Sandy Larsen

I just read this Bill Simpich document: https://aarclibrary.org/the-jfk-case-the-twelve-who-built-the-oswald-legend-part-10-nightmare-in-mexico-city/ It verifies that Boris Tarasoff did indeed recognize the broken Russian caller's voice to be the same in both the Sept. 28 and Oct. 1 calls. In the Sept. 28 call, from the?Cuban Consulate to the Soviet Embassy, Duran hands the phone to Oswald and he speaks but doesn't give his name. In the Oct. 1 call, to the Soviet Embassy, Oswald makes the call himself and this time he does leave his name. In this call he says that he had been to the Soviet Embassy earlier. So the second call tells Boris right away that Lee Oswald had been to the Soviet Embassy. The voice is the same as that in the first call, which came from the Cuban Consulate. So Boris deduces that Lee Oswald had been to the Cuban Consulate as well! BUT HERE'S THE RUB... The first call, on Sept. 28 -- the one initiated by Duran and handed over to Oswald -- could not have really been made from the Cuban Consulate because that was a Saturday and the consulate was closed on Saturday! In addition, Duran said that she did not make that call! (I believe she said she never even saw Oswald after Friday the 27th.) So apparently that call was made by a woman who wasn't Duran, and it was made from a location that wasn't the Cuban Consulate! So where does that leave us? In a sense, we are back to where we started... there being no credible evidence in the phone calls indicating that Oswald had been to the Cuban Consulate. On the other hand, as far as the telephone intercept teams knew, Oswald had indeed been to both the Soviet Embassy AND the Cuban consulate! Therefore, I believe we have to conclude that the CIA's Mexican Desk did indeed keep to themselves the information that Oswald had been to the Cuban Consulate. And that is egg on my face.

Very early on there was evidence pointing to Oswald as the perp. There was also evidence pointing to Cuba and Russia (as well as Oswald) as the perps. Johnson didn't want anything to do with the conspiracy angle that would lead to international consequences... like war. After all, Hoover said that the evidence for the conspiracy was far from solid. So Johnson did the easy thing and chose to accept the lone gunman evidence. Later he would discover that the lone gunman solution wasn't so great after all... because it wasn't correct. Which meant that the FBI and WC had to lie there heads off to make it all work out.

Oops, I should have read more carefully. You do see the problem. Well, then, my prior post is for other people reading the thread.

Okay, but that doesn't tell us anything relevant to the topic of this thread. Because it is dated after the assassination. On October 9, the clandestine telephone intercept teams reported that Lee Oswald had visited the Russian Embassy at the end of September. But they didn't say a word about him visiting the Cuban Consulate. The question is, why? The answer is because the person talking on the phone only used the name Oswald in one call. And that was a a call to the Soviet Embassy. In the call, "Oswald" said that he had been to the Soviet Embassy earlier. That's how the telephone intercept team knew that Oswald had been to the Soviet Embassy. But there was no way of knowing he had also been to the Cuban Consulate.

Makes sense to me. Use the mole to send disinformation.

Spying for the Soviets? That's odd. I think he was spying ON the Soviets when he was living there. I think Oswald was working for the CIA. And that's how the plotters were able to get him working in the right building at the right time to perform his unwitting duty as patsy.

I think that all this mole stuff regarding Oswald is manufactured.

You are right. The name Lee Oswald was mentioned in just one telephone call. So the embassy/consulate surveillance crews were aware of only what was said in that one call. And what he said was that he had been to the Soviet Embassy earlier and had spoken to someone there. The person making that call did not say a thing about the Cuban Consulate. Therefore, the only thing the telephone surveillance crews knew was that "Oswald" had been to the Soviet Embassy.

My guess would be Allen Dulles, James Angleton, Edward Lansdale, and David Phillips at a lower level. If you read about the Burris Memorandum, you'll see how the JCS would present an "annual" assessment of nuclear war with Russia. Allen Dulles told Kennedy that December 1963 would be the ideal time for America to win the war. You can read about it here: https://prospect.org/world/u.s.-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963/ I don't know specifically which of the JCS were involved in the plot. No matter how you cut it, the CIA had to have been the plotters. How else can you explain the false flag operation to blame the Cubans/Russians? Nobody but the CIA could have done that. How else do you explain getting Oswald into the right building at the right time to perform his duty as unwitting patsy? Oswald must have been controlled by the CIA, and the TSBD must have been a front company. There's just no way around it.

LOL (My apologies if this has already been posted.)

The CIA plotters went to a great deal of effort to create a false flag operation where the blame for the assassination would be placed on the Cubans and Soviets. It's hard for me to believe they'd done that knowing in advance that LBJ would reject the opportunity to retaliate against either one. To me it makes a lot more sense that it was a military-backed operation whose primary goal was to eliminate a treasonous Kennedy, and whose secondary goal was an add-on false flag operation that could give the military icing on the cake in the form of a Cuban invasion. Possibly even a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union during a period when it was thought that the Americans would win. That is what the JCS wanted. Indeed, there is some evidence (a little) that the military sent fighter jets to Cuba the day of the assassination. Cooler heads prevailed when Undersecretary of State Averell Harriman shortly afterword declared that the top Sovietologists had all agreed that the Russians weren't involved in the assassination. Which was a false story. But it may have been the genesis of the decision to cover up evidence of a conspiracy and to blame only Oswald. Which seemed possible because there was evidence for both 1) a communist conspiracy with Oswald, and 2) a lone gunman Oswald. (This is Peter Dale Scott's Phase 1 / Phase 2 theory). Obviously LBJ chose to go with the lone gunman scenario. Ironically, the CIA plotters had intentionally made that a viable choice so that, if chosen, the governments focus would be on blaming Oswald rather than looking for the real plotters. The CIA plotters made that choice viable by controlling the autopsy and Dealey Plaza films, and making it appear as though a lone gunman could have killed Kennedy. No conspiracy was required to explain the evidence. But regardless of that decision by LBJ, the plotters' preferred outcome would have been a Cuban invasion or a war with Russia. Remember, it was a military coup. (Carried out by the CIA.)

I am all for anti-war protests on campus. (And off campus.) But I have a suspicion that the police were called in because some of the protesters are disrupting normal campus functioning. A little like the Golden Gate Bridge being shut down due to protests there last week.

I predict that the new lettering system for generations -- Greek -- won't make it past Generation Beta. (Generation Gamma, anybody?) Americans aren't into foreign alphabets... with the exception of scientists, physicists, and engineers. I'll bet that after Generation Beta, Generation C will be used. And alternate names Generations A and B will be used for Generations Alpha and Beta.

I've always had a low opinion of Giuliani, even prior to 9/11. But it's only in the last several years that I've realized he's an idiot.

@Bill Simpich, Tommy Graves said that he miswrote something in this. Where he wrote: "...but hid OS documents on Oswald from the Church Committee and the Warren Commission..." he meant to write: "...but hid OS documents on Oswald from the Church Committee and the HSCA..." The changed word is in bold (mine). I will correct the original.