Sandy Larsen Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 7 hours ago, David Josephs said: Sandy, We need to understand that by claiming Oswald was in a car - by definition he had to be with others... legend says he couldn't drive. And it acts as a double edeged sword since is correct, the FBI's thousands of pagers showing he took a bus is ever that much more junk... yet as we both know, the existence of Oswald other than on those calls or at those embassies... cannot be proven. By the night of the 23rd, the amount of Disinformation in this little paragraph is amazing. Amb MANN of STATE was trying so hard to help the CIA... This is from 104-10004-10256... attached. It keeps Oswald in Mexico until Oct 3rd... Except he was at the TEC on Oct 3rd... 1127 miles away... I'd suggest working thru some of the Mexico articles on K&K that I posted.... All the info is in there... There were a number of stories related to Oswald in a AUTO-mobile. One of them has the border inspector claiming he remembered an american in a car with a man and a woman, another with a man a 2 women.. Here is a piece of the OCT FM-11 for the 2nd half of Sept... Shows "AUTO." for transportation On the 23rd of Nov US Consul HARVEY CASH has Tijerina type up cards he's gotten from Immigration at Gobernacion... and then lies about it to William KLINE... Lester Johnson, PUGH and KLINE are covered in my work... interesting back-peddling and excuse making going on here... 63-11-24 WHAT THE CIA CLAIMS TO HAVE KNOWN THE MORNING OF THE 24TH - QUITE A LOT104-10004-10256.pdf Thanks David. I believe that the CIA created the Mexico City story for the sole purpose of making it look like Oswald was there conspiring with the likes of Kostikov and Leonov to assassinate Kennedy. The CIA needed to create a trail of evidence, and for the trips to and from MC they had an Oswald impersonator travel by car in and out of Mexico. And that's the reason the early reports had Oswald traveling by car. Having Oswald travel by car was incompatible with the Lone Nut narrative because it would require a driver, and this would suggest a conspiracy. So the FBI the scrapped the automobile evidence and replaced it with a fabricated bus trip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 2 hours ago, Thomas Graves said: Sandy, With all due respect, you don't seem to "get" it. First of all, only one of them is a book. The other one is a 35-page PDF, the first four or five pages of which would be the most important ones for you to read. You know, just to "rock your boat" a little, "whet your appetite," and "peke your curiosity"? Secondly, Bagley (who was not "Angleton's guy," BTW) had intimate knowledge of the Nosenko case (that KGB "defector" who told CIA about a month after the assassination that KGB hadn't even interviewed or monitored-very-closely Marine Corps radar operator LHO during the 2.5 years he lived in the USSR), having been involved with said case from "day one" (in May, 1962 in Geneva, Switzerland), and having later become privy to the file on (the six-months-earlier-and-true) defector, Anatoly Golitsyn, which privy-ness shed considerable light on the intelligence leads on Soviet spies and U.S. moles, etc, that Nosenko was sent to Geneva in 1962, and to the U.S. in January, 1964, to try to obfuscate and deflect attention away from. But Sandy "Genius" Larsen would rather read "Harvey and Lee," and books about forensic dentistry? Anything but four or five pages of "Ghosts of the Spy Wars" or ... gasp ... Simpich's entire "State Secret"? LOL! http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362?scroll=top&needAccess=true -- Tommy Tommy, FWIW I tend to believe that Angleton was right, that Nosenko was the false defector. I won't read State Secret because Simpich wrote that Oswald was "CIA in his own mind." Which is mind-blowingly wrong. It's hard for me to believe there are still researchers who don't accept that Oswald was a CIA agent. And no, my feeling that way has nothing to do with Harvey & Lee. But, speaking of Harvey & Lee, I believe that it has now been proven that there were two young Oswalds. The teeth records show that, and there is just no way of getting around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Thanks David. I believe that the CIA created the Mexico City story for the sole purpose of making it look like Oswald was there conspiring with the likes of Kostikov and Leonov to assassinate Kennedy. The CIA needed to create a trail of evidence, and for the trips to and from MC they had an Oswald impersonator travel by car in and out of Mexico. And that's the reason the early reports had Oswald traveling by car. Having Oswald travel by car was incompatible with the Lone Nut narrative because it would require a driver, and this would suggest a conspiracy. So the FBI the scrapped the automobile evidence and replaced it with a fabricated bus trip. Sandy, With all due respect, do you not find it interesting that it was a Ruskie (Obyedkov) who suggested to "Oswald" over the phone on 10/01/63 that it was Kostikov with whom "Oswald" had (supposedly) met with at the Soviet Consulate the previously Saturday? Not to mention the fact that the only reason for CIA's tentatively believing, at that time, that Kostikov was "Department 13" was then-recent "info" from a FBI fake double-agent, Aleksy Kulak, aka "FEDORA"? -- Tommy Edited February 22, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said: Sandy, With all due respect, do you not find it interesting that it was a Ruskie (Obyedkov) who suggested to "Oswald" over the phone on 10/01/63 that it was Kostikov with whom "Oswald" had (supposedly) met with at the Soviet Consulate the previously Saturday? Not to mention the fact that the only reason for CIA's tentatively believing, at that time, that Kostikov was "Department 13" was then-recent "info" from a FBI fake double-agent, Aleksy Kulak, aka "FEDORA"? -- Tommy Tommy, I haven't developed my Mexico City theory to the point yet that I can explain all the telephone calls. It seems to me that the easiest thing for the CIA plotters to do was to have "Oswald" make real calls to the consulates, have him say whatever the plotters wanted him to say, knowing that it would be recorded and transcribed. That way the plotters didn't have to intervene with the wire-tapping operation. And yet, there was that one call between "Oswald" and Duran on a Saturday (or was it Sunday?) when the consulate was supposedly closed. It therefore seems like it was faked on both ends. But how did that call get recorded and transcribed? The fake Duran would have had to be in the consulate in order for the call to be tapped. And the wiretappers had to have been working on a day when the consulate was closed, which seems unlikely. Because, without those conditions being met, the call would not have been recorded and transcribed. In which case we'd have to ask ourselves how that transcript got into the record. (I went on memory writing this paragraph and may have remembered incorrectly.) Suppose that, in reality, that phone call was never made. The CIA plotters fabricated the transcript and planted it into the records. If so, they could have done the same for some of the other phone calls as well. Without knowing which phone calls were real and which ones (if any) were planted, I can't be sure that a Russian (Obyedkov) really did tell "Oswald" about Kostikov. In answer to your Kostikov question, it didn't really matter if he worked for Department 13 or not. What mattered was that the CIA thought he did work for Dept. 13 and could convince LBJ that he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Tommy, I haven't developed my Mexico City theory to the point yet that I can explain all the telephone calls. It seems to me that the easiest thing for the CIA plotters to do was to have "Oswald" make real calls to the consulates, have him say whatever the plotters wanted him to say, knowing that it would be recorded and transcribed. That way the plotters didn't have to intervene with the wire-tapping operation. And yet, there was that one call between "Oswald" and Duran on a Saturday (or was it Sunday?) when the consulate was supposedly closed. It therefore seems like it was faked on both ends. But how did that call get recorded and transcribed? The fake Duran would have had to be in the consulate in order for the call to be tapped. And the wiretappers had to have been working on a day when the consulate was closed, which seems unlikely. Because, without those conditions being met, the call would not have been recorded and transcribed. In which case we'd have to ask ourselves how that transcript got into the record. (I went on memory writing this paragraph and may have remembered incorrectly.) Suppose that, in reality, that phone call was never made. The CIA plotters fabricated the transcript and planted it into the records. If so, they could have done the same for some of the other phone calls as well. Without knowing which phone calls were real and which ones (if any) were planted, I can't be sure that a Russian (Obyedkov) really did tell "Oswald" about Kostikov. In answer to your Kostikov question, it didn't really matter if he worked for Department 13 or not. What mattered was that the CIA thought he did work for Dept. 13 and could convince LBJ that he did. Sandy, With all due respect, I haven't even read all of your post. I almost gagged when I got to the part about "a phone call BETWEEN Oswald and Duran on Saturday (OR WAS IT SUNDAY?)" Dude. The phone call was allegedly from the Cuban Consulate to the Soviet Embassy/Consulate on Saturday, September 28, and in the phone call "Duran" and "Oswald" can both be heard talking with a Russian in the Soviet Embassy. Problem is, the Cuban Consulate was closed on Saturdays, and the Soviet switchboard was allegedly, too. What's even more interesting is that, although the "Duran" speaker was identified by the transcriber as being Silvia Duran, John Newman has shown that, based on an analysis of the "cluelessness" of what "Oswald" said to the Russian (in Russian) about real-deal(?) Oswald's visit to the Soviet Consulate the day before (Friday), this Saturday, September 28 "Oswald" must have been an impostor. -- Tommy Edited February 22, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 (edited) Few things first... the ongoing misinterpretation of the 27th of Sept is monumental. EVERYONE involved agree these calls had nothing to do with Oswald... Furthermore, based on the travel evidence he needed to get from the bus terminal to the hotel, check-in and then over to the Cuban Embassy to make this first call by 10:33. This is the same terminal to which Oswald needs to take a taxi when he supposedly leaves Oct 2nd at 8:30am (after changing the leaving time from 2pm on a different bus line) The addition of "KOSTIKOV" occurs as a response from the Soviet speaker.... (that Nov 9 Paine typed letter attempts to reinforce this connection - another prop) The bus and records available have him arriving at the bus terminal in Mexico at 10am. First call? "10:33 speaking Spanish" The Oswald character never utters the word KOSTIKOV The discussion about the 27th includes the conclusion that the caller was NOT Oswald "Nothing to suggest.... TIRADO - No. I read yesterday, an article in the Reader's digest, and they say he was at the Consulate on three occasions. He was in Friday, Saturday, and Monday...That's not true, that's false. CORNWELL - All right. Let's try a different hypothetical. If the one in the Reader's Digest is definitely wrong, is it possible that he first came on like a Thursday, and then came back on a Friday?TIRADO - No, because I am positively sure about it. That he came in the same day. CORNWELL - During this period was your normal work week, did it include Saturdays?Tirado Yes.Cornwell Is it possible that, in addition to his visits on Friday, he also came back the following day on Saturday mourning?TIRADO - No.CORNWELL - How can you be sure of that?TIRADO - Because, uh, I told you before, that it was easy to remember, because not all the Americans that came there were married with a Russian woman, they have live(d) in Russian and uh, we didn't used to fight with those people because if you, they came for going to Cuba, so apparently they were friends, no? So we were nice to them with this man we fight, I mean we had a hard discussion so we didn't want to have anything to do with him.CORNWELL - Okay. I understand that but I don't understand how that really answers the question. In other words, the question is, what is it about the events that makes you sure that he did not come back on Saturday, and have another conversation with you?TIRADO - Because I remember the fight. So if he (come) back, I would have remembered.CORNWELL - Did Azcue work on Saturdays?TIRADO - Yes, we used to work in the office but not for the public.CORNWELL - Was there a guard, was there a guard out here at the corner near number seven on your diagram on Saturdays?TIRADO - Excuse me?CORNWELL - Was there a doorman out near the area that you marked as number seven, on the diagram?TIRADO - Yes, but on Saturday he never let people ...CORNWELL - Never let people in.TIRADO - No. CORNWELL - But the people at the Consulate said they had read the newspaper and asked you what had happened, right?TIRADO - Yes.CORNWELL - Did you discuss that with anybody that you can remember specifically?TIRADO - With the Ambassador.CORNWELL - And what was the nature of that conversation?TIRADO - I tried to repeat all the questions.CORNWELL - Okay. Uh..would that have been a violation of what the police asked you to do? To talk to the Ambassador about that?TIRADO - Huh?CORNWELL - Was that a violation of what the police asked you to do? Was that...TIRADO - Well, of course, They told me to keep quiet. I never says anything about what happened on Saturday. Never. but when I saw in the papers I couldn't say "Well, nothing happened." It was all in the paper and it was exactly what I said to the police.CORNWELL - What did the Ambassador say to you?TIRADO - That he was going to write a report and he sent it in the plane.CORNWELL - What if anything did you consider doing at the time?TIRADO - What?CORNWELL - Did you consider taking any course of action at the time?TIRADO - Oh. I was going to make a protest to the Mexican Government. We went to, a friend of mine was a daughter of the Chief of Tinetraph and we could reach the President and we were going to ask to explain what happened and you know, there was an illegal (tape stops)... Edited February 22, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 (edited) 52 minutes ago, David Josephs said: ....... David, With all due respect, nice, long post! I was responding to Sandy's (correct) allegation that a mysterious phone call to the Soviet Embassy (and which involved real-deal Duran and "Oswald") took place, according to CIA phone-tap transcripts, on Saturday, September 28, a day on which the Cuban Consulate was closed, no? -- Tommy Edited February 22, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 31 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said: David, With all due respect, nice, long post! I was responding to Sandy's (correct) allegation that a mysterious phone call to the Soviet Embassy (and which involved real-deal Duran and "Oswald") took place, according to CIA phone-tap transcripts, on Saturday, September 28, a day on which the Cuban Consulate was closed, no? -- Tommy No. Both the Soviet "Consulate" (and Military Attaché) and the Cuban "Embassy" are open on Saturday. Bill Simpich tells us that the calls from that day were all personal in nature, no business was done - if I remember correctly. They do work on Saturday but are closed to the public... it's in the testimony I posted. The call on the 28th is supposed to be from inside the Cuban Embassy to the Soviet Consulate CORNWELL - During this period was your normal work week, did it include Saturdays? TIRADO Yes. CORNWELL - Is it possible that, in addition to his visits on Friday, he also came back the following day on Saturday mourning?TIRADO - No. Icing on the cake is the same reports also state OSWALD called on Oct 3rd... and the same man was photographed again on the 15th... How many lies need there be... ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 (edited) On 2/22/2018 at 9:58 AM, David Josephs said: .... David, With all due respect, the 9/28/63 phone call included, according to the transcriber, real-deal Silvia Duran and, of course, "Oswald". Duran was a Cuban Consulate employee, not a Cuban Embassy employee. The fact that she testified that she worked at the Consulate on Saturdays does not necessarily mean that the Consulate was open *to the public* on Saturdays. D'oh Regardless, what's your point? Do you think I'm "married" to the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald went to Mexico City? Or is that just your over-the-top imagination working overtime, again? LOL -- Tommy Edited February 26, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 (edited) On 2/22/2018 at 10:25 AM, Thomas Graves said: Regardless, the fact that she testified that she worked at the Consulate on Saturdays does not necessarily mean that it (the Consulate) was open to the public on Saturdays. Tommy - you don't really read the posts, do you? "They do work on Saturday but are closed to the public... it's in the testimony I posted. " On 2/22/2018 at 8:21 AM, David Josephs said: CORNWELL - During this period was your normal work week, did it include Saturdays? Tirado Yes. Cornwell Is it possible that, in addition to his visits on Friday, he also came back the following day on Saturday mourning?TIRADO - No. Not really the point, now is it? Other than the CIA saying so, the evidence does not corroborate Oswald there at all... The FBI refers only to the CIA evidence when mentioning Oswald in Mexico. Plainly and slowly.... the evidence for Oswald being in Mexico is not AUTHENTIC. OSWALD was in Dallas, not Mexico. Why is that so hard to accept and more on? CORNWELL - All right. Let's try a different hypothetical. If the one in the Reader's Digest is definitely wrong, is it possible that he first came on like a Thursday, and then came back on a Friday?TIRADO - No, because I am positively sure about it. That he came in the same day. CORNWELL - Was there a doorman out near the area that you marked as number seven, on the diagram?TIRADO - Yes, but on Saturday he never let people ...CORNWELL - Never let people in.TIRADO - No.CORNWELL - Not even if they came up to the doorman and didn't speak Spanish? And were very insistent?TIRADO - No, because they could answer or something. They could ask me for instance, no ? by the inter-phone. Edited June 18, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, David Josephs said: ....... David, With all due respect, whether or not Oswald was in Mexico City from Thursday, September 26 through Thursday, October 3 (or any part thereof), the fact remains that real-deal Sylvia Duran (who should have been at work inside the closed-to-the-public Cuban Consulate on Saturday, September 28) and an Oswald impostor called the Soviet Embassy/Consulate that day FROM SOMEWHERE. -- Tommy Edited February 22, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 9 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said: David, With all due respect, whether or not Oswald was in Mexico City from Thursday, September 26 through Thursday, October 3 (or any part thereof), the fact remains that real-deal Sylvia Duran (who should have been at work inside the closed-to-the-public Cuban Consulate on Saturday, September 28) and an Oswald impostor called the Soviet Embassy/Consulate that day FROM SOMEWHERE. -- Tommy No Tommy... Sylvia Duran did NOT make any calls to the Soviet anything on Saturday... how many times does she have to say that? How many times do I have to say it? The "Transcripts" and only the transcripts mention who these people are supposed to be... The REPORT says the call is from the Cuban Consulate... From Ch. 4 of State Secret.... It also means that the Mexican monitor comparing Spanish-speakers could not have helped but notice that Duran’s voice on the 28th did not match her voice on the 27th. The Mexico City station had been taking photos of Duran during her frequent visits over the past year, and should have been listening to Duran’s voice on a constant basis since she started working at the consulate early in the summer. Did the monitor tell Scott or Goodpasture? If the monitor was corrupt, maybe not. However, whether or not the monitor told Scott or Goodpasture, there was a third factor to consider. At least one of the case officers at Mexico City’s Cuban desk had a duty to listen to the Duran tapes of the 27th and 28th. The rule was that whenever a US citizen contacted the Soviet compound, the procedure was to get a copy of the tape into Goodpasture’s hands within fifteen minutes. “The reel is then taken to the station and given to the case officer responsible for the target the person was trying to contact”. Who was responsible for Duran – was it Phillips, his deputy Shaw, or someone else? Bob Shaw testified that “Sylvia Duran was the person being a Mexican citizen inside the Cuban embassy who I dealt with”, and that no one had notified him about Oswald or that Duran had an American visitor prior to the assassination. His name is on some of the transcripts, but there is no date and his name is not crossed out, hence it could have been provided to him after the assassination as well. Shaw was working under State Department cover, and described himself as a “Kennedy man”. Additionally, Shaw knew nothing about the attempts to recruit Duran’s boss Azcue. This is further evidence that Phillips took the Duran file out of Shaw’s hands regarding the Oswald events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, David Josephs said: ...... David, With all due respect, what it seems to boil down to is that you trust what Sylvia Duran said about that, and distrust the transcriber's identifcation of the female speaker as Duran. Let me ask you: Do you also believe Duran when she says the guy who came into the Cuban Consulate on Friday September 27 was the same guy whose visa photos she stapled to the forms that same day, that this guy was the same person as the guy Jack Ruby killed on 11/24/63, that the guy who came in on September 27 was about the same height has her 5' 3.5" but weighed about the same as Eddie Lopez's 1978 weight of 199 lbs, and that this guy was inelegantly dressed (although the visa photos show Oswald in a nice sweater and tie)? Etc. -- Tommy Edited February 22, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 Tommy, I believe you'll agree... but we'll see. Duran says SHE is 162 cms or about 5'3"... Ed Lopez, while maybe 199 lbs, is NOT what DURAN said... she was asked to estimate his weight and she said about Lopez's weight... you think she was describing a 5'3" 200 lb man? And then says Skinny? I think you may be misinterpreting what Sylvia is saying about the man... But y'know Tommy, if you want to dig in and fight it tooth and nail as you do so many of these ambiguous statements... I'm not interested... I get your soviet wit... and how it bothers so many here... btw, you may have hit that trigger a bit too often - now I'll never assume you're doing anything but joking about them... You want to pursue this, have at it... as for what I believe.... Oswald was not in Mexico - I assume you can take it from there. LOPEZ - Would you say he was taller than Gary?TIRADO - No, I think just the same. He was about my size.LOPEZ - About your height?TIRADO - Yeah.LOPEZ - Okay. And what's your height?TIRADO - 160. I think 160 or 162.LOPEZ - Was he skinny?TIRADO - Yes. Skinny.LOPEZ - Could you estimate how much he weighed?TIRADO - About your weight, more or less.LOPEZ - About my weight. We already went over...TIRADO - He has stronger shoulders, perhaps, than yours.LOPEZ - Just for the record, my weight is 199 pounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 (edited) 17 minutes ago, David Josephs said: Tommy, I believe you'll agree... but we'll see. Duran says SHE is 162 cms or about 5'3"... Ed Lopez, while maybe 199 lbs, is NOT what DURAN said... she was asked to estimate his weight and she said about Lopez's weight... you think she was describing a 5'3" 200 lb man? And then says Skinny? I think you may be misinterpreting what Sylvia is saying about the man... But y'know Tommy, if you want to dig in and fight it tooth and nail as you do so many of these ambiguous statements... I'm not interested... I get your soviet wit... and how it bothers so many here... btw, you may have hit that trigger a bit too often - now I'll never assume you're doing anything but joking about them... You want to pursue this, have at it... as for what I believe.... Oswald was not in Mexico - I assume you can take it from there. LOPEZ - Would you say he was taller than Gary?TIRADO - No, I think just the same. He was about my size.LOPEZ - About your height?TIRADO - Yeah.LOPEZ - Okay. And what's your height?TIRADO - 160. I think 160 or 162.LOPEZ - Was he skinny?TIRADO - Yes. Skinny.LOPEZ - Could you estimate how much he weighed?TIRADO - About your weight, more or less.LOPEZ - About my weight. We already went over...TIRADO - He has stronger shoulders, perhaps, than yours.LOPEZ - Just for the record, my weight is 199 pounds. David, With all due respect (which ain't much), it's obvious to be that Duran dissembled so much about so many things, about the only three things she got right were 1) & 2) "Flesh-and-Blood 'Oswald'" (or, if you prefer, "Invisible Oswald") Nikolai Leonov was "about the same height as her five-three and one-half" (Leonov was 5' 7") and he (or "Invisible He"), like Nikolai Leonov, was blond. Oh yeah, and 3) -- The Cuban Consulate was closed to the public on Saturdays. Other than that? Lies, lies, and more lies, amigo. -- Tommy Edited February 22, 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