having even left the food he had brought with him from town. In connection with the hunting party, he mentioned that they had only shotguns, for pistols and rifles are prohibited by Russian law.

Some details of Russian life: in each hut there was a radio speaker, even in huts where there was no running water or electricity. The speaker was attached to a cord that ran back to a common receiver. Thus, the inhabitants of the hut could never change stations or turn off the radio. They had to listen to everything that came through it, day or night. In connection with radios, he said that there was a very large radio–jamming tower that was larger than anything else in Minsk.

More about the factories: factory meetings were held which all had to attend. Everyone attended willingly and in a good frame of mind. Things came up for discussion and voting, but no one ever voted no. The meetings were, in a sense, formalities. If anyone did not attend, he would lose his job.

Mr. Oswald said that he had met his wife at a factory social.

The workers, he said, were not against him because he was an American. When the U–2 incident was announced over the factory radio system, the workers were very angry with the United States, but not with him, even though he was an American.3

He made the point that he disliked capitalism because its foundation was the exploitation of the poor. He implied, but did not state directly, that he was disappointed in Russia because the full principles of Marxism were not lived up to and the gap between Marxist theory and the Russian practice disillusioned him with Russian communism. He said, ‘ Capitalism doesn’t work, communism doesn’t work. In the middle is socialism, and that doesn’t work either.’

After his talk a question and answer period followed. Some questions and his answers:

Q. :

How did you come to be interested in Marxism? To go to Russia?

A. :

He had studied Marxism, became convinced of it and wanted to see if it had worked for the Russian people.

Q. :

What does atheism do to morality? How can you have morality without God?

A. :

No matter whether people believe in God or not, they will do what they want to. The Russian people don’t need God for morality; they are naturally very moral, honest, faithful in marriage.

Q. :

What is the sexual morality in comparison with the United States?

A. :

It is better in Russia than in the United States. Its foundation there is the good of the state.

Q. :

What impressed you most about Russia? What did you like most?

A. :

The care that the state provides for everyone. If a man gets sick, no matter what his status is, how poor he is, the state will take care of him.

Q. :

What impresses you most about the United States?

A. :

The material prosperity. In Russia it is very hard to buy even a suit or a pair of shoes, and even when you can get them, they are very expensive.

Q. :

What do the Russian people think of Khrushchev? Do they like him better than Stalin?

A. :

They like Khrushchev much better. He is a working man, a peasant. An example of the kind of things he does: Once at a party broadcast over the radio, he had had a little too much to drink and he began to swear over the radio. That’s the kind of thing he does.

Q. :

What about religion among the young people in Russia?

A. :

Religion is dead among the youth of Russia.

Q. :

Why did you return to the United States? (The question was not asked in exactly this way, but this is its content.)

A. :

When he saw that Russia was lacking, he wanted to come back to the United States, which is so much better off materially. (He still held the ideals of the Soviets, was still a Marxist, but did not like the widespread lack of material goods that the Russians had to endure.)

More points that were contained in the main part of the talk:

He lived in Russia from 1959 to 1962. He only implied that the practice in Russia differed from the theory, never stated it directly. The policy of Russia was important:

1. After death of Stalin, a peace reaction.
2. Then an anti–Stalin reaction.
3. A peace movement, leading up to the Paris conference.
4. The U–2 incident and its aftermath.

At the factory he had trouble at first meeting the men. They did not accept him at first. He joined a hunting club. He belonged to two or three discussion groups. He praised the Soviets for rebuilding so much and for concentrating on heavy industry. He said at one point that if the Negroes in the United States knew that it was so good in Russia, they’d want to go there.

Another question:

  Q. :

Why don’t the Russians see that they are being indoctrinated and that they are being denied the truth by these jamming stations?

A. :

They are convinced that such contact would harm them and would be dangerous. They are convinced that the state is doing them a favor by denying them access to Western radio broadcasts.