For Chris Newton, Larry Hancock, Tracy Parnell, and other Critically-Minded Members

[Sandy Larsen]

One important question to ask about the MC Mystery Man is whether it was a last minute decision (post assassination) to send the wrong photos to Washington. The answer may be no.

On October 9, the CIA station in MC sent a cable to Headquarters that included a transcript of "Lee Oswald's" embassy phone call where he states he'd met with Kostikov. In the cable it stated that Oswald spoke with broken Russian and described him as "apparent age 35, athletic build, circa 6 feet, receding hairline, balding top."

Compare that description to the Mystery Man, whose photos were sent to Washington after the assassination.

The description seems to fit this man nicely.

It is my opinion, therefore, that the decision was made very early on to not reveal the photos of the real imposter. Even though the imposter probably looked a lot like Oswald.

This could have been done simply to keep secret the identity of the imposter, who undoubtedly was a CIA operative (IMO).

 

 

[Tom Hume]

In previous posts on this thread, David posted side by side visa photos, the right photo believed to be the visa original, and the left photo believed to be the visa copy. I'm not going to repost them here, but an obvious difference is that the right photo shows staples, and the left photo appears not to. Both photos are of poor quality, but they appear to be different pictures - separate clicks of the camera. 

David also posted a better version of the visa original:

I found this slightly better version of the visa copy photo on the Internet:

 

Without much effort, I could convince myself that that is a staple above Oswald’s head. A possible conclusion is that the staple or staple holes did not show up on the poorer quality copy of the visa copy photo that David posted. Once again, these two pictures appear to be different different clicks of the camera.

 

New topic:

Compare the visa original photo at the top, with this photo from the John Armstrong Collection (link to photo in footnote, page 34):

 

This photo appears identical to the visa original photo (and not the visa copy photo). It has been cropped, and if there had been a staple at the top, we could not see it in this cropped version. John Armstrong’s description reads, “Lee in a photograph taken in September 1963, probably in New Orleans. (NATIONAL ARCHIVES)

If this is John's copy of the visa original photo, however, there should be a staple, (or at least staple holes) on Oswald’s left shoulder and shirt collar.

How come no staple?

Maybe the staple was removed at the archives, but a more tantalizing outcome would be that this is a third visa photo.

Edit added: Photo booth type visa photos sounds like a reasonable explanation as to why the two photos are slightly different poses. I just did a little research on old photo booths, and they typically gave you four different pictures for your money. 

Tom

Footnote:

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/22156/rec/29 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2017 by Tom Hume

[David Josephs]

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

In comparing the two photos (which alternate in this animated gif), it is my opinion that the two are not from the same negative. I believe two shots of Oswald were taken. The biggest giveaway is that Oswald's right shoulder is in different vertical positions. Perhaps he shifted his weight to his other foot between shots and this resulted in movement in the tilt of his shoulders.

It is also my opinion that the poorer of the two photos is actually a photostatic copy. This is given away by the copy's low quality, high contrast (which makes Oswald's hair look more receded), and optical bloom that can be readily seen in the tie.

Why would the Cubans have returned the application's carbon copy with a photocopy of the photo instead of the original? I have no idea.

 

It's also very possible that the photos attached now are not the same as the photos Duran claims she got from the man...  fits the MO for FBI evidence

Remember, it was Duran who told Oswald a place to go for photos but she cannot remember where... (which must be BS) and she says he had 4 images when he returned...  which leads me to believe they were taken by some anonymous photo booth machine...

And there really NEEDS to be staple marks on the carbon copy's attachment...  there aren't any.

 

Besides, with a little darkroom work, the same negative can look very different when printed.

Finally, there is a pile of evidence which points to his not having traveled as described, and not being in MC at all..  a copy of a copy of a photo and application, from outside the US is not the strongest of evidence...

[Tom Hume]

Photo booth type visa photos sounds like a reasonable explanation as to why the two photos are slightly different poses. I just did a little research on old photo booths, and they typically gave you four different pictures for your money. 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

I have just finished reading John Newman's 1999 presentation at the JFK Lancer conference http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/newman/newman_1.html

I feel the 'paradigm' he uses to analyse MC events is fascinating, and aligns with my idea that the timing of evidence 'discovery' can prove very useful in understanding MC. It's not an easy read so I hope someone will correct my errors in attempting to summarise his 'paradigm'.

1. The plotters aim was to introduce evidence into the record of Oswald meeting Kostikov and dealing with both Russia and Cuba.

2. The CIA in MC were deliberately kept in the dark ,as were the FBI.

3. The evidence shows that some CIA operatives deliberately ("I got Jane Roman to admit it, 'I'm signing off on something I know isn't true.' " - John Newman,1999) withheld information on Oswald from MC. Newman suggests this was a deliberate 'dimming of the lights' for the insertion of the Mexico story.

4. The plotters are successful in forcing the authorities into a cover-up.

One of the pieces of documentary evidence he introduces is a memo prior to the assassination from CIA Mexico to Headquarters requesting a photo of Oswald to compare with the surveillance photos taken outside the Embassy. The CIA falsely claims they will have to request the Navy provides one (as they haven't got one). Thus Winn Scott doesn't get a genuine photo until AFTER the assassination via the Press!

I hope this doesn't derail the discussion on the application photograph. It perhaps suggests a reason why the photograph may have been inserted after the assassination.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 6/3/2017 at 0:36 PM, David Josephs said:

It's also very possible that the photos attached now are not the same as the photos Duran claims she got from the man...  fits the MO for FBI evidence.

 

I believe I made this point earlier. And I believe Larry had a problem with it. If it was an Oswald imposter and he gave his photos to the Cuban embassy, the Cuban and Russian authorities would have had in their hands the application with the non-Oswald photo.

I assume that the problem Larry had with this idea is that there is no evidence that the Cubans and Russian knew that it was an imposter who applied in Oswald's place. (Larry can correct me if I'm wrong.)

I'm inclined to agree with Larry's objection to this possibility.

You do make a good point about the missing staple. I have doubts that the carbon copy really has an original photo on it, because of its poor quality compared to the other photo. For whatever reason, someone may have kept the original photo and replaced it with the poor copy. Why they didn't use a staple to attach the copy is anybody's guess.

 

On 6/3/2017 at 0:36 PM, David Josephs said:

Besides, with a little darkroom work, the same negative can look very different when printed.

But Oswalds shoulder wouldn't be an inch lower if the second photo was made from the same negative.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

One of the pieces of documentary evidence he introduces is a memo prior to the assassination from CIA Mexico to Headquarters requesting a photo of Oswald to compare with the surveillance photos taken outside the Embassy.

Are you sure about this Eddy?

 

11 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

The CIA falsely claims they will have to request the Navy provides one (as they haven't got one).

According to Armstrong's book, CIA headquarters had news clippings of Oswald. (They may have had a photo too... Armstrong doesn't say.) But clearly headquarters claimed not to have a photo.

 

11 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Thus Winn Scott doesn't get a genuine photo until AFTER the assassination via the Press!

 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Are you sure about this Eddy?

 

According to Armstrong's book, CIA headquarters had news clippings of Oswald. (They may have had a photo too... Armstrong doesn't say.) But clearly headquarters claimed not to have a photo.

 

 

Hi Sandy,

 

http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/newman/newman_1.html  This is the link in John Newmans lecture to the second memo (he didn't provide the first) The memo is a reply to Mexico City on 23rd November confirming they haven't got the requested photo for MC from the Navy yet and it would be quicker to refer to the press. I'm assuming Newman is right about the first memo being before the assassination.

[Sandy Larsen]

I don't know if what I'm about to post is widely known by forum members or not. It's certainly new to me, and interesting as well. It is regarding the party that Oswald was supposed to have attended while in Mexico City.

I've never cared much about the story because it doesn't ring true. But now that I've read about the source of the story and what she said, I do believe it is an important (though untrue IMO) thing.

The story was reported by well-educated Mexican writer Elena Garro, wife of Mexican diplomat, poet, and leading intellectual Octaviao Paz. She told her story to Charles William Thomas, a State Department official in Mexico City. He documented the story, which is reproduced here:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=110411#relPageId=16&tab=page

Elena said that she attended a party in Mexico City in late September (at first she said early September) and that she met Oswald and two of his American associates there. The party was held at Ruben Duran's house. (Ruben is Sylvia Duran's brother in law.) Also present were Sylvia Duran and Cuban Console Azcue, and even the "Negro" with the red hair! (What? The $6500 didn't attend? LOL)

I find it very convenient how all the important players of the Oswald story, at the Cuban Consulate, were present at that party.

It is my belief that Elena Garro was a CIA asset and was instructed to tell this story to the FBI and anybody else who would listen.. It was yet one more attempt by the CIA to tie Oswald's activities to the Cuban government. (I no longer believe party story was mere gossip. That was my earlier assumption.)

I've often wondered why it was deemed necessary to jail the Durans and Azcue, and go so far as to rough up Sylvia. This story could have been the motivation for that.

There is another thing I've learned from this event. And that is that the picture the plotters were trying to paint is that Oswald was in Mexico City with others. (Remember... Elena said Oswald was with two Americans.) This supports my belief that the CIA likely fabricated evidence of Oswald going by car with others. The FBI had no interest in finding such evidence, though, as it would lead to the conclusion of conspiracy. And so instead they fabricated there own evidence for Oswald's travel... a bus trip by Oswald alone.

EDIT: The document I cited above has several pages of Elena Garro's account. I need to read the rest before making a final judgement.

 

Edited June 12, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Eddy Bainbridge]

Kostikov or Lechuga? My reading is making me wonder which of these two people is more significant. I'm coming down in favour of Lechuga. I hadn't realised how closely he was connected with the Kennedy's and Castro. It seems plausible to me that Oswald was used in an attempt to either foul up communications of the Kennedy's with Castro or it was an attempt to discredit Lechuga through Duran.

How convincing is the portrayal of Kostikov as an 'Assassin in chief'? His interview with Anthony Summers doesn't appear to show a cunning and powerfull man, more a man out of the loop. Who is responsible for the common perception of Kostikov,is it credible? Philips perhaps?

Setting up an 'incident' to involve Duran looks easier than arranging a meeting with Kostikov, or were both these events planned and significant?

[Eddy Bainbridge]

http://jfkfacts.org/who-was-valery-kostikov/#more-25529

Looks very much like Kostikov was not thought significant by the CIA, so was Phillips trying to get at Lechuga with Oswald?

[Larry Hancock]

Kostikov was thought significant to be under full time surveillance both inside MC and during his travels.  And given that any senior Soviet officer at any residency had a political action role as well as other duties both the FBI in MC and the CIA were interested in him.  The only question would be whether he was operationally involved in things like sabotage and we do know that the residency there was a cut out for agents like Tumbleweed.  And certainly Phillips may well have been trying to get at Lechuga - and others with Oswald.  Bill Simpich has turned up a host of evidence showing programs targeting virtually everybody within the Cuban organizations in MC - supported by personnel not just from MC but from JM/WAVE..

[David Josephs]

On 6/9/2017 at 7:50 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

EDIT: The document I cited above has several pages of Elena Garro's account. I need to read the rest before making a final judgement.

I was pretty sure that like Alvarado, PAZ and group were also discredited...  seems PAZ had it out for Sylvia...  but by all means, keep digging.  

An allegation by Elenita Garro de Paz that Sylvia Duran brought Oswald to a
party at her home in September 1963. The source of this information came
from a memo written by CIA asset June Cobb Sharp. This story was eventually
revealed as yet another fabricated attempt to link Oswald to Sylvia Duran and the
Cubans.

June Cobb Sharp - 

 

 

 

 

[David Josephs]

One of the more interesting aspects of Mexico City is GAUDET and the Mexican Tourist Visa

Turns out that the evidence mentions Oswald talking about only having so much time in Mexico due to the expiration of his 15 day visa.
GAUDET, a CIA asset, received the Visa that was next in the number sequence after Oswald's. GAUDET also confirms Oswald and Banister's "partnership"

Problem being the visa was for 6 months, not 90 days or 15 days in country.. and the presentation of the document in the report is even more strange...

One image is only the bottom of the page with his signature yet stops at the NAME field whereas the 2nd image only has the top of the form and stops at the signature.

Personally I do not buy that Oswald got this at that time...  And the relationship to Nagell's Sept 17-19 predictions should be noted.

DJ

Edited June 26, 2017 by David Josephs

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

On 6/9/2017 at 8:50 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

EDIT: The document I cited above has several pages of Elena Garro's account. I need to read the rest before making a final judgement.

I was pretty sure that like Alvarado, PAZ and group were also discredited...

David,

When you say Elena Garro PAZ was discredited, are you referring to the document you posted, which I have copied below? Or has she been discredited by others... like WC critics?

It does state in the document that there was no substantiation found for Elena's party story. But I wouldn't trust that document given that it was issued by the U.S. government, given that the USG at the time was in the business of discounting ANYTHING that pointed to conspiracy.

I did find, via the link you provided, that Alexander I. Rorke, a Hemming-like soldier of fortune working with the Cuban exiles, had documents in his possession, one of which revealed the fact that June Cobb was a double agent.

(Rorke disappeared on one of his flights over Cuba, after which his father-in-law gathered up his papers and placed them in a bank vault. A boyfriend of Rorke's sister-in-law later turned the documents over to the CIA. CIA reports on the documents eventually surfaced, and June Cobb's status as a double agent was exposed. This is well documented in John Newman's book.)

 

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

 seems PAZ had it out for Sylvia...  

Do you believe that that is the reason Elena fabricated the party story? I had assumed she was a CIA asset and was instructed to relate the story so that the Cubans would be implicated in the assassination.
 

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

but by all means, keep digging.  

BTW, FWIW, I don't believe the party story at all. What I meant when I said I needed to read the full account before making a judgement, was that perhaps the purpose of the story may be more that what I thought after reading just part of the whole account..
 

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

An allegation by Elenita Garro de Paz that Sylvia Duran brought Oswald to a
party at her home in September 1963. The source of this information came
from a memo written by CIA asset June Cobb Sharp. This story was eventually
revealed as yet another fabricated attempt to link Oswald to Sylvia Duran and the
Cubans.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

I'll have to check to be sure, but I believe the story became more elaborate later on, well after the decision was made to blame Oswald alone and to cover up anything pointing to conspiracy. If it did, that would tend to indicate that CIA elements were STILL trying to implicate Castro. This is important because some people believe that the links to Cuba and Russia were created in order to persuade LBJ to cover the conspiracy up (to avoid WW3). Others believe that the purpose of the links was to create a pretext for invasion or war. If the CIA was still trying to convince the administration that there was a Cuban or Russian connection after the decision was made to cover up everything conspiracy related, this would tend to indicate that the purpose was really pretext for invasion or war.

 

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

June Cobb Sharp -