reply to ray carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

My prior post already demonstrated that Oswald’s request for a visa was granted within a single day, because Golub was the only such consul granted that discretion.

Your prior post ASSERTED that Golub was the only such Consul, but so far neither you nor Bill Simpich nor greg parker has offered a SCINTILLA of EVIDENCE to support that grandiose claim.

And please bear in mind that the reason greg parker opened this thread was to reply to the question:

What is/are the source(s) for this grandiose claim that Helsinki was unique among Soviet embassies/consulates.

[Greg Parker]

My prior post already demonstrated that Oswald’s request for a visa was granted within a single day, because Golub was the only such consul granted that discretion.

Your prior post ASSERTED that Golub was the only such Consul, but so far neither you nor Bill Simpich nor greg parker has offered a SCINTILLA of EVIDENCE to support that grandiose claim.

And please bear in mind that the reason greg parker opened this thread was to reply to the question:

What is/are the source(s) for this grandiose claim that Helsinki was unique among Soviet embassies/consulates.

Ray, that is not the case, though I could have made it clearer. If that had been all I was interested in, I would have responded to it in the other thread. The reason I started this thread was because you seemed to think I believed Oswald had been a spy.

I note in the other thread you have (finally) supplied evidence that another city issued same-day visas (London). Unfortunately for you, the bet you proposed was that other consulates in other cities did this. One is singular, not plural.

In any case, it could be argued that the only TWO places one could get quick visas were the two places Oswald visited on his way to the SU. If he failed in one, he was to go to the other.

I suggest in order to settle this once and for all, that someone should obtain a copy of this: Inside Russia Today: 1958

As it appears, from the little I can access, to back you up, it should be apparent that I'm quite comfortable with you being right.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

In any case, it could be argued that the only TWO places one could get quick visas were the two places Oswald visited on his way to the SU. If he failed in one, he was to go to the other.

So you have EVIDENCE that Oz was denied a visa in London?

I didn't think so.

Denial.

Not just a river in Egypt.

If this exchange makes no sense, please see this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16095

This is from the Guardian newspaper in 1959:

Quote

Ten years ago if you asked the Soviet Embassy in London for a tourist visa they would not even bother to answer your letter. To-day they will give you one the same afternoon, with an effusive smile and a shower of pamphlets. ...

http://books.google....a#search_anchor

Edited June 27, 2010 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Greg Parker]

In any case, it could be argued that the only TWO places one could get quick visas were the two places Oswald visited on his way to the SU. If he failed in one, he was to go to the other.

So you have EVIDENCE that Oz was denied a visa in London?

I didn't think so.

Denial.

Not just a river in Egypt.

If this exchange makes no sense, please see this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16095

This is from the Guardian newspaper in 1959:

Quote

Ten years ago if you asked the Soviet Embassy in London for a tourist visa they would not even bother to answer your letter. To-day they will give you one the same afternoon, with an effusive smile and a shower of pamphlets. ...

http://books.google....a#search_anchor

Ray, I don't know what bug you have up your posterior, but I wish you'd get it seen to.

Of course I have no evidence he was refused a visa in London. I was no more than thinking out loud.

I have pointed you to a publication which might prove your original assertion that other consulates in other cities (plural!) could issue quickie visas. That you have made no comment on that seems to suggest you have no interest in getting to the bottom of anything else either, let alone that burrowing bug - you are too busy playing games.

Let's say you are correct about the tourist visas. Further let's say you are also correct about the motive behind hiding the information about tourist visas. In that event, I am left scratching my head wondering how no one has ever pointed out how easy it was to get such a visa just about anywhere - that's in how many years something that was NOT secret information failed to come to the surface - 47? And then you also have not just the CIA lying about it during two investigations, you have the State Department lying about it, you have travel agents in Helsinki lying about it, and you have every single person who looked into it for the WC and HSCA either lying about it, or being too incompetent to unearth freely available information.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Let's say you are correct about the tourist visas. Further let's say you are also correct about the motive behind hiding the information about tourist visas. In that event, I am left scratching my head wondering how no one has ever pointed out how easy it was to get such a visa just about anywhere - that's in how many years something that was NOT secret information failed to come to the surface - 47? And then you also have not just the CIA lying about it during two investigations, you have the State Department lying about it, you have travel agents in Helsinki lying about it, and you have every single person who looked into it for the WC and HSCA either lying about it, or being too incompetent to unearth freely available information[/size].[/font]

With regard to Helsinki travel agents, I have only seen hearsay reports. I am not aware that any Helsinki travel agent was actually called to testify under oath, and I don't know who conducted that phase of the investigation, or how sloppy or corrupt it may have been.

But I submit that the incompetence of the Warren Commission and the HSCA is recognized by nearly everyone who has seriously studied this case, so no one should be scratching his head when another example comes to light.

These august bodies, if they were interested in the truth, could have simply asked the Soviet government. Helms's claim that Helsinki was unique was highly implausible on its face.

Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again;

The eternal years of God are hers;

But Error, wounded, writhes with pain,

And dies among his worshippers.

William Cullen Bryant.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Greg:

Debating Carroll's a waste of time.

In your case that is true.

But I have a question for the moderators:

I am under the impression that in order to have posting privileges on this forum everyone is required to post a photograph of him/her self. Bill Simpich has posted his photograph, so has greg parker and so have I.

Mr. Charles-Dunne has the privilege of posting propaganda from Richard Helms, yet he is allowed to hide behind an avator that conceals his true identity.

Isn't that a violation of forum rules?

[Michael Hogan]

But I have a question for the moderators:

I am under the impression that in order to have posting privileges on this forum everyone is required to post a photograph of him/her self. Bill Simpich has posted his photograph, so has greg parker and so have I.

Mr. Charles-Dunne has the privilege of posting propaganda from Richard Helms, yet he is allowed to hide behind an avator that conceals his true identity.

Isn't that a violation of forum rules?

Why doesn't Robert Charles Dunne have to post a photo?

BB

He has given me good reasons why he should have his current avatar.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

He has given me good reasons why he should have his current avatar.

I'm sure he has.

Did he give Richard Helms as a reference?

[Michael Hogan]

He has given me good reasons why he should have his current avatar.

I'm sure he has.

Did he give Richard Helms as a reference?

Perhaps someone can instruct J. Raymond Carroll how to properly use the quote function.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Perhaps someone can instruct J. Raymond Carroll how to properly use the quote function.

Thank you Mr. Hogan.

For once in your life you are right.

You were quoting John Simkin, so my question is really directed to John.

I suspect that right now John is crying in his beer about England's loss to Germany.

England was robbed of a definite goal at a crucial moment, and it changed the whole complexion of the game.

Edited June 27, 2010 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Michael Hogan]

Being unable to offer anything of substance to counter Robert Charles-Dunne's post, J. Raymond Carroll resorts to questioning RCD's avatar, after remaining silent on the subject for years.

But I have a question for the moderators:

I am under the impression that in order to have posting privileges on this forum everyone is required to post a photograph of him/her self. Bill Simpich has posted his photograph, so has greg parker and so have I.

Mr. Charles-Dunne has the privilege of posting propaganda from Richard Helms, yet he is allowed to hide behind an avator that conceals his true identity.

Isn't that a violation of forum rules?

Of course that's coming from the same person that wrote this:

It is the ARGUMENT that matters, not the person making it.

Carroll's newfound respect for Forum rules is admirable.

I doubt if if he [John Simkin] started this forum to elicit input from a dope-addled ignoramus like Mike Hogan.

(Yes Mr. Hogan, I know about your addled ways)

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Being unable to offer anything of substance to counter Robert Charles-Dunne's post, J. Raymond Carroll resorts to questioning RCD's avatar, after remaining silent on the subject for years.

Mike Hogan is just another apologist for Richard Helms, and the dastards who murdered JFK.

Edited June 27, 2010 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

It is remarkable to me that I am now accused of carrying water for Richard Helms, when I have a decades long history of placing him toward the top of my assassination suspect list (and much more besides). It is fascinating that I could be depicted as a CIA proxy when I have a decades long history of positing that the Kennedy assassination (and much more besides) was facilitated by parties within the Agency. It is a measure of Carroll’s desperation, one presumes.

As for Helms lying about the length of time needed to obtain a visa from Golub, there is an entirely plausible rationale, provided one is prepared to think about the circumstances. Anyone who has read the extant CIA documents on Golub knows CIA had paid very close attention to him, either because they wished to recruit him, or had already done so. Pro forma.

In either instance, what on earth would possess Helms to state to the WC that CIA knew Golub was a “friendly” who could grant immediate visas? This could only make it seem that Oswald had been specifically directed toward Golub - which I contend is the case, since it had already been done before - and undercut the otherwise false notion being promulgated by CIA that the Soviets had so intense an interest in Oswald they gave him his visa within a single day. Carroll nevertheless expects Helms to make so self-defeating an admission? Astonishing.

Moreover, the Agency didn’t simply “discover” in 1959 that Golub had personal latitude in such matters, per the notorious luncheon. They knew this two years earlier and seem to have exploited it even then. To wit:

On another thread, Ray Carroll has posted a one-line snippet from the Guardian asserting that the Soviet consul in London cheerily granted visas on a same-day basis in 1959.

How odd that the parsimonious Oswald would not apply for his visa in London, since he was already there, but forgo that chance for the apparently unnecessary expense of a trip to Helsinki.

Without wishing to impugn the Guardian specifically, one mustn’t believe everything one reads in the papers. I have cited the Swedish newspaper that insisted Oswald got his visa in Stockholm, rather than Helsinki. Is that true? If not, whose purpose was served by disseminating that falsehood? I have also read in the New York Times that Oswald alone murdered the President. Is that true? If not, whose purpose was served by disseminating that falsehood? I have read in the old Toronto Telegram that the Guardian was a commie newspaper. Is that true? If so, it could explain why it provided such cheery coverage to the USSR.

If the Guardian’s contention is correct, it shouldn’t prove too difficult for Carroll to cite an actual instance of the Soviet consul in London providing such same day service in 1959 . That could constitute actual proof, not merely an unverifiable assertion. Carroll should be held to the same evidentiary standard he demands of others.

As for Carroll’s latter comments about Michael Hogan, such twaddle again bespeaks desperation and is beneath even Carroll.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

It is remarkable to me that I am now accused of carrying water for Richard Helms

Well it shouldn't be so remarkable, since that is EXACTLY what you are trying to do here, behind your thin disguise.

[Greg Parker]

It seems in '61 and '66, the wait time was approximately as suggested to the WC regarding '58. The '60s was a boom time for Soviet tourism as it was only then starting to get the infrastructure in place, so it would seem strange if they reverted to longer wait through red tape during such demand.

These are from a '66 US overseas shopping guide (hardly a bastion of pro-Communism) and a '61 Rotarian magazine (again, hardly a front for KGB).

Edited June 28, 2010 by Greg Parker