Jump to content


Spartacus

Oswald 1959 photo.

Oswald

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Blair Dobson

Blair Dobson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 386 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 March 2013 - 11:44 PM

I have a few questions someone may be able to answer.

The photo of Oswald included here...

Attached File  oswald 1959.jpg   47.59KB   31 downloads



- Does anyone know when this was first made available to the press before 1963 and where?

- Where did the Warren Omission get theirs from?

Edited by Blair Dobson, 31 March 2013 - 11:44 PM.


#2 Blair Dobson

Blair Dobson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 386 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 March 2013 - 11:59 PM

Maybe Robin can help you.

I know that when Seamus Coogan did his long essay on Fletcher Prouty and Dave Perry he had a hard time figuring out the provenance of that picture.

It would be nice to clear that issue up.


Thanks Jim,

this is one of the reasons I ask this question.

Prouty has always been a curious figure in all this. A large portion of his stuff just doesn't add up and some of it does.

(This could be for "limited hangout" reasons, who knows..)

A contact of mine who spent the 70's/80's/90's turning old newspapers into microfiche ( and later digitized ) for archive purposes looked and found nothing.
(The archives searched went from 1940 to 1977 btw and were for a large American news company)

interestingly, most of the Oswald pages had been excised or blacked out (as were most mentions of Watergate..)

just curious.

Edited by Blair Dobson, 01 April 2013 - 12:02 AM.


#3 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,248 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 02 April 2013 - 02:10 PM

Prouty has always been a curious figure in all this. A large portion of his stuff just doesn't add up and some of it does.

(This could be for "limited hangout" reasons, who knows..)


Prouty was pretty clearly was a BS artist. For example he claimed that the BoP operation was for a while codenamed "Operation Zapata" after Bush's company when in fact the name derived from the landing site on the Zapata Peninsula near the eponymous swamps. Yet he claimed to have been JFK's military advisor. Either he was not as in the loop as he claimed and presented a guess as insider knowledge or he knew the truth and lied,

I imagine any examples of him telling the truth illustrate the 'blind pig principle'.

#4 Tom Hume

Tom Hume

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 229 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 May 2013 - 03:17 AM

Hi Blair,

I’m don’t know what your interest is in this photo, but I’m interested because of the doctoring that’s apparently been done to it. I’d like to know if Oswald did it himself.

There’s a line running down the middle of his face, and the hairline and lips don’t match up. I’ve seen several versions of this photo, and they’re all a little different.

This one is from the John Armstrong Collection at Baylor, and it seems to have some oddities that the others don’t.

http://i1278.photobu...zpscd5e482c.jpg

First let me call your attention to the area around his left ear. There appears to be a tiny old man with a full white beard, and he’s wearing a pointed hat. It’s pretty fuzzy, so stand back from your monitor to perceive this cartoon guy.

http://i1278.photobu...zps7042934b.jpg

If one cares to take the time to put this version of the Oswald photo on their photo program, I think one will find a collage of more faces, both animal and human - some right side up, some upside down, and some sideways.

About three inches above his right ear, there is a piece of crown molding in the background, the top of a wardrobe cabinate or something. In this picture it appears to be nearly touching his head.
In the other similar versions of this photo, that piece of molding is very distinct, but in this photo it’s fuzzy. Here’s what I get when I blow up that small section – stand way back from your monitor. The farther back I get, the better she looks. On closer inspection, she morphs into a pastiche of many faces.

http://i1278.photobu...zpsf80469d8.jpg

Very curious.

Tom

#5 Joseph Backes

Joseph Backes

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:09 AM

I have a few questions someone may be able to answer.

The photo of Oswald included here...

attachicon.gifoswald 1959.jpg



- Does anyone know when this was first made available to the press before 1963 and where?

- Where did the Warren Omission get theirs from?

 

I do wish people would give a link or some information about where they got an image that they are posting came from.  So, what Blair posted probably came from here.  You can search Google for Lee Harvey Oswald 1959 photo and you'll see it.  It was used in the PBS show "American Experience: Oswald's Ghost."

 

The more I look at it I think what you've got, Blair, is the before photo and then what is in John Armstrong's materials at Baylor is the after photo.  

 

For the purposes of a discussion on these two LHO photos I'm going to call the one Blair posted as the Blair LHO photo and the one Tom Hume gave a link to as the Armstrong photo. 

 

So, in other words, the Blair LHO photo is the original photo and the Armstrong LHO photo, the one we're more familiar with is a doctored photo.  The Armstrong LHO is a composite, I believe, of two different people.  I've always thought the right side of a man's face, on the left side of the photo as viewed, is closer to the camera than the left side of another man's face, the right side of the photo as viewed, is.  The left side of the face comes from the photo of LHO that Blair posted.  So, we don't have the original photo of the man on the right side of the Armstrong photo.  Who that man is remains a mystery.  


Edited by Joseph Backes, 23 May 2013 - 08:00 AM.


#6 Ian Kingsbury

Ian Kingsbury

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 558 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:just far enough north of London
  • Interests:Coaching football ,reading ,watching West Ham when pos. trying not to comment on West Ham when pos. unhealthy thirst for knowledge any knowledge.

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:35 AM

Hi Blair,
I’m don’t know what your interest is in this photo, but I’m interested because of the doctoring that’s apparently been done to it. I’d like to know if Oswald did it himself.
There’s a line running down the middle of his face, and the hairline and lips don’t match up. I’ve seen several versions of this photo, and they’re all a little different.
This one is from the John Armstrong Collection at Baylor, and it seems to have some oddities that the others don’t.
http://i1278.photobu...zpscd5e482c.jpg
First let me call your attention to the area around his left ear. There appears to be a tiny old man with a full white beard, and he’s wearing a pointed hat. It’s pretty fuzzy, so stand back from your monitor to perceive this cartoon guy.
http://i1278.photobu...zps7042934b.jpg
If one cares to take the time to put this version of the Oswald photo on their photo program, I think one will find a collage of more faces, both animal and human - some right side up, some upside down, and some sideways.
About three inches above his right ear, there is a piece of crown molding in the background, the top of a wardrobe cabinate or something. In this picture it appears to be nearly touching his head.
In the other similar versions of this photo, that piece of molding is very distinct, but in this photo it’s fuzzy. Here’s what I get when I blow up that small section – stand way back from your monitor. The farther back I get, the better she looks. On closer inspection, she morphs into a pastiche of many faces.
http://i1278.photobu...zpsf80469d8.jpg
Very curious.
Tom



Tom

Were you aware that Allen Dulles had a( prominent anthrilix) fault with his left ear?.
I believe his father to be afflicted too.

Ian

#7 David Lifton

David Lifton

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 880 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:31 AM

I have a few questions someone may be able to answer.

The photo of Oswald included here...

attachicon.gifoswald 1959.jpg



- Does anyone know when this was first made available to the press before 1963 and where?

- Where did the Warren Omission get theirs from?

 

I have a few questions someone may be able to answer.

The photo of Oswald included here...

attachicon.gifoswald 1959.jpg



- Does anyone know when this was first made available to the press before 1963 and where?

- Where did the Warren Omission get theirs from?

Its my understanding that this photo was taken in Moscow, at the Hotel Berlin, between the day Oswald arrived (Friday, 10/16) and the day of the suicide attempt (10/21) after which  he went to Botkin Hospital.  Oswald apparently sat for a hotel photographer, and had a couple of pictures taken.  (I base my conclusion on extensive discussions I had with Gary Mack [back in 1999] about various photographs of Oswald taken in Moscow). 

 

FYI: When Oswald was interviewed by UPI's Aline Mosby (on Saturday, 11/14), she reported --in her article--that he had a "chop top" haircut, per the military style.

 

One other thing: its very likely this photo is available at the Natonal Archives, and in the Kennedy collection.

 

DSL

5/23/13; 3:30 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California


Edited by David Lifton, 23 May 2013 - 11:33 AM.


#8 Tom Hume

Tom Hume

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 229 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 May 2013 - 03:34 PM

Here is a link to the Armstrong photo I posted last night its on page 64.

http://digitalcollec...d/45084/rec/167

I think those of you that are interested in this sort of thing will find it fascinating in a number of ways. As I said in my post, there is a sea of artwork imbedded in the Armstrong photo, mostly a collage of faces blended together.

This is the best example Ive found, but theres more out there. I suppose we are looking at digitized copies of copies, and some of those faces that can be seen, cant be more than 1/32nd of an inch or something in diameter.

My primary interest in this, is that I find the same artwork imbedded on The Oswald Gift label, the "Undeliverable Package label, that we find in this Oswald photo. Ian Kingsbury and I are about to post some of those on the Oswald $13 Gift thread.

We know Oswald was in to photography, but I can only recall one comment about his cartooning abilities. Does anyone know anything about this?

Put the third link below up on your monitor and stand across the room and look at the woman imbedded in the crown molding on the wardrobe next to Oswalds right ear. Then walk closer and observe the sea of faces of which shes constructed.

Yikes!

http://i1278.photobu...zpscd5e482c.jpg

http://i1278.photobu...zps7042934b.jpg

http://i1278.photobu...zpsf80469d8.jpg

Tom

Edited by Tom Hume, 23 May 2013 - 04:51 PM.


#9 Tom Hume

Tom Hume

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 229 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 May 2013 - 04:46 PM

I'm going to suggest that we jump to some conclusions and see if anything shakes out.

The "Armstrong" face is an obvious blend of Oswald and perhaps someone else. It's obvious, and, jumping to a conclusion, designed to be so. I speculate that the other person is his twin, so to speak, and "he's" telling us who the other person is, or persons are, by imbedding letters in the faces we can see when we study the photo closely.

Look at Oswald's left forehead, our right, and there are dark letters. I get a very strong letter "V", maybe two of them, and an "I" and maybe a "T", and for sure, an "O". The top cartoon old man above his left ear is wearing a hat, and his hat forms two letters, a "V" and an "I". Below this cartoon man are many more cartoons, mostly made out of letters.

The photo I posted of the woman in the crown molding, I rotated 90 degrees. If you don't do that, if you view the crown molding collage in its proper orientation, the effect is of a tangle of "V's" and "I's". I'll post a blow-up of this just as soon as I can make one.

But I won't jump to the conclusion that "he's" indicating Igor Vladmiris Vaganov (also jumping to the conclusion that Oswald made this photo-puzzle), I promise I won't do that, not yet - not 'til we study this thing.

In the sea of faces, there is a sea of letters making up those faces. Lets get started and see what they are - see if "he's" telling us the name or names of his doppelgangers in this doctored photo.

Study this photo from the Armstrong Collection - page 64:

http://digitalcollec...d/45084/rec/167

Tom

Edited by Tom Hume, 23 May 2013 - 05:18 PM.


#10 Tom Hume

Tom Hume

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 229 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:09 PM

http://digitalcollec...d/45084/rec/167

Sorry, I can't seem to get the details of the photo blown up and on Photobucket. It's interesting to see Armstrong's photo on a computer's photo gear, using the controls to see detail.

The dark area on Oswald's forehead appears to contain letters.

Attached File  Armstrong - Oswald's forehead - V.tiff   114.28KB   13 downloads

There appears to be an ugly fellow down in the lower left corner.

Attached File  Armstrong - lower left.tiff   154.04KB   12 downloads

Tom

Edited by Tom Hume, 23 May 2013 - 09:26 PM.


#11 Tom Hume

Tom Hume

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 229 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:18 PM

Adding to what David said in post #6, Gary Mack provided a link to Robert Korengold's article which discuss the origin of the photo. Gary also provided a link to a flipped version (I hope Jim doesn't beat me up).

http://www.bonjourpa...wald-revisited/

http://www.corbisima...e-harvey-oswald

Tom

Edited by Tom Hume, 23 May 2013 - 09:34 PM.


#12 Tom Hume

Tom Hume

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 229 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 May 2013 - 01:28 AM

Armstrong photo is on page 64:
http://digitalcollec...d/45084/rec/167

I finally got some photo details loaded up on Photobucket. Really, the way to examine this doctored photo is to put it on whatever you use to edit photos. I'm just using Mac iPhoto and adjusting the levels and brightness controls. Theres interesting stuff all over the Armstrong photo, but one of the busiest areas is to the left (our right) of Oswald's face. Once you've found a bunch of interesting faces, rotate the photo and there's more, then rotate it again.

One problem with posting these pictures, is that I can't show everything at once, but with the controls on your computer, you can tweak back and forth a get a much bigger picture of what's going on.

And keep in mind, were looking at a on-line jpeg of a photograph of a photograph, and were looking at things that are in the neighborhood of 1/8 of an inch or so square on the original photo.

But see how many faces you can see in each picture. One face blends into another, and the more you look, the more you see, and most of it is not your immagination (hopefully).

Old man with beard and pointed hat, and friends: (next to Oswalds left ear)

http://i1278.photobu...zps3659ae8f.jpg

Complicated woman full of faces: (from the crown molding just above Oswalds right ear)

http://i1278.photobu...zpsf80469d8.jpg

Bright spot on Oswalds left cheek: (this is a very complicated area; study it for a while and if it peaks your interest, study the real thing the Armstrong photo).

http://i1278.photobu...zps92d4d8e9.jpg

Ugly man in lower left corner of photo: (once again, a sea of faces).

http://i1278.photobu...zps39ff7624.jpg

And for comparison, here's one from "The Oswald Gift" (the address label on "The Undeliverable Package"):

http://i1278.photobu...zpsee31420f.jpg



Tom

Edited by Tom Hume, 24 May 2013 - 02:25 AM.


#13 Kathleen Collins

Kathleen Collins

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,818 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 02:32 AM

Dear Fellows,

 

Before they had Street View, Earth would bring you a certain distance to what you wanted

to see.  What you saw was weird shapes and people.  It was all imagination.  You'd see

rooftops, but also strange things.  Something weird would turn out to be a bush.  I bring

this up because I think you are very mistaken.  I think you are wasting your time with finding

"artifacts."  I believe it's a composite picture of Lee and Harvey; and that's all it is.

 

Kathy C



#14 Tom Hume

Tom Hume

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 229 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 May 2013 - 04:39 PM

Hi Kathleen,

You may be right about the photo being a "composit photo of Lee and Harvey", I have no idea, it's not my current area of interest.

But I know you are correct about people's tendancies to see weird shapes on the ground from high altitudes. I have six-thousand hours flying time as an Air Force Navigator, much of that time spent looking for anomilious features on the ground, and it's true, sometimes ones eyes and imagination can play tricks on one.

Those that are interested in closely examining the photo of Oswald, the one we are calling the Armstrong, might come to a different conclusion than Kathleen, a different conclusion about these being "imaginary artifacts".

I suggest you start by examining the area on the left side of Oswalds face (our right). It's a collage of cartoon faces, and I can't help but suspect that there's a message intended by whoever made this thing. Once again, you can't see much of this by just casually looking at the photograph; you need to download it to your favorite program and use your editing controls to bring out the fine details.

I'm sorry for not posting more blow-ups of examples, but they don't do justice, primarily due to my meager computer skills, but also because the artwork is more easily seen in context, I think.

http://digitalcollec...d/45084/rec/167

Go to page 64 to view the version I've been referring to.

There is a similar photo on page 54, and the differences are interesting. For starters, the face is not split down the middle as in the page 64 version. It's a little less clear overall, but it has a completely different set of shading-artwork imbedded in it.

I might add that I see none of this in the version of the photograph for which this thread was started (the "Blair photo - see post #6).

Tom

Edited by Tom Hume, 25 May 2013 - 05:19 PM.


#15 David Lifton

David Lifton

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 880 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 May 2013 - 09:22 PM

Adding to what David said in post #6, Gary Mack provided a link to Robert Korengold's article which discuss the origin of the photo. Gary also provided a link to a flipped version (I hope Jim doesn't beat me up).

http://www.bonjourpa...wald-revisited/

http://www.corbisima...e-harvey-oswald

Tom

 

(If there's a duplicate post--my apologies. . through a glitch, I apparently lost it. . but "as I was saying". . .).

 

Also note (5/25/13 -9:PM, PDT): I have edited this post to eliminate spelling errors, but also to include certain information about Oswald's two letters to his brother, mentioning the U-2.

 

* * * BELOW THIS POINT - - - MY EDITED and Augmented POST * * *

 

To begin with: the date on the Corbis photo (which is given as November 17, 1959), is incorrect.The correct date is October 31, 1959.

 

Here's the sequence (as I understand it) of what happened that.  So let's  start by going to calendar date October 31, 1959.

 

Sat., October 31, 1959:

 

At about 12:30-1240 PM local [Moscow] time, Oswald goes to the American Embassy, and has the encounter with Consul Snyder. (Note: according to an account in John Newman's book, Oswald and the CIA [see the author's Chapter #1 "Defection in Moscow"], LHO  was well dressed.  (Quoting from Newman: “Oswald was dressed immaculately, in a dark suit with a white shirt and tie—‘very businessman-looking,’ Snyder later recalled. But Snyder soon noticed odd things, like the fact that the man had no coat or hat on this brisk October thirty-first morning. . and then there were those thin, dressy white gloves that he wore into the room and removed rather deliberately as he came to a halt in front of Snyder’s desk.” (Newman, p. 2) Oswald, too referred to these gloves in his own diary entry of the moment he sat down: “I wait, crossing my legs and laying my gloves in my lap.”  (ibid).  Somehow—and it may have been from a personal conversation with John Newman, I have retained the impression that Oswald was not wearing “any old gloves” but the white gloves that were part of his USMC dress uniform

 

2. Oswald returns to his room at the Hotel Berlin

 

3. Later that afternoon, Korengold (of UPI) goes to Oswald's room; attempts to interview him. Keeps foot in door. etc. Oswald refuses. (FYI: There is a brief FBI Interview of Korengold somewhere in the 26 volumes. Much much shorter than this very interesting article he wrote in Bonjour Paris, which was published in November [I'm assuming that was the month] 2003).

 

4. Korengold returns to his office; tells Aline Mosby about Oswald, and what has just transpired.

 

5. Aline Mosby goes to LHO's room--with a camera--and does interview him. And she takes his picture. That's the photo of the nicely dressed Oswald, with suit, vest, tie, etc. now being sold by Corbis (and mis-dated as having been taken on November 17).  At some point, and apparently wearing these same clothes, but this detail should be checked carefully, Oswald sat for a formal portrait at the Hotel Berlin. That's the "other" picture (or pictures) showing him nicely dressed).

 

6. Mosby's story is datelined 10/31/59 and runs in many newspapers--certainly on Sunday, November 1 (but perhaps also in late evening editions on Saturday night, 10/31/59. Not sure of that. But remember: Moscow is "nine hours ahead" of Dallas, for example, so there would probably have been plenty of time to make a late evening or "Xtra" edition of U.S.newspaper). 

 

7. Mosby takes the picture that is now at Corbis (and which Corbis incorrectly states was taken on November 17, 1959)

 

7A: For the record: Another reporter, Goldberg, of the AP, also attempted to interview Oswald that same day. A brief FBI report about that is in the 26 Volumes). His encounter is also mentioned in Epstein's LEGEND.

 

8. Two weeks later, on Saturday, November 14, Oswald calls Mosby (at the Moscow UPI office) and invites her to come over and interview him. By that time, he is being treated much more sympathetically by the Soviets and is at the Hotel Metropole (remember: LHO attempted suicide on 10/21, and went to Botkin Hospital. When he was released, circa 10/28, the Soviets transferred him from the Hotel Berlin to the Hotel Metropole). 

 

9. This Mosby interview was widely published on Sunday, 11/15/59, and a copy of it --as it ran in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (with the headline Fort Worth Defector Confirms Red Beliefs)--is Warren Commission Exhibit 2716. The same story ran in he Dallas Morning News (again, on 11/15/59, but this was not published in he Warren Commission's 26 volumes) under the title: "Fort Worth Boy Tells Why He Left U.S.") And, fyi, Oswald's own "Historic Diary" entry of that same encounter with Mosby is WCE 2717.

 

10. In this interview, Mosby said that LHO had a "chop-top" haircut.

 

11. I don't know (for certain) if Mosby took any pictures of Oswald on this occasion, but I don't believe she did.

 

12. On Monday, November 16, Priscilla Johnson (McMillan) learned about Oswald being at the Metropole Hotel (where she, too, was staying), and she then arranged to interview him that evening, and spent some hours with Oswald.  But note this important difference: Priscilla Johnson (McMillan) was with North American News Alliance (NANA), not a wire service, and so her story (as Korengold notes in his Bonjour Paris piece) was distributed by mail, and to a limited number of subscribers; and so, when it appeared, was published many days--if not several weeks--later. (Also note: no photos were taken by McMillan).

 

Anyway. . .my main purpose in setting out to write this post was simply to note that Corbis is selling a historically important picture of Oswald which is incorrectly dated.  Also, it is very likely that this same picture is in the Kennedy collection at the National Archives, but I'm not sure of that at all. (And, even if its there, its  perhaps same picture, but an inferior copy. I just don't know).

 

I also find it very interesting--and indeed, most informative--that Korengold and McMillan happened to be together on November 22, 1963, when the news arrived of Oswald being arrested in Dallas--so of course they swapped stories and recollections, and of course they "matched". Remember: they both saw Oswald on the same day (October 31, 1959) and within minutes of one another.

 

Priscilla McMillan's story versus Mosby's Story (per the Warren Commission materials)

 

Two other things are worth noting (and keep in mind that Priscilla McMillan was deposed as a Warren Commission witness, whereas Aline Mosby was not). In the case of Mosby, there is simply a WC exhibit of the text of her notes, and draft that she wrote, just after the assassination [see CE 1385]. But no testimony--which I have always found weird. Obviously, she was just as (historically) important as McMillan, and certainly should have testified.

 

Now, on to these points:

 

(a) The Priscilla Johnson story and the Aline Mosby story are almost line by line similar. So--essentially--Oswald said the same thing to both of these reporters just days apart. Consequently, I have never understood why so much suspicion is focused on Priscilla Johnson (McMillan) --for having once attempted to join the CIA, or whatever the details are--when a nearly identical story was published by Aline Mosby, and no one raises an eyebrow. My point is that Priscilla--imho--has come in for a lot of unjustified criticism and suspicion. As far as I'm concerned, its entirely unwarranted.  Each reporter simply wrote down what Oswald told them, and then published based on that information. So their two stories represent written accounts of two conversations that Oswald had with these two journalists to days apart.  But. . please do read on, because there's plenty of questions that can be raised about Aline Mosby, and they are potentially far more important than the rather unwarranted barrage of criticism (unwarranted criticism, imho)  that has been aimed at McMillan--and in writing this, I'm referring to the two stories that each journalist wrote in the aftermath of their two encounters with Oswald--Mosby, on Saturday, 11/14/59, and McMillan (then Priscilla Johnson), on 11/16/59.

 

(b ) There is reasonable evidence that Oswald--somehow--got from Minsk to Moscow, and (perhaps) attended one of the three days (or part of one of the three days) of the sensational U-2 trial of Gary Powers in August, 1960 (8/17, 8/18, 8/19)--based on the fact that he twice mentioned to Robert Oswald (in letters written in Feb., 1962, after Powers was in the news, because he had been exchanged for Soviet spy Rudolph Abel) that he had "seen" Oswald in Moscow.  I don't know how Oswald somehow managed to get to Moscow (if he did). I'm just pointing out that that's a natural inference, based on what he wrote his brother. 

 

Here are the two quotes from two consecutive letters to his brother, Robert.

 

The first, from LHO's letter to his brother on 2/15/62 (the birth date of his first child, June, and the proximate cause for his writing to his brother, congratulating him on now being an uncle):  I heard over the Voice of America that they released Powers the U-2 spy plane pilot. That's big news where you are, I suppose. He seemed to be a nice, bright American-type fellow, when I saw him in Moscow." (WCE 315; underling added)

 

Then came a second mention, in his next letter to Robert: I heard a "Voice of America" program about the Russians releasing Powers.  I hope they aren't going to try him in the U.S. [for] anything. (WCE 316).

 

So much for Lee Oswald mentioning Gary Powers. But now, also significant (and potentially more important), here's my next point. . .

 

(c ) Aline Mosby almost certainly covered  that trial. (She was, after all, one of UPI's reporters). So first of all, if Oswald was at the U-2 trial, and if Mosby covered it, and if she saw him there, the absence of any mention of the "former defector" being there would of course be significant. And that's just conjecture. Because I can't prove Oswald was at the trial, and I have no direct evidence (at this juncture) that Aline Mosby in fact covered the Powers trial, although its likely she did. In any event, let's now move on to 1961, at which point Mosby was under contract to write a book for Random House, about her experiences in Russia.

 

Aline Mosby had two occasions in which she spoke with Oswald--first, on October 31 (as explained in detail by Korengold, in his 2003 Bonjour Paris piece); and then again on Saturday, November 14, 1959, which resulted in the longer story she did and which was published in various US newspapers on Sunday, November 15, 1959.   And yet, when it came time to write her book about her time as a journalist in Moscow--The View from No. 13 People's Street, published by Random House in 1962 --she mentions nothing about Oswald.   The jacket of her book sports the statement: "The only woman correspondent in Moscow reports on Russia, and the Russians."  The book is 308 pages long and, as noted, was published by Random House. It is no longer in print, but has chapters on all sorts of things. 

 

How come there's no mention of Oswald? FWIW: For quite a few years now, I have suspected that --somehow--CIA Director Allen Dulles (who was "connected to everyone" [my quotes] and had great connections in the world of publishing) somehow heard about her book and (somehow) requested that she not write about Oswald; or, if pages or paragraphs were already in the book about LHO, that they be deleted.  Of course, I can't prove this, but I just don't understand how such an interesting and newsworthy person as Oswald, whom one writes about on two previous occasions (someone interesting enough that the reporter even takes his picture, and includes that in her wire service story!) is then omitted from such a memoir.

 

So much for my thoughts on the late Aline Mosby. But now let's turn to Priscilla McMillan, and her writings on the JFK case.

 

WHY PRISCILLA McMILLAN CAME TO BE SO DEEPLY INVOLVED IN THE KENNEDY CASE

(and the source of her "Oswald did it" viewpoint)

 

(d ) With regard to McMillan: I don't wish to dredge up personal matters (unnecessarily), but it should be pointed out that she had a personal relationship with Senator Kennedy, back in the mid -fifties, and was--to speak frankly--in love with him. (Please note: Priscilla Johnson --as she was then known--knew Senator Kennedy well enough to be visiting him in his hospital room, along with JFK's sisters, when he was recovering from his major back surgery).  Of what relevance is this? Well, here's why its important.

 

Priscilla's Initial Reaction to Hearing the News of President Kennedy's Murder

 

Priscilla's reaction--upon hearing the news of Kennedy's murder (and it was devastating to her, on a personal level)--was along these lines: "OMG: I knew both the man who was murdered and the man who murdered him!  I personally knew both Jack Kennedy himself, as well as this young man who is (apparently) his assassin." And --I believe (and I think she has almost said as much, in a writing of hers that I have read, perhaps in Marina and Lee)--that she was then driven to understand how this young man with whom she had spent a snowy evening  in Moscow, on November 16, 1959, could then, just four years later, do something like that.  For her, it was an existential mystery of sorts: How Lee Oswald, who she thought she understood fairly well, had come to assassinate the man she had loved, John F. Kennedy.  So that's how it began.  That's the root (and the origins, psychologically) of Priscilla's interest in Kennedy's assassination, and Lee Oswald as his assassin. 

 

How That Led to Her Involvement With Marina Oswald

 

And so of course it was natural for her to seek a link-up with Marina, which then resulted in Marina and Lee published in 1977.  When someone we love is murdered, we want to know "what happened?" and "Why?"  That's what happened with Priscilla McMillan. Again I remind anyone reading this who insists on attempting to "explain" Priscilla McMillan's 1959 writings as part of some nefarious CIA scheme: what she wrote (and published) in November 1959 (and in December, 1959) is no different than what Aline Mosby wrote (and published) on November 15, 1959. These two reporters interviewed Lee Oswald two days apart; and he essentially said the same thing to both.

 

The Important Difference Between McMillan and (the late) Aline Mosby

 

But note this important difference: When Mosby wrote (and published) her 1962 memoir about her Moscow days ("The View from No. 13 People's Street," published in 1962 by Random House, and over 300 pages long)  there is not a word about Oswald in it.  And that--as far as I'm concerned--is a serious example of a "dog that does not bark."  To repeat what I said above: I simply do not understand how a wire service reporter who interviewed Oswald twice--on October 31, 1959 and then on November 14, 1959 (and who took his photograph on the first occasion)--could then go on to write a memoir (very likely written in 1961, since it was published in 1962), and not mention Lee Harvey Oswald.

 

I'd sure like to have someone explain that to me.

 

DSL

5/25/13; 2 PM PDT; edited, 9:15 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California


Edited by David Lifton, 26 May 2013 - 05:26 AM.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users