Marina, the Commission, and Mexico City

[James DiEugenio]

I don't understand what Armstrong's book about the two Oswalds has to do with what David is presenting about Mexico City.

His  long multi part article does not rely on Armstrong's theory to advance his conclusions.  So the charge, as far as I am concerned, is  just obfuscatory nonsense.

David has done some very nice work and original work on MC.  His article, I think, was the first time that anyone had completely discredited Mumford and Winston as witnesses to Oswald going to Mexico City.  And if you read the Warren Commission, those two are pretty much crucial to putting him on that bus.  David discredited them in two ways, and I am sure Tommy and PT don't know them, too  busy swallowing barium meals.  (Served with raisins and cinnamon?  Oh excuse me that is oat meal).  

To any rational person, what David did there  is a very important point.  Because if you eliminate those two, then it gets very hard to determine how--or if-Oswald went to Mexico City.

Now, if Oswald did not go to MC, then the odds increase that he was at Odio's.  Since, as many people who have studied both instances have concluded, it is hard to think he could have done both. The WC desperately wanted to negate the Odio possibility.  Why?  Because, as Gerald McKnight has noted, they were being pushed not to go down the Cuban exile path.  Angleton and Helms  were clearly pushing  the Soviet path--which MC is made to order for.  To the point that Helms wrote a letter to Hoover in March of 1964 telling the Director he did not want the FBI doing any more searches in Mexico, that was his bailiwick.  As David points out, the probable reason for this is that the more the FBI looked, the more they realized that Oswald in MC was a CIA created phantasm.  I mean it does not get any more clear than Hoover's handwritten marginalia six weeks out where he says that he would not trust the Agency anymore since they had sold him a bill of goods on Oswald in MC.

Now, if we consider the Phillips' role in the anti FPCC campaign, which he co directed with McCord, if we consider his probable identification as being in Banister's office, as Bill Davy, among others has noted, if we consider his Southland Center meeting with LHO in early September, which is after the Clinton/Jackson incident but before Mexico City (where something like a dozen people saw Oswald with Shaw and Ferrie) then I think the evidence suggests strongly that Phillips knew what Oswald was doing and up to that summer and fall.  To somehow disregard that,  I think, is just kind of irresponsible.

The point is that it is hard to think that not one single person in the CIA station in MC knew who Oswald was prior to his alleged arrival. But if that was the case, then maybe it was because he never arrived.  And the object was to make sure that that fact was not realized while he was allegedly there.  How else does one explain the delay in the Kostikov memo? That was so bad that Phillips lied about it. Why, as the Lopez Report notes, was there no after action report?  To me, that is one of the key findings of the Lopez Report, which hardly anyone ever talks about. Why did Goodpasture lie her head off about her role in the surveillance?  Maybe because she knew that the so called evidence that Oswald was there was simply a chimera?  And the next question then would be how could she not know that either during the alleged visit, or in the seven weeks between the alleged visit and the assassination?  And if you buy her BS, even after? Yet,that is what the Lopez Report denotes.

David has raised these questions either in a direct or indirect way.  To me, they go to the heart of the matter.  In ways that "barium meals" do not.  IMO, he deserves a lot of credit for that.

 

Edited March 16, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Thomas Graves]

On 3/9/2017 at 2:25 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Paul - you continue to overstate Simpich's opinions. Even he left open the door to Phillips knowing what was up and being involved. And even he left open the possibility that Oswald never made it to MC. Other fine researchers with longer track records than Simpich see things differently. You also keep lumping theories into 'CIA did it', when you're the only person that calls those of us that disagree with you 'CIA did it theorists'. Simpich simply said that after Oswald was impersonated the CIA appears not to know who did it, and falsified records (Goodpasture) to smoke out the perpetrator. He knows there are other possible explanations, and you should also, the most obvious being CYA. Newman, an incredible and still very active researcher, thinks it was Angleton that ordered the falsifications, and not because he was confused, but because he was running a sophisticated deniable operation, piggybacking on an already existing one, most likely the anti FPCC effort that Oswald was clearly part of. 

It seems to me the bottom line is that whichever CIA / DNS "insider" impersonated Oswald over the phone (and maybe even in person) in Mexico City did so in order to not only make Oswald look ideologically and emotionally capable of assassinating JFK, but also in order to ensure that JFK's successor, and the intelligence agencies he inherited, would demand, in order to prevent a nuclear holocaust, that Oswald had acted alone.

--  Tommy

[Thomas Graves]

On 3/3/2017 at 8:46 AM, David Josephs said:

[...]

David,

What is your theory as to the provenance of Oswald's Cuban visa application, above?

Was it found to be in the possession of the Cuban Consulate after the assassination?

If so, do you think an Oswald impersonator walked into Sylvia Duran's office with those photos of the real Oswald (the one who was killed by Jack Ruby) and Duran didn't notice that the photos were of someone other than the man who was standing there before her, claiming to be the person in the photographs?

(It is a perplexing question because, if memory serves, Duran claimed that the guy who said he was Oswald was blond. and dressed "unelegantly".)

Or do you think the CIA (or the Mexican DNS) manufactured that Cuban visa application after the assassination?

--  Tommy

PS  Was it ever determined where in Mexico City those photographs might have been taken?  Within walking distance of the Cuban Consulate, by any chance?

 

Edited March 16, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

On 3/14/2017 at 1:23 PM, George Sawtelle said:

Paul T

Morales was afraid to sign out for the 201 file but the mole wasn´t? Makes a lot of sense.

How could the mole be working within CIA protocol if he was working alone unbeknownst to his boss?

You´re just singing to the choir with the rest of your info.

George,

There's no choir here, as my CT is in the minority.  Most readers here hold a CIA-did-it CT.

David Morales, the alleged Mole, had flunkies under him.  Whoever supplied FBI agent James Hosty with the October 18, 1963 memo linking Lee HENRY Oswald to KGB assassin Kostikov is a major suspect in my opinion.

Regards 

[Paul Trejo]

10 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

So, ...  in October, 1963, Mexico City and Headquarters started a new mole hunt and unwittingly (wittingly ???) used "barium mean" misinformation about Oswald (in this case his middle name) from the 1959-1960 "Popov's Mole" mole hunt, yes?

--  Tommy

 

--------------------------------

Tommy,

I have no idea what you mean here.

Regards 

--Paul Trejo 

[George Sawtelle]

Paul T

You said Morales was the mole, so Morales (the CIA agent) is afraid to sign out for the file but the mole (Morales) apparently signs out for it. By saying it doesn´t make sense I am insinuating that Morales working for the radical right and the mole hunt are both shams.

The singing to the choir comment is about the info you provided not about your radical right theory. 

I am very happy to discuss your theory Paul. I learn from your comments. I must admit that your radical right theory is very similar to my theory since many of the same characters are involved in both plots.

Dulles and Philips were extremely devious. They applied what they learned in Chile and Guatemala to the Kennedy assassination. I wouldn´t put it passed them to start an assassination plot using the rightest characters from New Orleans as cover for their plot.

[James DiEugenio]

Tommy, I can't believe you brought up the visa and presented it as you did.  I mean that argument is almost as old as the Single Bullet Fantasy.

The FBI searched each passport photo shop within a five mile radius of both the Soviet and Cuban embassies.  No dice with Oswald.

As  more than one writer has noted, when shown photos and films of the Oswald who was killed in Dallas, Duran  did not recognize this person.  And, in fact, the vast majority of witnesses inside the Cuban compound did not recognize him.

The CIA has no photo of Oswald going inside to the Cuban consulate.

As Gaeton Fonzi wrote  25 years ago, the CIA had penetrated and infiltrated the Cuban consulate and had assets there, and "Anyone working inside the consulate would have had access to the drawer in which Duran had filed Oswald's visa application"(p. 203)  Since Phillips was in charge of anti Cuba operations in MC, who do you think ran that operation?

[David Josephs]

On 3/16/2017 at 0:07 AM, Thomas Graves said:

David,

What is your theory as to the provenance of Oswald's Cuban visa application, above?

Was it found to be in the possession of the Cuban Consulate after the assassination?

If so, do you think an Oswald impersonator walked into Sylvia Duran's office with those photos of the real Oswald (the one who was killed by Jack Ruby) and Duran didn't notice that the photos were of someone other than the man who was standing there before her, claiming to be the person in the photographs?

(It is a perplexing question because, if memory serves, Duran claimed that the guy who said he was Oswald was blond. and dressed "unelegantly".)

Or do you think the CIA (or the Mexican DNS) manufactured that Cuban visa application after the assassination?

--  Tommy

PS  Was it ever determined where in Mexico City those photographs might have been taken?  Within walking distance of the Cuban Consulate, by any chance?

 

Both Duran and Azcue claim the man in Dallas was not the man in their office.  

 

The FBI asset at Gobernacion secured this form for the FBI...  the FBI search for a photo shop who could even take these photos comes up negative...  

And despite the commotion made by this man, a simple thing like where to get photos for an application is forgotten?  How many places could there have been?

CORNWELL - So, from all the circumstances, did it appear to your that he just went somewhere locally and had the pictures made?
TIRADO - Yeah. I think that I already explained (to) him where he could take the photographs.
CORNWELL - You told him some locations in town where ge could go? Were there some right in the neighborhood of the Consulate there?
TIRADO - That I don't remember.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2449.pdf   details the investigation into where the photos were taken.. the WCR states that he had photos which he may have brought from the USA...  (because they could not find a photo shop in MC which had record or memory of Oswald).

Tirado also states that SHE fills out the application.... 

TIRADO - I filled out application.
CORNWELL - You personally typed it, and did you type it in duplicate or triplicate or just one copy?
TIRADO - Duplicate.
CORNWELL - And was the second copy a carbon?
TIRADO - Carbon?
CORNWELL - Did you have it twice or did you type one and make two copies?
TIRADO - Only one.
CORNWELL - And made two?
TIRADO - Yes.

-----

CORNWELL - Then what did you do with the application?
TIRADO - Well, I used to put it in a file, and uh, I used to keep one copy, another to send, the original, we used to send to Cuba. And I think I have another file. 
                                                                                                                    (DJ - but there were only 2 copies?)
CORNWELL - Was he required to sign the application?
TIRADO - He sighned it, yes.
CORNWELL - Did he sign one or both of them?
TIRADO - I think both, it has to be.
CORNWELL - Was there any requirement in the Consulate that he do it in any particular person's presence? Anyone have to watch him while he signed it?
TIRADO - I don't know, I mean I just don't remember. 
CORNWELL - As a hypothetical, did Azcue have to watch people sign the applications?
TIRADO - No. He was in his office.
CORNWELL - So you could handle that all by yourself.
TIRADO - yes.
CORNWELL - Did he sign it in your presence?
TIRADO - Yes.

 

So we are asked to accept that the 2 different Oswald signatures comes from the same man seconds apart.  The evidence is actually a photograph of the original and a photo of the carbon copy.  Except the carbon and the original do not match.. if you line up the top, the bottom and middle don't match, align the bottom and the top and middle don't align...  If you have any Photoshop skills you could see for yourself.

The Chain of Custody of the original leads from Duran to the Cuban Ministry:

…at any rate, she (DURAN) initiated the handling of his visa application by sending it to the Cuban Ministry of (Foreign) affairs.  p40 of CE2121

Do you know how and when the WC gets a copy of the original from Cuba?  or where the original is today?  

One would think the Cubans keep their originals and send copies...  originals in the hands of the FBI/WC lawyers seem to disappear...

My question to you Tommy - do we know enough about the Chain of Custody (it did not get to Rankin until the end of August 1964) to know whether the photos shown on the copies are the same as what was on the original?  And why, if he has to wign both copies does she not stamp both copies...?

 

Edited March 28, 2017 by David Josephs

[David Josephs]

13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

David has raised these questions either in a direct or indirect way.  To me, they go to the heart of the matter.  In ways that "barium meals" do not.  IMO, he deserves a lot of credit for that.

Thanks Jim...  

[Thomas Graves]

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

18 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

So, ...  in October, 1963, Mexico City and Headquarters started a new mole hunt and unwittingly (wittingly ???) used "barium mean" misinformation about Oswald (in this case his middle name) from the 1959-1960 "Popov's Mole" mole hunt, yes?

--  Tommy

 

--------------------------------

Tommy,

I have no idea what you mean here.

Regards 

--Paul Trejo 

 

Dear Paul,

I'm just trying to get my head around this myself, and at the same time I'm trying to figure out what you believe regarding this October, 1963, "Lee Henry Oswald" document.

What do you think the origin of the middle name "Henry" in this document was?  Just an honest, October, 1963, "typo"?  Or a brand new, intentional, October, 1963, "marked card" for a new , Mexico City-based, mole hunt?  Please recall that more than one year after Oswald's appearance in Moscow, Angleton's gal, Ann Egerter, opened a brand new 201 file in the name of "Lee Henry Oswald".  http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_CIA_Oswald_201_File_Online.html

 

By the way, I've been to busy to look into it but as regards the two basic "paths" or "groups" for the the document(s) at issue that David Josephs spelled out -- 

"You will find the FBI & IN&S [sic] are in one place while CIA and STATE are on another path - the one claiming the Castro connection."

I gotta ask:  Why did FBI agent James Hosty have to get it from Jeff Woolsey at I&NS?  Why didn't he get it from his own organization, the FBI?

--  Tommy

PS  It's interesting to note that our very own Ron Ecker pointed out way back in 2005 that on October 22, 1963 (exactly one month before the assassination, fwiw), FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C., "corrected" Mexico City Legat on the middle name.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/fbi/105-3702/124-10230-10419/html/124-10230-10419_0002a.htm

(It's interesting to speculate as to what the other "background [information] being furnished" by mail from FBI Headquarters. to Mexico City Legat (FBI office in M.C.) was.)

Also interesting to note that this cable to Mexico City Legat says that CIA had furnished FBI with the same ("Henry"???) information as Mexico City Legat had cabled to FBI Headquarters back on October 1, 1963.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

37 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Paul,

I'm just trying to get my head around this myself, and at the same time I'm trying to figure out what you believe regarding this October, 1963, "Lee Henry Oswald" document.

What do you think the origin of the middle name "Henry" in this document was?  Just an honest, October, 1963, "typo"?  Or a brand new, intentional, October, 1963, "marked card" for a new , Mexico City-based, mole hunt?

By the way, I've been to busy to look into it but as regards the two basic "paths" or "groups" for the the document(s) at issue that David Josephs spelled out -- 

"You will find the FBI & IN&S [sic] are in one place while CIA and STATE are on another path - the one claiming the Castro connection."

I gotta ask:  Why did FBI agent James Hosty have to get it from Jeff Woolsey (sic)  at I&NS?  Why didn't he get it from his own organization, the FBI?

--  Tommy

PS  It's interesting to note that our very own Ron Ecker pointed out some time ago that on October 22, 1963 (exactly one month before the assassination, fwiw), FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C., "corrected" Mexico City Legat on the middle name.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/fbi/105-3702/124-10230-10419/html/124-10230-10419_0002a.htm

BTW, it's interesting to speculate as to what the other "background [information] being furnished" by mail from FBI Headquarters. to Mexico City Legat (FBI office in M.C.) was.

Also interesting to note that this cable to Mexico City Legat says that CIA had furnished FBI with the same ("Henry"?) information as Mexico City Legat had cabled to FBI Headquarters back on October 1, 1963.

WOOSLEY Tommy...  Not Jeff Woolsey (sic)  and Hosty gets it from I&NS since the 10/10 cable goes to FBI HQ, why would HQ relay this to Hosty in Dallas?  Besides, if you continue reading that 10/22 documnet you see they also get info on OSWALD from a USPS informant...  Jeff and "Dorothy" keep FBI agents informed when certain items of interest cross their desk...

You truly know zilch about this stuff Tommy...  it's a riot seeing the two of you banter about things for which you have so little knowledge nor the desire to acquire it...  

Jane Roman and C BUSTOS are the ones who sent the cable from HQ to MX stating the person may be identical top LEE HENRY OSWALD.  As I posted at the link below, the documents do not change to HARVEY until 10/22.    All due respect to Ron... 

 

 

 

Something that may help clarify the events...  when CIA HQ sends another request to the NAVY on 10/24... they refer to HENRY in what might be a continuation of the delay tactics

 

Did I mention the FBI also looked for Oswald in MC...  All month long with over 20 contacts and the Gobernacion where the FBI had a highly placed asset?

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

WOOSLEY Tommy...  Not Jeff Woolsey (sic)  and Hosty gets it from I&NS since the 10/10 cable goes to FBI HQ, why would HQ relay this to Hosty in Dallas?  Besides, if you continue reading that 10/22 documnet you see they also get info on OSWALD from a USPS informant...  Jeff and "Dorothy" keep FBI agents informed when certain items of interest cross their desk...

You truly know zilch about this stuff Tommy...  it's a riot seeing the two of you banter about things for which you have so little knowledge nor the desire to acquire it...  

Jane Roman and C BUSTOS are the ones who sent the cable from HQ to MX stating the person may be identical top LEE HENRY OSWALD.  As I posted at the link below, the documents do not change to HARVEY until 10/22.    All due respect to Ron... 

 

 

 

Something that may help clarify the events...  when CIA HQ sends another request to the NAVY on 10/24... they refer to HENRY in what might be a continuation of the delay tactics

 

Did I mention the FBI also looked for Oswald in MC...  All month long with over 20 contacts and the Gobernacion where the FBI had a highly placed asset?

 

Dear David,

I tend to not read (what I consider to be) your long, hot-steaming-spaghetti-against-the-wall posts (my loss, right?), but I do get the general impression that you're on a "Mission from God" to "prove" that Lee Harvey Oswald (the guy Ruby killed on 11/24/63) wasn't in Mexico City during late September and early October, 1963.  Is that correct?

If so, why is that so important to you?  To prove that there really was a conspiracy to kill JFK?  LOL.  Hasn't that already been pretty well established?  You know, "at least four shots in 6.5 seconds," etc?

Or in-so doing, are also trying to somehow "prove" that Armstrong's Henry and Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites theory really really really is true, with the ultimate ulterior motive of condemning the whole gosh-darn CIA, and not just some (a few? several? many?) rogue CIA officers and agents?

--  Tommy

Edited March 16, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Michael Clark]

Cross referencing another thread.

 

[David Josephs]

Quote

If so, why is that so important to you?  To prove that there really was a conspiracy to kill JFK?  LOL.  Hasn't that already been pretty well established?  You know, "at least four shots in 6.5 seconds," etc?

Or in-so doing, are also trying to somehow "prove" that Armstrong's Henry and Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites theory really really really is true

Isn't this thread about Mexico City?

Since I don't think any Oswald was on any bus related to MC, you'll need to pick an argument with Jim H or JA related to the mountain of evidence which you cannot seem to comprehend.  There is even a thread in process at this very moment!

As you say tommy... we already know there was a conspiracy to kill JFK... the Mexico trip only has to do with the assassination in that it fulfilled Phase 1 - "Paint Oswald a paid to kill JFK, Castro loving commie" (Alvarado), it created a real problem for Hoover since one of his assets, LHO, was doing his job at the time, and finally it created a 800 lb gorilla in front of the effort to investigate and expose any conspiracies.  Even the hint of Cuban related activity in MC was enough to insure LBJ would stay away and be concerned with Russia backing Cuba if he did anything about it.

Your obsession with H&L borders on illness...  and in case you haven't heard, the CIA was basically the military's doberman, guarding the gate and being blamed for all the black ops the military continued.  The CIA was not in a position to tell Admiral Galloway or 4 star general LeMay anything.  Without Bethesda (or Walter Reed if that was the case) the conspiracy falls apart.  Without Military gag orders under punishment of court-martial, the conspiracy falls apart.

 If Rose does the autopsy the whole thing is blown.  The CIA and SS were VERY close with each other... the CIA in fact was everywhere by this time...  to continue to attribute this to "rogue CIA" and not see the bigger picture just shows your inability to dive deeper.  The US military was and still is the preeminent force on this planet.

I'm so sorry I wrote too many words for you to follow along...  the ongoing, unsolicited compliments I get from these articles is more than enough for me to keep laughing at your silly little pettiness.

As the song says...  You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know

 

[Thomas Graves]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Tommy, I can't believe you brought up the visa and presented it as you did.  I mean that argument is almost as old as the Single Bullet Fantasy.

The FBI searched each passport photo shop within a five mile radius of both the Soviet and Cuban embassies.  No dice with Oswald.

As  more than one writer has noted, when shown photos and films of the Oswald who was killed in Dallas, Duran  did not recognize this person.  And, in fact, the vast majority of witnesses inside the Cuban compound did not recognize him.

The CIA has no photo of Oswald going inside to the Cuban consulate.

As Gaeton Fonzi wrote  25 years ago, the CIA had penetrated and infiltrated the Cuban consulate and had assets there, and "Anyone working inside the consulate would have had access to the drawer in which Duran had filed Oswald's visa application"(p. 203)  Since Phillips was in charge of anti Cuba operations in MC, who do you think ran that operation?

Dear James,

Well, I guess you better start believing it, Old Bean.

After all, I'm just a stumbling, fumbling student, whereas you're the level-headed, critically-thinking, non-paranoiac, world-renowned, mistake-free expert.

I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, .............

Question:

Did Duran ever say anything about the "Oswald" visa application photos that  she did (supposedly) deal with on 9/27/63?  Like, ... what she did with the ones of the "short, blond" dude (probably short, blond, thin-faced KGB officer Nikolai Leonov, who later claimed to have met with Oswald at the Mexico City Soviet Embassy on SUNDAY, October 29, sans Kostikov), you know, the short, blond dude who claimed to be Oswald? Or had Leonov himself given her those photos of LHO to put on the application???

Naw, she wouldn't admit that even if it were true, would she.  Silly me.

Or ... like .... whether or not she attached them to the application, herself?

I mean, stuff like that?

I mean, was she ever shown the existing Visa Application As We Know It and asked whether or not she like ... even recognized it?

Stuff like that.

Thanks,

--  Tommy

Edit:  Short, blond, thin-faced, thirty-something, Mexico City-based KGB officer Nikolai Leonov, below.  (In this photo, he's interpreting for Castro in Moscow.)

 

Here's Mexico City-based KGB officer Nikolai Leonov, captured in a Mexico City CIA photo taken on October 2, 1963.

Cuban Consul Azcue said the short, blond, thin-faced Oswald he'd dealt with on September 27, 1963, was wearing a "Prince Of Wales" suit. Is Leonov wearing a suit like that in this October 2 photo?

The October, 1963, CIA index document that accompanied the "strips" of developed photos of known and unknown people secretly photographed in Mexico City has this photo labeled "Leon," as in short for "Leonov".

Azcue himself said he thought the photo below might be of the "short, blond Oswald" he dealt with on September 27.

Here's a description of Nikolai Leonov as being "short and blond".

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48483#relPageId=3

Edited March 16, 2017 by Thomas Graves