The blond Oswald in Mexico

[Chris Newton]

On 3/27/2017 at 0:31 PM, Paul Trejo said:

I maintain that the so-called "Blonde Oswald" remarks of Silvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue must be grasped within the context of sadistic beatings that they could have (and sometimes did) receive at the hands of the Mexican Police.

Paul,

Sylvia Duran was probably tortured and badly treated by the Mexican Intelligence Service  not by the (slur I noticed before you deleted) Mexican Police.

Nonetheless, I think it would be educational to listen to the guy whose report you love to cite:

 

[Paul Trejo]

15 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Paul,

Here's some of Azcue's HSCA testimony:

AZCUE.  [ ... ] The man who went to the consulate was a man over 30 years of age and very thin, very thin faced. And the individual I saw in the movie [footage of Ruby shooting Oswald] was a young man, considerably younger, and a fuller face. 

CORNWELL. What color hair did the individual have to the best of your memory who visited the consulate?

AZCUE. He was blond, dark blond. 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/Hscaascu.htm

Question:  Do you believe that Duran and Azcue dealt with the same person in the Cuban Consulate?  If so, isn't it logical to assume, given Azcue's testimony, above, that when Duran said the person she'd dealt with was "blond," that she meant he had blond hair?

Also, Duran is on record as saying the the guy she'd dealt with in the Consulate was "short, about the same height as her."  We know that Duran was only 5 ' 3.5" and that Oswald was 5' 9.5", a full six inches taller than Duran.  If Duran had met with Oswald in the Cuban Consulate, do you really think she would have said 5' 9.5" Oswald was "about the same height as her"?

How about if she'd dealt with someone who was only 2.5 inches taller than her; someone like 5' 6" Nikolai Leonov?

--  Tommy

 

Tommy,

First, let's notice that Azcue qualified his description of Oswald as "blonde;" he added "dark blonde."  This was a local Spanish way of saying "light brown hair," but probably most North Americans would not know that.  Evidently you don't know that.

Secondly, in answer to your question:  it is absolutely certain that Duran and Azcue dealt with the same person in the Cuban Consulate.

Again -- I repeat myself because you seem to let it pass over your head -- both Duran and Azcue used the word "blonde" in a way that North Americans don't use the word "blond."   It has a different meaning in a different cultural context.

Also -- trying to pin Duran down to this or that sentence is fruitless, because she changed her story slightly here and there because of the terror that she suffered under torture from the Mexican Police.  You seem to remain insensitive to this fact as well.

Finally, Tommy, you seem to be married to the idea that Sylvia Duran was describing KGB agent Nikolai Leonov, who was, according to your CT (as far as I can make out, since you're being very mysterious about it) IMPERSONATING Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City -- FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON.

You seem to  believe that Leonov was impersonating Oswald -- but you don't explain why Leonov woultd want to do so.  It's very mysterious, Tommy, what it is that you're driving at these many weeks on this Forum.  Won't you just end the guessing game and let us know what you're aiming at?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited May 8, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Paul Trejo]

14 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

Paul,

Sylvia Duran was probably tortured and badly treated by the Mexican Intelligence Service  not by the (slur I noticed before you deleted) Mexican Police.

Nonetheless, I think it would be educational to listen to the guy whose report you love to cite:

<snip>

Chris,

I'm glad you posted the 1986 BBC testimony of Edwin Lopez for us.   It proves my point better than it proves your point.

Probably you're stuck on his opening words -- "I conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald was not at the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City in September, 1963."

But that is because you are ignoring the rest of his 10 minute testimony.  Here are the points from Edwin Lopez that you're possibly choosing to ignore:

1.  We were able to see only the data that the CIA allowed us to see.

2.  The CIA allowed us to see no photographs of Oswald at the Cuban Embassy.

3.  Even though, there were three cameras operating around the Cuban Embassy, "around the clock."

4.  So, we had no choice but to conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald was never at the Cuban Embassy.

5.  This, however, contradicts other evidence that we have.  So there is no closure.

6.  The Lopez Report is still classified (1986)

7.  I myself am still under a secrecy oath.

8.  ZR_Rifle is now public information (1986) and it may give additional clues about how Oswald became a Patsy.

9.  The official CIA did not set up Oswald -- I think "maverick" elements of the CIA set up Oswald.

10.  I say that Oswald himself was certainly inside Mexico City in September, 1963.  (See video at 07:45 minutes)

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited May 8, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Chris Newton]

22 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

1.  We were able to see only the data that the CIA allowed us to see.

This is an unnecessary sentence.  How would Lopez have seen CIA data that the CIA didn't allow him to see?

2.  The CIA allowed us to see no photographs of Oswald at the Cuban Embassy.

Your "Spin". Not exactly what was stated.

3.  Even though, there were three cameras operating around the Cuban Embassy, "around the clock."

Embassies, plural

4.  So, we had no choice but to conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald was ever at the Cuban Embassy.

Correct

5.  This, however, contradicts other evidence that we have.  So there is no closure.

This is your "spin".

6.  The Lopez Report is still classified (1986)

Correct

7.  I myself am still under a secrecy oath.

Correct

8.  ZR_Rifle is now public information (1986) and it may give additional clues about how Oswald became a Patsy.

Correct. The ZR/RIFLE files described how the CIA could cover up an assassination.

9.  The official CIA did not set up Oswald -- "maverick" elements of the CIA set up Oswald.

Correct

10.  I do think that Oswald himself was certainly inside Mexico City in September, 1963.  (See video at 07:45 minutes)

Correct. I hope you understand the concept and pattern of doubling that Mr. Lopez is making an opinion about here.

 

My only point was that YOU could educate yourself a small amount by watching the video. I see a little "proof" of that but I'm sure you'll do your best to convince me I'm wrong.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Chris Newton

[Thomas Graves]

5 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Tommy,

First, let's notice that Azcue qualified his description of Oswald as "blonde;" he added "dark blonde."  This was a local Spanish way of saying "light brown hair," but probably most North Americans would not know that.  Evidently you don't know that.

Secondly, in answer to your question:  it is absolutely certain that Duran and Azcue dealt with the same person in the Cuban Consulate.

Again -- I repeat myself because you seem to let it pass over your head -- both Duran and Azcue used the word "blonde" in a way that North Americans don't use the word "blond."   It has a different meaning in a different cultural context.

Also -- trying to pin Duran down to this or that sentence is fruitless, because she changed her story slightly here and there because of the terror that she suffered under torture from the Mexican Police.  You seem to remain insensitive to this fact as well.

Finally, Tommy, you seem to be married to the idea that Sylvia Duran was describing KGB agent Nikolai Leonov, who was, according to your CT (as far as I can make out, since you're being very mysterious about it) IMPERSONATING Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City -- FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON.

You seem to  believe that Leonov was impersonating Oswald -- but you don't explain why Leonov woultd want to do so.  It's very mysterious, Tommy, what it is that you're driving at these many weeks on this Forum.  Won't you just end the guessing game and let us know what you're aiming at?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Dear Paul,

By admitting that Azcue meant "light brown hair" when he said the "dark blond" part of the three words "BLOND, DARK BLOND," you're saying that Azcue's not talking about the guy's overall "complexion," but is describing the guy's hair color as being somewhere between "blond" and "light brown," whether you realize it or not.  

The fact that even though Azcue, after 15 years, couldn't remember the guy's hair color exactly but *did* still manage to get the word "blond" in there while describing it is telling, IMHO.

--  Tommy

Edited May 9, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Tommy,

First, let's notice that Azcue qualified his description of Oswald as "blonde;" he added "dark blonde."  This was a local Spanish way of saying "light brown hair," but probably most North Americans would not know that.  Evidently you don't know that.

Secondly, in answer to your question:  it is absolutely certain that Duran and Azcue dealt with the same person in the Cuban Consulate.

Again -- I repeat myself because you seem to let it pass over your head -- both Duran and Azcue used the word "blonde" in a way that North Americans don't use the word "blond."   It has a different meaning in a different cultural context.

Also -- trying to pin Duran down to this or that sentence is fruitless, because she changed her story slightly here and there because of the terror that she suffered under torture from the Mexican Police.  You seem to remain insensitive to this fact as well.

Finally, Tommy, you seem to be married to the idea that Sylvia Duran was describing KGB agent Nikolai Leonov, who was, according to your CT (as far as I can make out, since you're being very mysterious about it) IMPERSONATING Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City -- FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON.

You seem to  believe that Leonov was impersonating Oswald -- but you don't explain why Leonov woultd want to do so.  It's very mysterious, Tommy, what it is that you're driving at these many weeks on this Forum.  Won't you just end the guessing game and let us know what you're aiming at?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Tommy - I agree with Trejo. It's time for you to spell out what you are trying so hard to get others to say without your saying it. When I ask you the same kind of question you think I'm being intellectually lazy. I think you could be more forthcoming. 

So - assuming you have figured out a mystery, and correctly identified Leonov as an Oswald impersonator, where does that lead you? And no use asking me for my opinion if you are correct. It's not my theory, and I don't have an opinion. 

Trejo, and anyone else - if the CIA has, or had a picture proving that LHO was at either or both embassies in the fall of 1963, why hide it? To me the absence of such a picture indicates one thing - Oswald was never there. That seems to be the opinion of Lopez as well. 

[Thomas Graves]

7 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Tommy - I agree with Trejo. It's time for you to spell out what you are trying so hard to get others to say without your saying it. When I ask you the same kind of question you think I'm being intellectually lazy. I think you could be more forthcoming. 

So - assuming you have figured out a mystery, and correctly identified Leonov as an Oswald impersonator, where does that lead you? And no use asking me for my opinion if you are correct. It's not my theory, and I don't have an opinion. 

Trejo, and anyone else - if the CIA has, or had a picture proving that LHO was at either or both embassies in the fall of 1963, why hide it? To me the absence of such a picture indicates one thing - Oswald was never there. That seems to be the opinion of Lopez as well. 

Dear Paul,

A classic case of misinterpretation and / or misrepresentation on your part.

 It's not your (nearly continually) asking me what my grand "CT" is that makes me think you might be a bit intellectually lazy research-wise, but your occasionally asking me to fully explain research items to you. 

Just to jog your memory on this ongoing "laziness" issue I have with you (and occasionally with other members, as well), I remember asking you a year or so ago whether or not you ever used google "search" to look things up for yourself, and you said you couldn't because you didn't have a computer, and that you were using a smart phone or some-such-thing, instead.

Remember?

--  Tommy

PS. As regards my Grand Theory, if I have one it's probably a work-in-.progress, subject to revision or compete abandonment at any time, and therefore unworthy, at this point, of being "shared" with anyone, you know, out of concern that it would confuse them unnecessarily, and regardless, possibly cause even more unnecessary cognitive dissonance-based angst and acrimony on this here anti-"National Security State", anti- "Evil, Evil CIA," "Vladimir Putin is a very nice man" etc, etc - oriented Forum.

IMHO.

Rozumis?

(Czech, but ya gotta add a couple of "diacritical marks" to make it right - I'm just too darn lazy to do it.)

Edited May 9, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

11 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Paul,

A classic case of misinterpretation and / or misrepresentation on your part.

 It's not your (nearly continually) asking me what my grand "CT" is that makes me think you might be a bit intellectually lazy research-wise, but your occasionally asking me to fully explain research items to you. 

Just to jog your memory on this ongoing "laziness" issue I have with you (and occasionally with other members, as well), I remember asking you a year or so ago whether or not you ever used google "search" to look things up for yourself, and you said you couldn't because you didn't have a computer, and that you were using a smart phone or some-such-thing, instead.

Remember?

--  Tommy

PS. As regards my Grand Theory, if I have one it's probably a work-in-.progress, subject to revision or compete abandonment at any time, and therefore unworthy, at this point, of being "shared" with anyone, you know, out of concern that it would confuse them unnecessarily, and regardless, possibly cause even more unnecessary cognitive dissonance-based angst and acrimony on this here anti-"National Security State", anti- "Evil, Evil CIA," "Vladimir Putin is a very nice man" etc, etc - oriented Forum.

IMHO.

Rozumis?

(Czech, but ya gotta add a couple of "diacritical marks" to make it right - I'm just too darn lazy to do it.)

I remember things differently. I use search all the time on my iPad. As for grand theory, them's your words. How about articulating your working theory?

Edited May 9, 2017 by Paul Brancato

[Michael Clark]

12 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I remember things differently. I use search all the time on my iPad. As for grand theory, themes your words. How about articulating your working theory?

I have come to a conclusion about how Tommy ticks. I read one of his posts where he mentioned how he may have set-back the learning curve of Czech students taking English courses. He suggested it was his "Over-the-top Socratic Method"

The Socratic method assumes that knowledge is latent in the student and the teacher assists the student in "giving birth" to that knowledge by asking probing questions.

Tommy refuses to answer questions and insists on being the one who asks questions.

Since I hold the idea that asking a question as the answer to a question is generally rude, I have taken to just not responding to him; that is a sad state of affairs, passive aggressive, a zero-sum game, and ugly. It is, however, what it is.

 

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

I have come to a conclusion about how Tommy ticks. I read one of his posts where he mentioned how he may have set-back the learning curve of Czech students taking English courses. He suggested it was his "Over-the-top Socratic Method"

The Socratic method assumes that knowledge is latent in the student and the teacher assists the student in "giving birth" to that knowledge by asking probing questions.

Tommy refuses to answer questions and insists on being the one who asks questions.

Since I hold the idea that asking a question as the answer to a question is generally rude, I have taken to just not responding to him; that is a sad state of affairs, passive aggressive, a zero-sum game, and ugly. It is, however, what it is.

 

Dear Paul,

Truth-be-told, I've been trying for decades to figure myself out, and I'll be dad gummed if you didn't beat me to it!

Congratulations.

--  Tommy

[Thomas Graves]

On 2/6/2015 at 6:42 PM, Thomas Graves said:

bumped

bumped again

Did Azcue describe the guy who was-or-was-not there (in the Cuban Consulate on 9/27/63) in such a way as to point a finger at KGB officer Nikolai Leonov because he knew the CIA would have surveillance photos of him like this one?

But to what end, unless Azcue knew that Leonov was the guy who had impersonated Oswald, but didn't want to actually name him?

Edited May 9, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

18 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Tommy - I agree with Trejo. It's time for you to spell out what you are trying so hard to get others to say without your saying it. When I ask you the same kind of question you think I'm being intellectually lazy. I think you could be more forthcoming. 

So - assuming you have figured out a mystery, and correctly identified Leonov as an Oswald impersonator, where does that lead you? And no use asking me for my opinion if you are correct. It's not my theory, and I don't have an opinion. 

Trejo, and anyone else - if the CIA has, or had a picture proving that LHO was at either or both embassies in the fall of 1963, why hide it? To me the absence of such a picture indicates one thing - Oswald was never there. That seems to be the opinion of Lopez as well. 

Paul B.,

I appreciate your agreement that Tommy fails to spell out his goal. 

As for LHO in Mexico City, however, Edwin Lopez gave us two opinions in his 1986 BBC testimony.  

(1) Officially he had no choice but to say that Oswald wasn't at the Cuban Consulate in September 1963, simply because the CIA had withheld all photographs of Oswald at the Cuban Consulate.  

(2) Unofficially, he insists that LHO was certainly in Mexico City in September 1963.  He said this in minute 07:45 of the BBC interview posted by Chris above.

Edwin Lopez also added: (3.1) that he was under a secrecy oath in 1986; and (3.2) that the Lopez Report was classified Top Secret in 1986.

Since that time, however, the Lopez Report was released (in stages, the final stage in 2003) and we saw the Fake FPCC resume that LHO brought with him from New Orleans.  It included photographs that LHO brought with him, as well as newspaper clippings from New Orleans about LHO's Fake FPCC there.

It also included LHO's FPCC membership card, and his Fake membership card in the Communist Party.

Sylvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue -- along with the consuls of the USSR Embassy -- were all convinced that LHO was a bogus Red -- and as Fidel Castro himself would later say -- a provocateur -- that is, a trouble-maker for Cuba.

All this helps us understand what LHO was doing in Mexico City -- he was there at the behest of Guy Banister of NOLA.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited May 9, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Just now, Paul Trejo said:

Paul B.,

I appreciate your agreement that Tommy fails to spell out his goal. 

As for LHO in Mexico City, however, Edwin Lopez gave us two opinions in his 1986 BBC testimony.  

(1) Officially he has no choice to be say that Oswald was not at the Cuban Consulate in September 1963, simply because the CIA has withheld all photographs of Oswald at the Cuban Consulate.  

(2) Unofficially, he insists that LHO was certainly in Mexico City in September 1963.  He said this in minute 07:45 of the BBC interview posted by Chris above.

Edwin Lopez also added: (3.1) that he was under a secrecy oath in 1986; and (3.2) that the Lopez Report was classified Top Secret in 1986.

Since that time, however, the Lopez Report was released (in stages, the final stage in 2003) and we saw the Fake FPCC resume that LHO brought with him from New Orleans.  It included photographs that LHO brought with him, as well as newspaper clippings from New Orleans about LHO's Fake FPCC there.

It also included LHO's FPCC membership card, and his Fake membership card in the Communist Party.

Sylvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue -- along with the consuls of the USSR Embassy -- were all convinced that LHO was a bogus Red -- and as Fidel Castro himself would later say -- a provocateur -- that is, a trouble-maker for Cuba.

All this helps us understand what LHO was doing in Mexico City -- he was there at the behest of Guy Banister of NOLA.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Dear Paul Trejo,

Please tell Paul Brancato all about your wonderful "CT", and how the short, skinny, 35 year-old, blond-haired, very thin-faced Oswald fits into it.

I don't believe he's heard it yet and would love to know what you've found out.

But not here in the "Blond Oswald In Mexico" thread, please.  In a Personal Message.

Thanks,

--  Tommy

 

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Paul Trejo,

Please tell...how the short, skinny, 35 year-old, blond-haired, very thin-faced Oswald fits into it...

Thanks,

--  Tommy

 

Tommy,

The short, skinny, 35-year-old, blond-haired, very thin-faced person posing as Oswald could be ANYBODY -- or it could be the figment of the terrified IMAGINATION of Sylvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue.

You're still in denial about the ENORMOUS VIOLENCE of the Mexican Police in 1963, with regard to Communists.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

3 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Tommy,

The short, skinny, 35-year-old, blond-haired, very thin-faced person posing as Oswald could be ANYBODY -- or it could be the figment of the terrified IMAGINATION of Sylvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue.

You're still in denial about the ENORMOUS VIOLENCE of the Mexican Police in 1963, with regard to Communists.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

And you're still full of beans, my friend.

--  Tommy