Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send these  to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Craig Carvalho

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Craig Carvalho

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,955 profile views
  1. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Jim, Never read it. As to the Soviet's description of Oswald's demeanor at the time of his visit, yes I do believe they were telling the truth. Did the CIA withhold and falsify information about Oswald both before and after the assassination? Yes they did. Why they did it is what we are here debating. I admit I don't have that answer, nor do the experts... yet. Until that day comes... what is true, and what is false in this case depends largely on one's point of view regarding Oswald. P.S. Member Douglas Caddy recently started a thread entitled, CIA had 'very intensive' interest in Oswald before assassination. Worth a look IMO.
  2. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Mathias, Your hypothesis is possible. It would definitely take time to work through it in one's mind. You are correct on two very important points... it is a mystery that we may never fully understand. Thank you for the links. I will most certainly be reading them. Weapons and narcotics were two commodities Castro was very interested in, (guns coming in, and drugs going out).
  3. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    David, I didn't see this post until today when going back to find Paul T.'s post. In it you write... "So I ask a basic question... if, on Oct 1st the CIA took a photo of Oswald in Mexico at these consulates.... and the CIA wants to connect him with KOSTIKOV, how would his photo be detrimental to the effort?" This is an assumption on your part David, not without some validity I will admit. Truth be told, we still don't know exactly what operation the CIA, (specifically Angleton), may have been running in Mexico City during this time period. To me, this is the key element that is missing, especially in light of the fact that it occurred before the assassination. It would explain why the CIA wanted Oswald's participation, whether wittingly or unwittingly, kept "out of the loop"... even from Win Scott. As to your question regarding DeMohrenshildt... after emigrating to the U.S. in 1938 DeM began working for the Shumaker Co. in New York. The chief of export there was a man by the name of Pierre Fraiss. Fraiss was connected to French intelligence. The two of them became friends, and soon DeM was working directly for Fraiss collecting information on people involved in pro-German activities. This "side-line" required DeM to travel extensively within the U.S.. Part of this intelligence operation involved contacting domestic oil companies urging them to sell oil to the French at competitive prices against German oil supplies during WWII.
  4. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Hello Paul, sorry for the delay. I began to write a response to your query last night, but it got late, (I start my day at 3 a.m.). There are two aspects to this Paul... the paper trail and the monitoring. The CIA's first official notification of Oswald's defection came in the form of a telephone call on Monday, November 1, 1959 from FBI CIA liaison officer Sam Papich to Associate Deputy Director of Operations for Counterintelligence (ADDOCI), James Angleton. Why Papich would choose Angleton's direct office line is another subject of some controversy, but we may certainly assume that the monitoring began immediately thereafter. During the Warren Commission's investigation the CIA had maintained that it was unable to pinpoint the date(s) of their receipt of the many Oswald memorandums being digested by the various agencies that would have a "need to know" in the first week following Oswald's defection. We now know that U.S. consular Richard Snyder's second, lengthier memo on Oswald, that arrived at the Sate Department on November 6, was at the CIA by Friday, November 13. Although the document's cover sheet is missing, it does include a documents list which was parenthetically dated, "[Received in CIA on 13 Nov 59]". In the upper right hand corner of the document is written "'O'Neal". The chief of CI/SIG at that time was James Angleton's boss Birch D. O'Neal. Paul - if there are any dates or documents that you have a particular interest in I will do my best to provide you with any available info I have. Regards, Craig C.
  5. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Paul, You and I share a common interest in this case. However, I would have to agree with the idea that the CIA was responsible for the Mexico City charade, (not with any particular group here mind you). ALL of Oswald's activities both during and after his defection, were being closely monitored by the CIA. Let me be more specific. James Angleton was monitoring Oswald, and kept his 201 file under close wraps within the CI/SIG. This explains a lot. It explains why there "appeared" to be a 16 month gap between the time Oswald defected, and the opening of his 201 file. It also explains why Win Scott's "official" cable to CIA HQ regarding Oswald in Mexico City fails to mention Oswald's visit to the Cuban consulate, an oversight that Scott's close colleague, David Atlee Phillips could not explain to the HSCA. Oddly enough it was Phillips who drafted it. In Scott's memoir, which was finally released to his son Michael, (heavily redacted), after a protracted legal battle, Scott writes of Oswald's visit to Mexico City... "Every piece of information concerning Lee Harvey Oswald was reported immediately after it was received... These reports were made on all his contacts with both the Cuban Consulate and with the Soviets." Scott sent along with the cable two requests 1.) that a "trace" be made on Oswald, 2.) a photograph of Oswald. If the surveillance cameras weren't working during Oswald's visit(s), then why would Scott request his photograph? The response the Mexico City station chief received from Langley purported to be "...the latest headquarters information...", yet it said nothing of Oswald's activities in New Orleans just weeks prior to his arrival in Mexico... activities that both the FBI and CIA were aware of. The photograph, which would have been Phillips' responsibility to compare with the surveillance film, never arrived. And lastly, it would explain the CIA's initial claim to the Warren Commission that they knew nothing of Oswald's trip to Mexico until after the president's assassination. For four years Oswald had been carefully watched by both the FBI and the CIA, yet for some reason, someone, wanted it kept a secret even before the assassination. That man was James Jesus Angleton.
  6. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Sandy, Do you believe that the CIA, or members of that organization, would risk all they had to assassinate a sitting U.S. president without assurances that the man who would take his place would follow through with their plan? If what you are saying is true, the CIA wound up worse off then they were when Kennedy defeated Nixon in 1960... no Cuba, and a treasonous conspiracy to commit assassination within their own ranks. P.S. Makes Oswald's mode of transportation seem rather irrelevant when you step back and take a look at the big picture.
  7. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Sandy, What you are referring to goes back to the JCS's proposed NORTHWOODS operation, which president Kennedy quickly dismissed. While I can understand the logic of your premise, my question to you would be this... why then did it fail to provide the intended result after Kennedy's assassination?
  8. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Hello Paul, 'What Hoover was talking about was French espionage activities in the US in 1963.' 'Presumably however, what Hoover was referring to was the presence of a Corsican assassin linked to the French OAS, the very group that tried to assassinate Charles DeGaulle and stage a coup d'etat in France in 1962.' There are many possibilities Paul. It could be a combination of more than one instance. As Hoover suggests in the memorandum there were more than the two mentioned. I could elaborate, but seeing as how few here believe Oswald participated in JFK's assassination it would be futile to further implicate him in another. I was merely pointing out a coincidence.
  9. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    David, When I joined my first forum I had already spent more than three decades researching this case. I thought, wow, this will be great. I'll have somewhere to share information with other like-minded people. I admit I was being naive. These forums all ultimately have their agendas. That's why I don't post here much, as you can see from my low post count. I was once told by a very well known researcher to avoid these types of settings, and for the most part I do. I guess I just can't help but getting a kick out of listening to the "experts" weigh in on this stuff now and again... LOL! Edit to add: Just so there are no hard feelings I will comment on one of your documents above... even though I have no credibility at this point... just kidding. The one where Hoover is complaining about the CIA withholding French espionage activities in the U.S. ... guess who collaborated with both the OSS and French intelligence here in the U.S. during WWII... none other than Oswald's good friend George DeMorehnshildt, (pretty sure I got the spelling right on that). Coincidence?
  10. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Paul, those photos along with Win Scott's unpublished manuscript were removed from Mexico City in 1971, just two days after Scott's death, by James Angleton. When Angleton was fired by DCI Colby in 1975 every file Angleton had on the JFK assassination was destroyed.
  11. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    David, In my posts on this topic I have given the names of two mid/high level U.S. government officials who gave sworn testimony to congressional investigators regarding photos of Oswald in Mexico City. You ignored them. I offered a photo of Oswald inside the Cuban consulate given to a CBS reporter in 1978 by Eusebio Azcue. You sidestepped it by saying there was no proof of Oswald being "outside" the Cuban consulate, (nice try). I offered evidence of three Soviets officials who have not only confirmed Oswald's visit to the Soviet embassy, but who also gave specifics regarding Oswald's state of mind at that time. You challenged their veracity without even taking into consideration my explanation as to why it was in their best interest to be truthful, (either way). Filling a page on a forum with lots of documents, (which I have already seen), does not impress me, nor does it prove your point(s). To borrow a phrase from you... You can't learn what you don't want to know.
  12. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    DJ - You can WANT him to have been in Mexico City..... but desire sadly does not make it true. David, You could completely erase the FACT that Oswald was in Mexico City, and it wouldn't change a thing regarding the events that occurred in Dallas. Mexico City was a side-show event. Bottom line is... You can WANT Oswald to be innocent... but desire sadly does not make it true. Nor does making Bill Simpich your personal Lord and Savior lend legitimacy to the Oswald apologist's cause. With all due respect to Mr. Simpich, he's just another guy, with another theory. He is no different from any of the rest of us here who have spent many long hours, days, weeks, and years studying this case..
  13. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    This is an excellent point. It's actually sad that we should even have to waste our time going over it, but... If Oswald was never in Mexico City, then he could never have met with these Soviet officials. Can we at least agree on that? So why then would they each confirm his visit to the Soviet embassy, when they could have distanced themselves and their country from the alleged assassin, and "laid bare" the alleged CIA plot to frame LHO? All it would have taken was for them to say... "someone calling himself Lee Oswald visited, but it was not the man arrested in Dallas", and they could have hung their CIA adversaries out to dry. Here is why... OSWALD WAS IN MEXICO CITY. I don't care how he got there. A train, a plane, an automobile, or his tricycle. He was there. The Soviets knew it, and they weren't about to get caught in a lie by denying it. They were in enough trouble. Why did the CIA create the controversy over Oswald's trip to Mexico that we are now bashing each other over? Before the assassination it's purpose was to conceal an ongoing operation. Following the assassination it helped conceal the CIA's long hidden "operational interest" in the alleged assassin.
  14. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    The photo at the top of my last post was given to CBS reporter Ed Rable in 1978 by Eusebio Azcue. Azcue claims the photo was taken inside the Cuban consulate in Mexico City, and shows the man who identified himself as Lee Harvey Oswald. I have taken the liberty to flip the photo to give those of you interested a better profile to match against the Oswald photo taken while in DPD custody.