Marina, the Commission, and Mexico City

[Thomas Graves]

12 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

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

 

Thanks, david!

So, you hold the Whole Agency accountable for the Crime of the 21st Century.  Sounds like the perfectly sane, non-paranoiac thing to do.  LOL

Carry on!  (Got matches?)

Alexander Dugin (Putin's Rasputin), Steve Bannon, and Julian Assange would be proud of you!

--  Tommy

PS  If it isn't you who's really the one who's truly obsessed with Harvey and Lee, why then do you throw so many long, hot-steaming-spaghetti Harvey and Lee-based posts against the walls of this forum? 

Edited March 16, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

Quote

Question:

Did Duran ever say anything about the "Oswald" visa application photos she that  she did deal with on 9/27/63?  Tommy, there are reports on Duran, CE's, WCD's and her testimony...  READ something first... If you read Simpich's work, which you claim to, there are greats references and links to sources... why are you so lazy here?   Like, ...  what she did with the ones of the "short, blond" dude (probably short, blond, thin-faced KGB officer Nikolai Leonov, who later claimed that he had met with Oswald at the Mexico City Soviet Embassy on SUNDAY, October 29, sans Kostikov) who claimed to be Oswald? Or had Leonov given her those photos of LHO to put on the application???  The answer to this is in this thread... in fact, I'm the one who posted it.

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 recognized it? Now you're thinking like an honest investigator... so no, of course they didn't show it to her... but it was in the WCR H&E's.
They didn't show Mumford Oswald's photo either...  but then you would know that if you read the work.

 

Tommy...

why don't you look this stuff up yourself ??  

Are you truly unaware of the resources available?  

 

Quote

Thanks, david!

You're welcome Tommy... when does the other shoe drop?

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

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

Bumped for david josephs

[Thomas Graves]

10 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

 

Tommy...

why don't you look this stuff up yourself ??  

Are you truly unaware of the resources available?  

 

You're welcome Tommy... when does the other shoe drop?

No, I really mean it, david.  After all, as you insinuated, I'm not an honest investigator.  (BTW, Is an "investigator" kinda like "student"?)

Edited March 16, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

deleted

Edited March 16, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

13 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

So, you hold the Whole Agency accountable for the Crime of the 21st Century.  Sounds like the perfectly sane, non-paranoiac thing to do.  LOL

Yet another post illustrating your complete confusion and woeful lack of wit...  {sigh}

The "CIA" cannot DO anything... people within the CIA DO things.

It was only a page or so ago that I mentioned Jane Roman and C BUSTOS who worked under Angleton at Langley and were the ones who crafted the 10/10 reply back to MX opening the "HENRY" can of worms from 1960 ALSO from Angleton's office.. 

That you post Hoover meant the entire CIA just shows either how little you comprehend, or that your just an XXXXX with nothing really to say 

Readers can decide for themselves...  

Quote

After all, as you insinuated, I'm not an honest investigator

Ah, the other shoe drops....

You're not an investigator, period.  where did I say you were not "honest"?

[David Josephs]

Quote

 After all, as you insinuated, I'm not an honest investigator. 

Quote

I mean, was she ever shown the existing Visa Application As We Know It and asked whether or not she recognized it? Now you're thinking like an honest investigator... so no, of course they didn't show it to her.

"they didn't show it to her"...  inferring that THEY are not honest investigators.

That when you asked an honest, thoughtful, logical question about what occurred, I contrasted your question against those dishonest few who did the investigation.

Paranoia will destroy ya....

[David Josephs]

"He could be convinced" he was wrong though.. with scientific evidence.

Do you believe him or not Tommy?

 

[Thomas Graves]

29 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Yet another post illustrating your complete confusion and woeful lack of wit...  {sigh}

The "CIA" cannot DO anything... people within the CIA DO things.

It was only a page or so ago that I mentioned Jane Roman and C BUSTOS who worked under Angleton at Langley and were the ones who crafted the 10/10 reply back to MX opening the "HENRY" can of worms from 1960 ALSO from Angleton's office.. 

That you post Hoover meant the entire CIA just shows either how little you comprehend, or that your just an XXXXX with nothing really to say 

Readers can decide for themselves...  

Ah, the other shoe drops....

You're not an investigator, period.  where did I say you were not "honest"?

Good one, David.

I may have to start calling you "Word Twister".  LOL

(Are you a lawyer by any chance?)

--  Tommy

PS  Let me spell it out for you,  Counselor.

You wrote, "Now you're thinking like an honest investigator."

Why didn't you just say, "Now you're thinking like an investigator." ?

You threw the word "honest" in there for a reason, and it was to suggest that I'm not an honest "investigator," or "researcher," or "student of the assassination," or whatever.  The operative word here is "honest".  A totally unnecessary word in the sentence you wrote, except for the purpose that you used it for -  to very "subtly and oh-so wittily" slander me by insinuating that I am, except in this one very fluky instance in which I must have gotten very lucky indeed, a dishonest "researcher," or "student of the assassination," or whatever, ... Dear Counselor.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

23 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

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.

George,

Yes, David Morales was probably the Mole who impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City over the Cuban consulate telephone to the USSR Embassy.

However, David Morales was not working alone.  I maintain that David Morales had low-level flunkies inside the CIA working for him.   Again, this was all done under the radar of the CIA high-command.   David Morales had gone rogue, and he convinced a few other CIA agents to go rogue with him.

We know, for example, that David Morales (through the mercenary Frank Sturgis) got E. Howard Hunt to go rogue with him.

My question today is about the person who signed out the Oswald 201 file and wrote the CIA memo of October 18, 1963, which was viewed by INS agent Jeff Woolsey.

That had to be a CIA agent, since otherwise he could not have signed out Oswald's 201 file.

Who were the authors of the October 18, 1963 memo?   It wasn't Woolsey (or Woosley as David Josephson claimed). 

As for Dulles and Phillips, I can only agree that EVERYBODY who works for the CIA must demonstrate a capacity for high levels of secrecy and deviousness.   All CIA agents are expected to be loyal to the US President -- to the death -- so they may not lie to the US President or to the CIA high-command -- but they are allowed and often required to conceal the Truth from everybody else.

I don't suspect Dulles of the JFK murder.  I don't suspect Phillips, either.  Phillips, IMHO, was working on projects to kill Fidel Castro.  This was his obsession.   Phillips believed that Lee Harvey Oswald was groomed to sneak into Cuba through Mexico as a Fake FPCC officer, and was supposed to join a Kill Fidel team in Cuba.  That was his firm hope.  Phillips, IMHO, was completely surprised by the JFK assassination.  That's my honest opinion.

David Morales and E Howard Hunt were the CIA agents who confessed.  Possibly a few other CIA agents were part of their rogue operation.  Yet CIA agents require an authority for Orders -- and in the JFK case I believe the authorities were CIVILIANS.   I think General Walker and Guy Banister were the JFK Kill Team Leaders.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 17, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 11:11 PM, James DiEugenio said:

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.

James,

David Josephs has long admitted that his CT is linked to Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" CT.   It's not a "charge," it's an observation.

Also, some of David's work on Mexico City is interesting, but he is pushed into nonsense at the point where Armstrong enters his work.

As for Pamela Mumford, who testified for the WC, she discredited herself, and David does not demonstrate that.   Pamela admitted to the WC that this person on the Mexico City bus that she thought was Oswald never told her his name.   Even though he showed her his passport, she didn't look at the name.  

Finally, Pamela told the WC that what finally convinced her was that on TV she saw Oswald getting shot in a grey pullover sweater.   This was the same sweater that Oswald wore on the Mexico City bus, she said.   HOWEVER -- that sweater belonged to the Dallas DPD wardrobe, and Oswald had just selected it from hangers brought to him by Chief Jesse Curry.  So, Pamela was seriously mistaken -- again.  As for Winston, she always said she was unsure, and that Pamela convinced her.  Hmm.

I claim that this was yet another case of mistaken identity -- and there was no WC conspiracy involved.  It was a simple mistake.  Also, I claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was never on that bus.  All the records show that Oswald entered Mexico City on September 26th as a PASSENGER INSIDE AN AUTOMOBILE.

So, the whole Mexico City bus sighting is a red herring.  Oswald went to Mexico in a car, according to Mexico Immigration records.

Since Oswald was in a car going to Mexico City, then it is more certain that Oswald stopped at Sylvia Odio's, as she testified -- because Oswald and his Cuban and Mexican companions were all in AN AUTOMOBILE.  Also, one can travel in one day from Dallas to Mexico.

The WC did not want to hear about Oswald at Sylvia Odio's (because he was with accomplices) and the did not want to hear about Oswald going to Mexico City as a passenger with others (and therefore accomplices).  This was because the WC was committed to the "Lone Nut" theory of LHO.   So, they said Odio was crazy, and they believed Pamela Mumford.

The real problem with Mexico City was that Oswald was strictly trying to get to Cuba.  Marina Oswald testified this multiple times and FIRMLY.  Lee told Marina several times that it was crucial for him to get to Cuba.  He would even hijack an airplane to Cuba if he had too.  According to Dick Russell,  it was Richard Case Nagell who terrified Oswald, because Nagell told Oswald that if he succeeded in getting a visa to Cuba, he would shoot Oswald dead.  Thus the anxiety and the pipe-dream of hijacking an airplane.

Phillips -- as he said in his 1988 novelette, The AMLASH Legacy -- was hoping that LHO would get into Cuba, to help kill Fidel Castro.  That's believable, since Phillips was obsessed with killing Castro.

Finally, the reason that Anne Goodpasture lied her head off about the surveillance in Mexico City, was because CIA agents are expected to conceal the Truth about CIA operations as far as possible.  It's silly to try to make a cloak-and-dagger scenario out of every CIA withhold.

David has yet to impress me with his analysis of the data that clearly demonstrates the Lee Harvey Oswald was in Mexico City -- and was also impersonated over the telephone there.  Clearly, David Morales was trying to link Oswald with Kostikov for the CIA, and LHO was being framed without his knowledge.

This simple, Occam's Razor interpretation of Oswald in Mexico City, simply flies over the head of David Josephs.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 24, 2017 by Paul Trejo
26th

[Paul Trejo]

20 hours 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?  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.

Tommy,

I thought you were aware that Bill Simpich (2014) demonstrated that the "Henry" in the CIA 201 file for Oswald was deliberately entered there as a Mole Hunt operation.

It was not a "new" Mole Hunt.  It was the original Mole Hunt of October 1, 1963, in response to the CIA *immediate* recognition that the telephone caller of October 1, 1963 was not really Lee Harvey Oswald, as he claimed when he asked for Kostikov of the KGB.

The fact that this fake middle name, "Henry," was still present after a solid year, suggests to me that the CIA had still not found the Mole by late 1964.

Yet I am still asking -- what CIA agent authored the CIA memo of October 18, 1963, which was seen by INS agent Jeff Woolsey only a few days later, when he mentioned it to FBI agent James Hosty (assuming that Hosty is telling the truth about it)?   And how can we be assured of the author?

Now -- James Hosty himself said he first heard about the CIA member of 10/18/1963 from INS agent Jeff Woolsey.   He also said in his book, Assignment Oswald (1996) that he searched high and low inside FBI records, and could not find it.   So, that should answer your question -- unless James Hosty was fabricating.

As for anything David Joseph says, he cannot divorce himself from Armstrong, so I'm already bored with it.

HOWEVER -- much depends on the complete status of that October 18 memo.   Corrected or not.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 17, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Tommy,

One must know something about Mexican culture to properly evaluate a Mexican description of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Very few Mexicans have light-colored hair.   Many USA citizens have light-colored hair.   For this reason, when a Mexican uses the word, "blonde," it does not have the same meaning that it means in the USA.

For example -- the Eskimos have more than a dozen words for snow.  Many Mexicans have one word for snow and ice-cream (nieve).

So, the fact that Silvia Duran said that Oswald was 'blonde' should never be taken literally -- as if Duran was an expert in English grammar and nuance.

For citizens of Mexico City, Lee Harvey Oswald -- who had light-colored hair -- could be described as "blonde" without being literal about it.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 17, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[David Josephs]

The very last thing I could possibly care about is what you think of anything Paul....

You've been debunked and shown to be foolish by virtually every person on this forum and on virtually every subject.

You offer conclusions without evidence and critique without knowledge...  hey, you sure you're not channeling Trump?

Like a few select posters before you... you remain a one trick pony... the trick being falling off in full view.

As I've posted a number of times now, Mexico and H&L, in my work, is not connected.  Alice TX and other south TX activities which occurred during the same time period MAY have been related to H&L...  but since you can't seem to find time to read the work you criticize, the value of such criticism is obvious.

At the bottom line here boys (tommy and paul) the work of real researchers and the supported conclusions they offer here remains the cornerstone of intelligent thought...  the mental masturbation the two of you spew in hopes of being considered "valuable" or being taken seriously remains just that...  a few spasms and then a snore-fest. 

Case in point - Paul can't even paraphrase Bill's great work accurately...

Quote

It was not a "new" Mole Hunt.  It was the original Mole Hunt of October 1, 1963, in response to the CIA *immediate* recognition that the telephone caller of October 1, 1963 was not really Lee Harvey Oswald, as he claimed when he asked for Kostikov of the KGB.  

The fact that this fake middle name, "Henry," was still present after a solid year, suggests to me that the CIA had still not found the Mole by late 1964.

Paul - "HENRY" was never "the original Mole Hunt of October 1, 1963" according to Simpich; it had been used by Angleton via Egerter since 1960 in a variety of "marked card events" according to Bill.. How can Egerter use the HENRY (among other falsehoods) marked card THREE YEARS LATER.  

As for painting me into the Armstrong corner - you know full well I support the H&L conclusion based on the evidence... yet this is now a few posts in a row you keep bringing it up and no one on this thread is discussing it but you and tommy...  mental masturbation at its finest.

You've made enough errors in your posts about Mexico Paul, the last thing you need do is add your lack of knowledge about H&L here... there are other threads for that...  or can't you get your mind out of Armstrong's business

Here are some excerpts from State Secret...  If I'm wrong about what Bill is saying: that the the marked cards of Lee HENRY Oswald was used well before Oct 1 1963 and were related to Webster:

Bill writes:

DIR 74830 to Mexico City Station (excerpts).
This memo passes on the false Robert
Webster-like description of Oswald, along
with orders to disseminate this description to the
Headquarters of the same agencies referenced
in the previous memo.

The second memo went directly to the Mexico City station itself, with a different description of “Lee Henry Oswald” as “5 foot 10, 165 pounds” that matched the Robert Wesbster-like description of Oswald used by Egerter and the FBI for molehunting purposes during Oswald’s days in the Soviet Union. (A CIA note during the seventies confirms that the Agency knew there was confusion in identifying the two men, although I haven't yet found the full memo itself.) -Simpich

See PAUL...  the way you butcher the intent and content of Bill's work is criminal.

Or go ahead and post the passage from his work that supports your statement about Oct 1.

From State Secret:

Although the downing of the U-2 ended Oswald’s usefulness as a dangle, Egerter and other officers in the counterintelligence division of the CIA continued to use the Oswald case file as a marked card to look for leaks in the US security apparatus.

A second marked card was Marguerite Oswald’s inaccurate claim that Oswald was an ex-Marine with an honorable discharge who had renounced his citizenship.

During December 1960, Egerter finally opened a 201 file for Oswald when the Office of Security put together a list of defectors and it noticed that Oswald had no biographical file.

Egerter named him “Lee Henry Oswald”, and supplied the head of covert operations with a separate Lee Henry Oswald index card with the note “CIT?”, asking whether Oswald was a citizen. Egerter knew Oswald’s real name and was staying on top of his story, as shown by a late 1960 note signed by Egerter after reviewing the Soviet division’s latest memo on Oswald’s background. Oswald’s 201 file could now be used to keep track of Oswald’s alleged biography.

As mentioned earlier, the covert operations desk had a separate Lee Harvey Oswald index card that was based on Fain’s interviews with the Oswald family. This card states flatly and falsely that Oswald was now a Soviet citizen! In the limited but important world of CIA record-keeping, there were now two different Oswalds by the end of 1960.

This phony description of Oswald as “5 foot 10, 165” came back into play three years later. In Mexico City, Oswald tried again to get an instant visa – this time, to visit Cuba and the Soviet Union. On October 10, 1963, Egerter was the co-author of two memos describing a man known as “Lee Henry Oswald” – the name that Egerter had used for him back during his time in the Soviet Union.

 

[James DiEugenio]

PT:

The above shows anyone who is reading that you have not read anything David has written about the whole Mumford/WInston affair.  And you do not know the latest developments about it.  That is not what David wrote and that is not how they have been discredited.

But keep on writing about this barium meals,  oat meals or whatever you want to dish out with cinnamon and raisins.  Because what you have to say on the subject is obviously derivative and, as David points out above, even at that you still get it wrong. 

As per Tommy, I already commented on your belief that Leonov is the guy in the screen capture in the Cuban embassy.  That was a while ago.  No I do not trust that photo comparison.  Historically speaking those things do not do well for evidentiary purposes.  Recall, Joannides at the Ambassdor Hotel? 

Edited March 17, 2017 by James DiEugenio