Marina, the Commission, and Mexico City

[George Sawtelle]

Jim

You are correct about the mole hunt. There was none. It came out after the assassination and people wanted answers about the impersonation of Oswald.

It´s just the CIA´s attempt to CYA . Now it´s not an impersonation of Oswald it´s a mole hunt.

[David Josephs]

Not so Ironic....  here is Mystery Man & Lee with the S West window man from Dillard

  

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by David Josephs

[George Sawtelle]

Paul T 

Simpich´s book is based on CIA documents. That alone should disqualify the book as not credible. The CIA is plausible deniability not truth telling.

Edited March 6, 2017 by George Sawtelle

[George Sawtelle]

David

Looks like Lee with a tupee. Come on CIA, you can do better than that.

[Thomas Graves]

11 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Not so Ironic....  here is Mystery Man & Lee with the S West window man from Dillard

  

 

Dear Joseph,

Do you really think they're the same person?

--  Tommy

[James DiEugenio]

David:

 

That is some really interesting stuff there about the logs.

What do you make of it? 

BTW, I am not saying that there absolutely was no molehunt in the CIA.  Clearly there was due mostly to Golitsyn.  What I am saying is that the Lopez Report does not refer to one.

Edited March 6, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Brancato]

I'm curious Jim. Do you think the CIA had real photos of LHO entering the embassies but chose not to reveal them, or didn't have any because LHO was never there? Note - I'm leaving out the CIA explanation about malfunctioning cameras. Btw, Simpich was asked directly whether he thought LHO was ever in MC, and he said he was agnostic on that issue. At least that's the way I remember it. Anyone remember or is able to prove otherwise?

Jim - you are right that the whole issue of mole hunt - using falsified Oswald 'marked card' files - comes from Peter Dale Scott. I've thought for years that Trejo misused the term molehunt to describe Simpich's position, but if he knows different, parhaps he can show otherwise. I've read the Lopez report, though only once. However, I seem to recall Lopez and Hardaway not taking a position on whether LHO was there or not. If CIA had real pics, why insert false ones unless they didn't have real ones? 

[Thomas Graves]

22 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Paul T 

Simpich´s book is based on CIA documents. That alone should disqualify the book as not credible. The CIA is plausible deniability not truth telling.

Dear George,

An informed reader like John Newman can deduce certain things from the subject matter, dates, and the now-decoded "cryptos" and "pseudos" on a  document.

Cryptos like ZR/RIFLE. Pseudos like "Michael C. Choaden," "Willard Curtis".   

Unless, of course, the evil, evil CIA, out of sheer paranoia, changed everything before releasing them to the public, even with certain dedactions still in place.

LOL

--  Tommy

[Paul Brancato]

Good points Tommy. The difficulty lies in discerning truth without accepting everything.

[Michael Clark]

23 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

. If CIA had real pics, why insert false ones unless they didn't have real ones? 

CIA claimed they had photos and thought that would be the end of it? Photos were of Harvey Lee or other double? Then when asked to produce them they did not want to blow their impersonation game and the cover of the impersonator? The CIA then just sent them garbage without explanation?

Cheers,

Michael

Edited March 6, 2017 by Michael Clark

[James DiEugenio]

My posiiton is that there are no photos of Oswald in Mexico City at either embassy because Oswald was not in Mexico City doing those things that the WC and the CIA said he did.

To me, it simply defies comprehension that all of these anomalies would be in place if LHO did go to MC and did do the things the CIA and WC said he did.  And it would take about a full page to list them all.

In the Lopez Report, Ed and Dan do not take a position about LHI being there or not.  In fact, they are very careful about the issue, qualifying their judgment. But if you ask Eddie what he thinks on that point, he will tell you privately that he does not think he was there.

I agree, the idea of this molehunt has been to me so exaggerated in so many ways that I really wonder if people know what a molehunt really is.  Although I will say this:  the hwoel "barium meal" thing that Scott started this off with is confusing in its own right.

 

BTW, Michael's explanation above means that LHO was not there.  Someone impersonated him.

 

Edited March 6, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Clark]

3 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, Michael's explanation above means that LHO was not there.  Someone impersonated him.

 

Not to sound like a wise-guy, but, LHO could have been in MC and still have been impersonated at the consulates.

[David Josephs]

Jim...

Not really sure other than it's quite obvious to me that the name "Oswald" was only used to create a reaction in those who would be listening yet logs, transcripts and the like can easily be manipulated after the fact.

No, the Lopez report does not offer anything related to a mole hunt or anything of significance related to the travel.
Furthermore, the WCR says nothing about Oswald after the 27th...  It claims on page 735 of Appendix 13 that he "contacted the Russian and Cuban Embassies again during his stay" with footnote 1170.  The footnote states: 1170: "Confidential source".  This source is the CIA wiretap transcripts.

Except the woman there claims he never returned.

CORNWELL - Let's just talk hypothetically for a moment. Is there any chance that he was at the Consulate on more than one day?
TIRADO - No. I read yesterday, an article in the Reader's digest, and they say he was at the Consulate on three occasions. He was in Friday, Saturday, and Monday...That's not true, that's false.

CORNWELL - All right. Let's try a different hypothetical. If the one in the Reader's Digest is definitely wrong, is it possible that he first came on like a Thursday, and then came back on a Friday?
TIRADO - No, because I am positively sure about it. That he came in the same day.

Let's look at the Lopez conclusions:   

1. Evidence from the CIA suggests it was LHO yet someone else using the name LHO with these contacts cannot be absolutely dismissed
2. The Committee cannot determine LHO's activities outside the Cuban and Soviet Embassies (the FBI checked the entire month of Nov and also could find no evidence of LHO being in Mexico.  Even their Gobernacion asset stated he was not there yet later assists the FBI create the needed evidence
3. The report of the tall, thin blond-headed man with Oswald has not been confirmed
4. The CIA had electronic surveillance of all locations. The phone from the Cuban Consulate was not tapped.  (iow all transcripts come from Russian buildings)
5. The CIA (Win Scott via Goodpasture) definitely knew of "Oswald's" contacts at the diplomatic compounds (this would be Goodpasture's memo done with "LADILLINGER"  Bill Simpich provided me with the documentation links showing that Goodpasture, working with LADILLINGER (Soviet Desk officer Barbara Murphy Manell), took what was obviously a photo from 12:22 on Oct 2^nd and represented it as Oct 1 to match the call transcript. )
   
    
6. All CIA Mexico data was not reported to CIA HQ in a timely manner PRIOR to 11/22
7. All CIA Mexico data was reported to CIA HQ in a timely manner AFTER 11/22
8. Info was sent from CIA Mexico was generally relayed to WC in a timely manner
9. THIS COMMITTEE concludes the CIA has photos of Oswald in MC - but there is no evidence and CIA denies it.
10. The tapes which were claimed destroyed were probably in existence on 11/22 (which we know is true)
11. The committee is aware of allegations against Duran as a spy but there is no direct evidence

So really, the only thing in question is whether of not the man Ruby killed met with Azcue or Duran on the 27th.  We've already read where Duran does not think Oswald was the man and here is Azcue's testimony stating the same... only a couple of months after the fact...  If these two were supposed to confirm it was Oswald, they do a terrible job.

Once we understand the man on the 27th os not Oswald... the rest of the report is simply chasing its tail.

Mr. CORNWELL. Directing your attention to the period of time immediately after the assassination, the day of the assassination or the day after the assassination, did you during that period of time have an occasion to see pictures of the alleged assassin in the newspapers or to observe on television the man identified at that time as Lee Harvey Oswald? 
Senor AZCUE. Yes, sir, not so close to the date, not in the first few days, not immediately thereafter. Some time I calculate approximately-and I say this because I am not a great movie fan, but it was in mid-December approximately--I saw at that time the film in which Ruby appears assassinating the Oswald who was there, and I was not able to identify him and only 2 months had gone by since I had seen the Oswald who appeared at the consulate. And I had a clear mental picture because we had had an unpleasant discussion and he had not been very pleasant to me and I did not recognize when I first saw him. I did not recognize Oswald. 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 was a young Man, considerably younger, and a fuller face. 
Mr. CORNWELL. What color hair did the individual have to the best of your memory who visited the consulate? 
Senor AZCUE. He was blond, dark blond. 
Mr. CORNWELL. Did the individual you saw in the movie, the person who was killed by Jack Ruby, resemble more closely the individual in these photographs to your memory than the individual who visited the consulate? 
Senor AZCUE. I believe so. 
Mr. CORNWELL. I would like to show you JFK exhibit F-434. Do the representatives from the National Archives have the original or a small photograph of that exhibit? While they are looking, Mr. Chairman, I believe we neglected to ask that JFK exhibit F-407 be admitted into evidence. 
Chairman STOKES. Without objection it may be entered into evidence. [The information follows:]

JFK EXHIBIT F-407

Mr. CORNWELL. That is a passport. May we have that exhibit admitted into evidence, Mr. Chairman, JFK F-434? 
Chairman STOKES. Without objection it may be entered into evidence. [The information follows:]

JFK EXHIBIT F-434

Mr. CORNWELL. Did the individual who visited the consulate look like that individual? 
Senor AZCUE. No. 

[Michael Clark]

One thing that keeps the Harvey-Lee thing open as a possibility, for me, is that one of them was un-affected, it seems. What I mean is that The DPD LHO seemed to have something odd about him, something like Asperger's, which ultimately made him expendable. One of them was more of a ladies man, a little rougher around the edges, and might have pulled off something like bedding Sylvia Duran, while there. I am not sure that the DPD LHO had that in him.

Cheers,

Michael

[Thomas Graves]

7 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Not to sound like a wise-guy, but, LHO could have been in MC and still have been impersonated at the consulates.

Michael,

I agree.  In fact, that seems like the most likely scenario to me.

--  Tommy