David Josephs Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 (edited) On 2/10/2018 at 4:44 AM, Thomas Graves said: Michael, With all due respect, does WHAT change anything? The fact that the KGB guy who turned Raul Castro and Che onto Communism in 1955 impersonated Oswald at the Mexico City Cuban consulate on Friday, September 27, 1963? (LOL) -- Tommy First of all, the photo is from Oct 2nd not 1st... Second, nothing from 9/27... so to say "Oswald" in the "Oct 1" Mystery Man photo is this man would be technically incorrect... Don't think anyone mistook this man for Oswald... no reason to expose himself like such... LEONOV was at the Soviet Embassy under diplomatic cover until June '64 which means one of the voices on the phone could have been him instead of those the CIA say it was... IDK. I'm surprised I had not seen more of his name in all the writings and reports from LITAMIL... don't even see the other name, LEONID IVANOV, anywhere... Do we have anything that connect the two names other than the CIA photo? https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=147865&search=aestorage#relPageId=20&tab=page Or the entire thing is made up.... the calls, the visits, everything.... cause they knew for a fact that Oswald was not there, never was... and that notification that he was there is CIA/DFS only... The call on the 27th is a blank... could have been anyone and we know the desire of this person was not the same as was attributed to Oswald. the call on the 28th is an obvious set-up... the call on the 1st of October once again associates Oswald with these activities... DURAN is not nearly as important as the ALVARADO episode and how that evolved and changed... Alvarado and Duran told the CIA/DFS very little yet everything that the LI project claimed to have turned up could not be used as primary source for fear of discovery. So the CIA claims Duran and Alvarado filled in the blanks enough to confirm it was Oswald... for their purposes... The choice of THAT photo... and then for Goodpasture to change the date to the 1st suggests a lot, no? There were quite a few photos of that man as well... Edited March 19, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 (edited) On 2/12/2018 at 10:09 AM, David Josephs said: First of all, the photo is from Oct 2nd not 1st... Second, nothing from 9/27... so to say "Oswald" in the "Oct 1" Mystery Man photo is this man would be technically incorrect... Don't think anyone mistook this man for Oswald... no reason to expose himself like such... ..... ..... David, With all due respect, I have pointed out a couple of times on this forum that the two CIA Mexico City photos of Nikolai Leonov were taken on October 2, 1963, one day after Oswald's (or "Oswald's") infamous October 1 phone call to the Soviet Embassy (during which conversation the Russian who answered the phone suggested to Oswald / "Oswald" that the name of the Soviet consul Oswald / "Oswald" had met with was '... (gasp) ... "Kostikov." In the general context of this thread, it's interesting to note that the burly, balding "Mexico City Mystery Man" whose photo(s) Goodpasture sent to Headquarters (falsely claiming it had been taken on October 1, and kinda suggesting in the cabled text that the burly dude might be Oswald), was taken about 15 minutes before (or after -- can't remember now) the two photos of Leonov were taken on October 2. Regardless, I'm not saying Duran and Azcue "mistook" Leonov for Oswald. To suggest that would be tantamount to saying that they somehow knew what Oswald looked like before the impersonator walked into the Cuban consulate on Friday, September 27. I think it's possible Oswald's "visa photo" was taken in the USSR, and that someone sneakily stapled said photo to the application, and might even have done so after the assassination. Now a question for you. Can you think of any plausible Leonov-exonerating reason for Duran's and (especially) Azcue's collectively describing "Oswald" in such a way as to so closely resemble Nikolai Leonov, i.e., "Short (Leonov was 5' 7"), blond or dark blond, thin, 30-ish (Leonov was 30; Oswald was still 23), suit-wearing (at least according to Azcue, who said "Oswald" was wearing a blue suit jacket with "reddish" highlights in it), with blue eyes, and with a very thin face"? Keep up the good work, -- Tommy Edited February 23, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 (edited) On 2/12/2018 at 11:36 AM, Thomas Graves said: Can you think of any plausible Leonov-exonerating reason for Duran's and (especially) Azcue's collectively describing "Oswald" in such a way as to so closely resemble Nikolai Leonov, i.e., "Short (Leonov was 5' 7"), blond or dark blond, thin, 30-ish (Leonov was 30; Oswald was still 23), suit-wearing (at least according to Azcue, who said "Oswald" was wearing a gray "Prince of Wales" suit jacket with blue highlight lines in it), with blue eyes, and with a very thin face"? Because that also describes Oswald and compared to the Mexicans... he has a thin face... In truth Tommy, I doubt highly that whoever it was (if there really was someone there) - it was actually Leonov they were describing.... but it cannot be completely ruled out... why? Maybe the Cubans led by AZCUE were messing around with the Russians... Edited March 19, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, David Josephs said: Because that also describes Oswald and compared to the Mexicans... he has a thin face... In truth Tommy, I doubt highly that whoever it was (if there really was someone there) - it was actually Leonov they were describing.... but it cannot be completely ruled out... why? Maybe the Cubans led by AZCUE were messing around with the Russians... David, 5' 9 1/2" is Short ? Oswald looked 30-ish ? Oswald had Blond (2X) or Dark Blond (1X) hair ?Oswald had a Very Thin Face ? BLUE EYES ? LOL! With all due respect, Sylvia Duran said "Oswald" was a little taller than her own diminutive 5' 3.5" (Leonov was 5' 7", the one-and-only Oswald was 5' 9.5"), and that he was blond. Perhaps more importantly, Eusebio Azque said the "Oswald" he dealt with was Prince of Wales suit-wearing, about 30 years old, thin, blond or dark-blond (haired), blue-eyed, and that he had a very thin face. None of which describes LHO, especially the "about 30 years old" bit, the "blond" (according to Duran and Azcue), or "dark blond" (according to Azcue) hair bit, the very short (5' 7") stature bit, or the "very thin face bit." Or the "blue eyes" bit, come to think of it. The only physical characteristic Leonov and Oswald shared was that they were both on the skinny side. Oh yeah, and they were both male, and they were both white. At least you're starting to see the light that maybe, just maybe, the Cubans were messing with the Ruskies just a widdle bit? LOL How about this idea, David: The former killed JFK, and tried to blame it on the latter ... and, of course ... the evil, evil, evil CIA ? -- Tommy Edited February 12, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said: How about this idea, David: The former killed JFK, and tried to blame it on the latter ... and, of course ... the evil, evil, evil CIA ? Cuba blaming it on the Soviets makes little sense when there are so many other factions within the US who could be blamed... but that would presuppose the events in Mexico City were part of a Castro plan to kill JFK... I don't see that, sorry. Questions Were the calls and therefor the transcripts set up by Phillips/Goodpasture/Scott and followed up by Goodpasture/Mann/Scott with the photos and accusations? Since Alvarado comes in to tell his story and set the conspiracy at Castro's feet via a paid Oswald - what connects Cuba-getting-Russia with Alvarado and that we know he was a Nicaraguan CIA asset... interviewed by Phillips in Mexico... Why does Hoover cover for the CIA - at the obvious detriment to the FBI - an event he knows the CIA lied about? None of whatever the real reasons were for Mexico change how the FBI created the travel evidence and shoehorned Oswald into an impossible scenario. Nor the need for the CIA to keep people away from the Mexico data at every turn. I've postulated that Mexico was a chance for Phillips to create Bona Fides for Oswald while at the same time have these same Bona Fides be circumstantial evidence against him. Phillips was in charge of the Counter-Intelligence angles of the Oswald situation with Goodpasture at his side.... I continue to claim IDK that real reasons for Mexico... but I do know that CIA, FBI, I&NS, STATE lied their butts off, on just about everything they could when it comes to how he got there and left, and what he did while there... Goodpasture did not make mistakes... her stating it was Oct 1 was purposeful... why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 (edited) 30 minutes ago, David Josephs said: Cuba blaming it on the Soviets makes little sense when there are so many other factions within the US who could be blamed... but that would presuppose the events in Mexico City were part of a Castro plan to kill JFK... I don't see that, sorry. Questions Were the calls and therefor the transcripts set up by Phillips/Goodpasture/Scott and followed up by Goodpasture/Mann/Scott with the photos and accusations? Since Alvarado comes in to tell his story and set the conspiracy at Castro's feet via a paid Oswald - what connects Cuba-getting-Russia with Alvarado and that we know he was a Nicaraguan CIA asset... interviewed by Phillips in Mexico... Why does Hoover cover for the CIA - at the obvious detriment to the FBI - an event he knows the CIA lied about? None of whatever the real reasons were for Mexico change how the FBI created the travel evidence and shoehorned Oswald into an impossible scenario. Nor the need for the CIA to keep people away from the Mexico data at every turn. I've postulated that Mexico was a chance for Phillips to create Bona Fides for Oswald while at the same time have these same Bona Fides be circumstantial evidence against him. Phillips was in charge of the Counter-Intelligence angles of the Oswald situation with Goodpasture at his side.... I continue to claim IDK that real reasons for Mexico... but I do know that CIA, FBI, I&NS, STATE lied their butts off, on just about everything they could when it comes to how he got there and left, and what he did while there... Goodpasture did not make mistakes... her stating it was Oct 1 was purposeful... why? With all due respect, David. "Goodpasture did not make mistakes... her stating it was Oct 1 was purposeful... why?" -- David Josephs Possible "benign" answers: 1) Part of a Mole Hunt. The "Kostikov" phone call did take place on Tuesday, October 1, but regardless of the date, the caller (Oswald / "Oswald") did not call the Soviet Embassy / Consulate from inside the Cuban Consulate, but from an outside line somewhere in Mexico. (Juarez? TJ? Puerto Vallarta? Mexico City, itself?) Therefore, no CIA photo of Oswald / "Oswald" making such a phone call could reasonably be expected to have been taken. Why? The cameras were not focused on every private phone or phone booth in Mexico City, but on the Soviet and Cuban diplomatic complexes. 2) See above. -- Tommy PS Why do YOU think Goodpasture lied about the date of the Mexico City Mystery Man photo(s)? PPS I think Castro had a lot of good reasons for killing JFK and pointing the guilty finger at Khrushchev. Edited February 12, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said: Possible "benign" answers: 1) Part of a Mole Hunt. The "Kostikov" phone call took place on Tuesday, October 1, and regardless of the date, the caller (Oswald / "Oswald") did not call the Soviet Embassy / Consulate from inside the Cuban Consulate, but from an outside line somewhere in Mexico. (Juarez? TJ? Puerto Vallarta? Mexico City, itself?) Therefore, no CIA photo of Oswald / "Oswald" making such a phone call could reasonably be expected to have been taken. Why? The cameras were not focused on every private phone or phone booth in Mexico City, but on the Soviet and Cuban diplomatic complexes. With respect right back Tommy, the photographic and listening programs were completely separate... Also, all calls refer back to the "day he went to the Soviets" On Sept 27th at 1605 hours it is claimed DURAN calls the Soviets with "Oswald" in front of her...he had already been to the Soviet Embassy and she is inquiring as to who he spoke to there The reply is to wait.... another man comes on the phone and she explains it again and asks for his number so THEY can call back later. at 1626 hours the Soviets call back and Duran again states "the man" is with her. they then give an explanation of the situation. On the 28th, no time given, and they have that strange "talk in Russian, not English" but it is terrible Russian... "I was just there" to establish "Oswald" went to a closed Soviet Embassy and somehow spoke to.... On Oct 1st, the call refers back to the 28th by it stating "Hello this is Lee Oswald speaking. I was at your place last Saturday and spoke with a consul....." "... but I don't remember the name of the consul" "OBYEDKOV says "KOSTIKOV: He is Dark." "Yes. My Name is Oswald." is the reply Oswald says, "and what...? while OBYEDKOV hangs up on him... the call refers to meeting KOSTIKOV on Saturday... so if anything Tommy, we should have photos of OSWALD both at the Soviet compounds and Cuban compounds coming and going on Friday the 27th and Sat the 28th.... The connection comes from the Tarasoffs claiming what they HEARD sounded like it was the same person on the earlier transcripts as on the latter. ........ There is no image of Oswald cause Oswald was never there. Edited February 12, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said: PS Why do YOU think Goodpasture lied about the date of the Mexico City Mystery Man photo(s)? Because according to the "15-day visa plan" Oswald should have left by the 2nd... Sept 17th... 18th - 30th = 13 days. Oswald must leave on the 2nd, early in the morning.... the 15th day. He could not have plausibly gone to the Embassy that day if he was traveling. (edit: and really did get a 15 day visa on the 17th) Edited February 12, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) On 2/12/2018 at 3:48 PM, David Josephs said: With respect right back Tommy, the photographic and listening programs were completely separate... Also, all calls refer back to the "day he went to the Soviets" On Sept 27th at 1605 hours it is claimed DURAN calls the Soviets with "Oswald" in front of her...he had already been to the Soviet Embassy and she is inquiring as to who he spoke to there The reply is to wait.... another man comes on the phone and she explains it again and asks for his number so THEY can call back later. at 1626 hours the Soviets call back and Duran again states "the man" is with her. they then give an explanation of the situation. On the 28th, no time given, and they have that strange "talk in Russian, not English" but it is terrible Russian... "I was just there" to establish "Oswald" went to a closed Soviet Embassy and somehow spoke to.... On Oct 1st, the call refers back to the 28th by it stating "Hello this is Lee Oswald speaking. I was at your place last Saturday and spoke with a consul....." "... but I don't remember the name of the consul" "OBYEDKOV says "KOSTIKOV: He is Dark." "Yes. My Name is Oswald." is the reply Oswald says, "and what...? while OBYEDKOV hangs up on him... the call refers to meeting KOSTIKOV on Saturday... so if anything Tommy, we should have photos of OSWALD both at the Soviet compounds and Cuban compounds coming and going on Friday the 27th and Sat the 28th.... The connection comes from the Tarasoffs claiming what they HEARD sounded like it was the same person on the earlier transcripts as on the latter. ........ There is no image of Oswald cause Oswald was never there. David, With all due respect, you apparent don't realize that I agree with you on one basic thing: Oswald was in neither the Cuban Consulate nor the Soviet Consulate in Mexico City on September 27, or September 28, or September 29 (as Nikolai Leonov himself claimed Oswald was with him that Sunday, many years later) or, obviously, on October 1. And Oswald probably wasn't in the country of Mexico, at all. At least not during that period of time. What we disagree on is that you seem to believe all the apparent incongruities surrounding the impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City were the result of the evil, evil, evil CIA's setting up a fake Oswald-Kostikov connection (and / or an attempt by Oswald to get into Cuba either to assassinate Castro or join the "Cuban Revolution"?), whereas I, given the fact that Duran and Azcue described the impersonator in such a way as to very closely resemble KGB-boy Nikolai Leonov, tend to see a Cuban hand in the assassination, all confused and compounded by the fact (and perhaps enabled by it as well) that a piggyback-able, ongoing CIA "Popov's Mole" mole hunt was underway, as well as a CIA/FBI mole hunt regarding FBI's personnel in Mexico City. -- Tommy Edited March 4, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) On 2/12/2018 at 4:12 PM, Thomas Graves said: What we disagree on is that you seem to believe all the apparent incongruities surrounding the impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City were the result of the evil, evil, evil CIA's setting up a fake Oswald-Kostikov connection (and / or an attempt by Oswald to get into Cuba either to assassinate Castro or join the "Cuban Revolution"?), whereas I, given the fact that Duran and Azcue described the impersonator in such a way as to very closely resemble KGB-boy Nikolai Leonov, tend to see a Cuban hand in the assassination, all confused and compounded by the fact (and perhaps enabled by it as well) that a piggyback-able, ongoing CIA "Popov's Mole" mole hunt was underway, as well as a CIA/FBI mole hunt regarding FBI's personnel in Mexico City. "you seem to believe...." As I've said a number of times, what occurred during the time in Mexico is FUBAR.... Everyone has a theory and everyone is probably just a little bit correct given how many operations were in place to "turn" spies from the other side. If you'd like to expand upon State Secret or Popov's Mole... I'd be very interested to see if you can take the concepts any further... How about explaining ALVARADO and his story about the $6500, the Red-headed Negro and Oswald at the Cuban Embassy on the 18th... switched to the 28th... Can you connect the Cubans who, with Castro, were communist enemies of Somoza and Prio.... with this Nicarauguan CIA asset's story and the Goodpasture/LADILLINGER Oct memos... Surprise-surprise Tommy, the CIA did in fact plan, enact and complete evil, EVIL , EVIL projects around the world... Why would you think they were NOT involved given the personnel and the activities reported by LITAMIL-9 and other doubles.... ----- SCOTT and KING know who the Mystery Man is and continue to hide it... why? To allow everyone involved not in the know to think it WAS Oswald in MExico. FLASH: The time in country was not my focus... I focused on the evidence the CIA/FBI/SS/I&NS provided thru government investigations attempting to prove Oswald took this trip... and found it to be terribly lacking in anything real while betraying an FBI/Gobernacion relationship separate and distinct from the CIA's which provided all this evidence. Let's go back to an opinion question Tommy... I'd be interested in your take on why Hoover went along with the Mexico charade despite knowing better... What reasons would there be for Hoover and the FBI to cover-up a false trip by Oswald to Mexico at the same time Odio is visited by 2 Cubans and "Leon"... and then even lie about who the three were while burying Odio on 2 pages at the last moment. On the infamous Sept 28th, Oswald is reported to have been seen at the Sports Drome... in Dallas where he winds up on Oct 3rd/4th. Libeler: The Commission had information to the effect that sometime during November 1963, you saw a gentleman at the rifle range whom you subsequently came to believe was LEE HARVEY OSWALD?Price: That's right. The first time I saw this person was in September, the last week, the last Saturday of September, and that was the afternoon they opened the rifle range.Libeler: On the last Saturday of September? That would be Saturday, September 28, 1963?Price: Yes. Xxx, Earlier in the thread you asked about LC Smith. I believe you are correct. He is the policeman (deputy sheriff) puffing on a cigarette. He is later seen in the car lot (Hughes and Murray) with the man in the black hat. This, I believe is McCurley. The man to Smith's right in the sports coat should be Slack. Garland Slack was involved with the Sports Drome shooting range. Xxx Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Garland Glenwill Slack, Address: 4130 Deely [sp?] St., Dallas, Age 59, Phone No. EV 1 2950 Deposes and says: Today, I was standing on Houston Street, just below the window to Sheriff Decker's office waiting for the parade. Edited March 19, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) Quote ..... David, With all due respect, I deleted your post "to save bandwidth." (Perhaps you should write a book?) The KGB and the GRU were like Boy Scouts compared to the evil, evil, evil CIA, Tommy. LOL! Would it be acceptable if I said "a mole" instead of "Popov's Mole"? With all due respect, David, do you think CIA, after Philby was recalled to London, was not penetrated again until Aldrich Ames started spying for the Ruskies in 1975? Or do you think there might have been other penetration agents / moles who were never caught? (No, I'm not referring to JJA, who was not a Ruskie spy.) Separate question: Why did Duran and Azcue collectively describe the Oswald impersonator in such a way that did not resemble Lee Harvey Oswald at all (except that he was thin and white), but did match Nikolai Leonov to a "T"? -- Tommy Edited February 13, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 21 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said: Separate question: Why did Duran and Azcue collectively describe the Oswald impersonator in such a way that did not resemble Lee Harvey Oswald at all (except that he was thin and white), but did match Nikolai Leonov to a "T"? First... why wont you address any of my questions... ? 5'10" 35 165lbs is a description that does not fit Oswald... what they said was nowhere near that. I'd suggest you learn a bit more about LEONOV as you continue on this line of thought... You've got my interest Tommy, are you going to move the ball forward or just analyze how we got here? The description is very much LEONOV... now, did anyone involved see it that way too? The Russians or Cubans mention this strange coincidence? Corroborate for us.... Do a little homework and let us know... K? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) On 2/13/2018 at 9:50 AM, David Josephs said: First... why wont you address any of my questions... ? 5'10" 35 165lbs is a description that does not fit Oswald... what they said was nowhere near that. I'd suggest you learn a bit more about LEONOV as you continue on this line of thought... You've got my interest Tommy, are you going to move the ball forward or just analyze how we got here? The description is very much LEONOV... now, did anyone involved see it that way too? The Russians or Cubans mention this strange coincidence? Corroborate for us.... Do a little homework and let us know... K? David, Bill Simpich explains quite well how the one-and-only Lee Harvey Oswald was described in some CIA and FBI files as being 5' 10", 165 pounds, having blue eyes, wavy light-brown hair, etc. (hint: think FBI's John Fain and CIA's Bill Bright, collaborating on a mole-hunting or a double-dangle project). The one-and-only LHO was 5' 9.5", and "never weighed more than 150 pounds in his life," according to his one-and-only mother. (He weighed only 133 pounds at autopsy.) What in the heck do the measurements you mentioned have to do with Mexico City, anyway? Did 5' 3.5" Sylvia Duran say the impersonator was "a lot" taller than her (you know, like six or seven inches)? Answer: No, she said he was "about the same height" as her, iirc. And Eusebio Azcue also said that he was "short." (Five-nine and one-half is not particularly short, David. The average American male was probably only five-ten at that time, am I correct?) Has the cable that Nechiporenko, Kostikov, and / or Yatskov allegedly sent to Moscow after they allegedly dealt with Oswald ever been revealed? Nope. How about Mexican internal cables? Nope. The fact that "nobody else involved" (there were only three of them in the Cuban consulate, David: Duran, Azcue, and Miribal) "saw it that way, too" (i.e., that "Oswald" was short, blond, very thin-faced, etc???), could imply one of three things. Either those "other people" (what other people, David?) were 1) somehow complicit in the Leonov charade or set-up, 2) saw no need to blurt out to a friend or colleague a description of the Oswald / "Oswald," they saw, or 3) Leonov did not impersonate Oswald face-to-face with Duran and Azcue (and no one else did, either), but for some reason Duran and Azcue pointed a guilty finger at him (and the KGB), later. Regardless redux, what would you like to know about Nikolai Sergeyevich Leonov? (Great kudos to you, btw, for discovering that he apparently also used another name from time to time in his work with the KGB.) -- Tommy Edit: Three people claimed to have seen Oswald / "Oswald" in the M.C. Cuban Consulate: Sylvia Duran, Consul Eusebio Azcue, and his replacement, Alfredo Miribal. Of the three, only Duran claimed that the guy at the Cuban Consulate on 9/27/63 was the same dude who was killed by Jack Ruby on 11/24/63. Azcue said it was a different person altogether, and Miribal, in a roundabout way, said wasn't sure. HSCA testimony of Alfredo Miribal: Mr. DODD. Mr. Mirabal, let me just follow up the one line of questioning I had for Mr. Azcue, and that is with regard to how the photo on the visa application got there. Can you enlighten us at all as to how that photograph got on the application, what either the normal operating procedures were or if there were any unique operating procedures in this case which would explain how that photograph ended up on that visa application? Senor MIRABAL. The entire matter of the processing of the paper work relating to the application was entrusted to the secretary. I did not participate in any manner. She was most efficient, and we trusted her in this task. Mr. DODD. In other words, you never saw the visa application when it was in the consulate in Mexico. Senor MIRABAL. Yes, I did. In fact, there is a footnote with a series of remarks or a remark or observation that I included or I made. Mr. DODD. Do you recall that photograph as the photograph of the man that you saw, granted not all that clearly, during the 30 minutes or so, the total period of time that he was in your office back in September of 1963? Senor MIRABAL. I know that this was the photograph that was affixed to the request of the application, but at no point did I verify whether this photograph was in fact that of the person who submitted the application, because this was not a matter that I took care of. It was the secretary who was responsible for this, and when she brought these documents to me, I assumed that everything was in order. PS It's interesting to note that Miribal doesn't say whether or not LHO's photo was affixed to the application while LHO was in the Cuban Consulate. Hmm. Is it possible that Mirabal is "telling the truth, but not the whole truth"? Had LHO's passport-sized photos been taken in Minsk and then three or so years later stapled by Duran or some other mysterious person to the Cuban visa application? Maybe a day after "Oswald's" visit (or non-visit)? A week later? Two? Six? Edited March 26, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now