Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Dual Life of Albert Osborne


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Yet I must ask again -- WHO WAS THE SOURCE FOR TORBITT?

Paul:

Louis Bloomfield himself had a theory about who was spreading these rumours about him. In a letter to I.G.Alk in December 1979, he suggested that it was Larouche's North American Labour Party. Here is the link to the document.

https://archive.org/details/BloomfieldAlk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

Shouldn't there be a court transcript of the Floyd murder trial, to show if there was any such testimony about Osborne and his alleged school of assassins?

I tried to find but could not locate it. Brown County court reporter told me that the original transcript was most likely destroyed but the appellate court, which heard Sapet's appeal might have it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

If that's true, apparently any info on Osborne and the assassins would be in Allcorn's private files, not in the trial transcript.

But then how would Torbitt know what some conspirator told Allcorn off the record?

The real research on the Torbitt document has less to do with its contents as it does with who wrote it. Don't know who actually produced it, but I read somewhere that it was lawyer named Copeland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would Oswald’s Mexican tourist visa show proof that he went to MC? Does it exist in evidence? I’ve never heard it referred to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, John Kowalski said:

Paul:

Louis Bloomfield himself had a theory about who was spreading these rumors about him. In a letter to I.G. Alk in December 1979, he suggested that it was Larouche's North American Labor Party. Here is the link to the document.

https://archive.org/details/BloomfieldAlk

John,

Your linking of that pole-cat,  Lyndon Larouche, with this whole Torbitt/Mae Brussell journey of the imagination, explains the entire scenario to me.

Lyndon Larouche reminds me of a pathological L-I-A-R.  I remember in the 1970's he went on and on about how the Queen of England was a heroin pusher.  Larouche was serious, too -- doing his best to overthrow the industrial bourgeoisie and establish a so-called Labor Party for the industrial proletariat.  Marxism just pushed a screw loose in his brain, I figure.

It's all a matter of "political science fiction" once the name of Lyndon Larouche comes anywhere near the source checking, IMHO.

My current opinion is that we can safely discount every word of Torbitt -- and so every word of Mae Brussell about Albert Osborne.  Just step around their story like garbage on the sidewalk, because Lyndon Larouche was seen nearby.

The question now becomes -- what remains when we remove the Torbitt/Brussell rumors?

Was the Mexican Government really seeking to deport Osborne/Bowen?   On what grounds?  A "Church Mission" is likely to have the funds to bribe officials and buy off witnesses and plaintiffs -- so, I'm not surprised if the charges were dropped -- but I'd like to know the exact charges, if available.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 1:01 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Would Oswald’s Mexican tourist visa show proof that he went to MC? Does it exist in evidence? I’ve never heard it referred to.

It indeed was used as proof Paul...   It was made out to LEE, Harvey Oswald...  H.O. LEE was how it was used on the return trip...

Signed Lee Oswald....

What we find though, was when the FM-11 master list was compiled, Mr. LEE was filed under "O" for Oswald.
We also find problems with the stamps, those working at the border, and a whole host of other things which make this document suspect as a creation...

I also go into the evidence about GAUDET at the Consulate to get the VISA (his #24084) ... he fabricates a story of what occurred that conflicts with the few non-CIA assets there that morning. 

 

 

    

#99 was stamped on the front of the VISA - you can see it above and to the left of the "24"

This is the detailed listing for the FM-11...  he was given #99 based on the alphabetizing...

97. M
98. O'
99. O swald
100. P

There's more of course...  that's some of the story related to that Visa...

DJ

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks David - how on earth do you travel with a visa that gets your name wrong? Why fake something and get it so wrong? As usual the facts present more questions than answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

My current opinion is that we can safely discount every word of Torbitt -- and so every word of Mae Brussell about Albert Osborne.  Just step around their story like garbage on the sidewalk, because Lyndon Larouche was seen nearby.

Paul:

Well said. Torbitt and Larouche are sources of lies that must be disregarded.

I would like to see Mexican government documents regarding Osborne. The challenge of course is how to access them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Thanks David - how on earth do you travel with a visa that gets your name wrong? Why fake something and get it so wrong? As usual the facts present more questions than answers.

As Salandria wrote, the conspiracy was suppose to break down upon examination putting those inside to a decision to investigate or cover it up.

I introduced the concept of a "evidentiary closed loop" iow the evidence works as long as you don't look at how things normally work.  By only looking at the items of evidence which relate to Oswald... They only need corroborate themselves....  Like the rifle evidence....

The FBI and CIA had been watching Oswald.  Yet from Sept 25 to Oct 31 there are virtually no reports written and those that were claimed they didn't know where he was until the Kaack report saying he was now in Irving....    Does it really make sense that the FBI would suddenly go dark on the man?  

Remember, the USPS was also reporting on Oswald... Which magazines coming in, destination of letters going out along with content....  Yet the FBI not once mentions his getting a 5 foot box with a rifle in it....   ??   

Like the money order... All the stamps and forms and such were at the disposal of the man collecting and creating the evidentiary story...   

Within hours of the shooting, Mexican presidential staff went to all 4 bus lines and took manifests only for Sept 26 thru Oct 3.....and from Mex city, Monterrey and 3 border towns.

I see Gaudet acquiring the necessary forms or actually acquiring the visa that day....  Our man Oswald was not involved in that plan.. He was the object of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 9:30 AM, David Josephs said:

...The FBI and CIA had been watching Oswald.  Yet from Sept 25 to Oct 31 there are virtually no reports written and those that were claimed they didn't know where he was until the Kaack report saying he was now in Irving....    Does it really make sense that the FBI would suddenly go dark on the man?

David,

One strong clue to answer that question was presented in the book, Assignment Oswald, by FBI agent James Hosty (1996).

Lee Harvey Oswald was now (0ct 1963) being watched by the Dallas FBI, and that means by James Hosty.  

Since my CT sees Hosty as a secret supporter of General Walker through Robert Alan Surrey, his Bridge partner for years -- in a Walker-did-it CT, it  makes sense that Hosty would shroud Oswald from FBI HQ to the best of his personal ability. 

(In the same way, when the Secret Service PRS asked the Dallas FBI who was distributing the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbills, several days before the JFK visit to Dallas, James Hosty falsely reported to the PRS that, "We really don't know" -- when he knew very well it was Surrey and Walker.)

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

As Salandria wrote, the conspiracy was suppose to break down upon examination putting those inside to a decision to investigate or cover it up.

I introduced the concept of a "evidentiary closed loop" iow the evidence works as long as you don't look at how things normally work.  By only looking at the items of evidence which relate to Oswald... They only need corroborate themselves....  Like the rifle evidence....

The FBI and CIA had been watching Oswald.  Yet from Sept 25 to Oct 31 there are virtually no reports written and those that were claimed they didn't know where he was until the Kaack report saying he was now in Irving....    Does it really make sense that the FBI would suddenly go dark on the man?  

Remember, the USPS was also reporting on Oswald... Which magazines coming in, destination of letters going out along with content....  Yet the FBI not once mentions his getting a 5 foot box with a rifle in it....   ??   

Like the money order... All the stamps and forms and such were at the disposal of the man collecting and creating the evidentiary story...   

Within hours of the shooting, Mexican presidential staff went to all 4 bus lines and took manifests only for Sept 26 thru Oct 3.....and from Mex city, Monterrey and 3 border towns.

I see Gaudet acquiring the necessary forms or actually acquiring the visa that day....  Our man Oswald was not involved in that plan.. He was the object of it.

These are very interesting points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your take on Hosty is quite interesting Paul....  In essence, only Ruth knew the day to day of Oswald in Oct.....  And I'm guessing she and Hosty did some talking.

Her calendar for Oct would be worth a look....

Hosty, thru Woosley at INS knows of the Oct 16th Win Scott memo and that the CIA is placing his guy in Mexico.   By the 4th of Nov, FBI agent Peck is filing reports looking for any sign of Ozzie in Mexico and coming up empty...

Recently released a mexican informant working inside the Cuban consulate repeatedly says there was no Oswald....

It makes sense the CIA would orchestrate MX.   My question again, why Does Hoover cover for the CIA and create the LN bus trip when he obviously knows it was not Oswald down there?

58cb0dc5ea470_64-01-15HooverwrittennotesabouttheCIAlieaboutOswaldinMexico.jpg.702fa1a2896f9952a1ed70af6ab17730.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

These are very interesting points.

Not too many can argue the logic that a 5 foot box from Klein's to Oswald's PO box

in March of 63 would be something the USPS or FBI should be reporting on....

Same with the REA pistol.... The FBI didn't know he had been shipped a pistol on the same day as the rifle?

Uh, ok

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

My question again, why Does Hoover cover for the CIA and create the LN bus trip when he obviously knows it was not Oswald down there?


David,

My question, why didn't the FBI simply disappear the alleged Mexico trip. (Poof! Problem solved.)

Is that the same question as yours?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:


David,

My question, why didn't the FBI simply disappear the alleged Mexico trip. (Poof! Problem solved.)

Is that the same question as yours?

 

It was the CIA who left the trail....  phase 1 Castro Conspiracy.... Alvarado, Oswald, 6500$$$

Oswald is in Dallas with 2 men visits Odio, goes to the shooting range, etc.....

His trip took him thru Austin where he was interviewed...

anyway... JFK is killed by Oswald... OMG, the Oswald from Mexico?

but we looked, he wasn’t there (cause we know where he was)... says Hoover.

We can’t have a ww3 says LBJ.... he must have been alone says everyone....

he couldn’t have been in Dallas with conspirators.... he was in Mexico, yeah, that’s it.... 

Mexico on a bus, alone....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...