Jump to content
The Education Forum
David Josephs

HELSINKI by train Oct 15 - 16, 1959

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

According to Armstrong, Oswald's visa was signed on October 13th. And Golub arranged for his accommodations in Moscow through Intourist. (pp. 254-55)

But he also adds that Golub was in contact with the US Embassy in Helsinki and worked with them to initiate speedy visas.  Armstrong suspects that this is what happened with Oswald and why he could get his visa so quickly. If so, then the CIA and the State Department concealed this aspect from the Warren Commission. (Yawn)

But this still does not answer the question of who paid for the two luxury hotels.  It looks like Oswald was there from the tenth to the 15th.  So it would be about five days.

I trust David can bring us a bit closer to the answer.

BTW, Epstein says there was a Swedish intel report that Oswald also went to Stockholm. Has this ever been explored or verified? What is the evidence of it? (The Assassination Chronicles, p. 381)

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From that site I linked to....

"Deluxe class"?

He was met in the hotel lobby by Rimma Semenova Shirakova, age twenty-two, a graduate in English and Arabic from the Moscow Foreign Languages Institute and an Intourist guide. She was assigned to him as his personal guide, a privilege of Deluxe class tourists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, this is really a continuation of the Southampton exit stamp mystery.

I have pointed this out before, but as everyone seems to know, David Atlee Phillips was a big pal of Gordon McLendon, and McLendon had been in an out of the British Isles since the Fifties, when he started setting up shop with Murchison in Stockholm, Sweden, and buying into an interest in Malmo, Sweden. He is doing all this with help from General Samoza. So if LHO did show up in Stockholm in 1959, he was not the only one to start appearing there. While McLendon terminated his Swedish interests in 1962, he was back in 1967 to protest the "trial' staged by Bertrand Russell into U.S. "war crimes" in Vietnam. McLendon was forced to leave. This is the time period when the Swedish Prime Minister began working with the British Labour Party government, and it ended with the Swedish PM being assassinated and that crime has never been solved!

Mervyn

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

David, this is really a continuation of the Southampton exit stamp mystery.

Kind of...   but only due to the fact we cannot come to conclusions and attribute them to the movements of our man Oswald...

Oswald was not going to Sweden, Switzerland, Finland or anywhere else for that matter...  he had one destination and one job to do...

No doubt that spy craft continued in every nook and cranny of the Cold War landscape...  the 50's and 60's were the CIA's expansion heyday...

they grew, got into MANY illegal activities to fund covert ops, and ran roughshod over the planet...  Vietnam being the culmination of this arrogance...  they wanted to run countries and knew they could...

I see little mystery in the concepts within Oswald's journey....  I see mystery in the details... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Kind of...   but only due to the fact we cannot come to conclusions and attribute them to the movements of our man Oswald...

Oswald was not going to Sweden, Switzerland, Finland or anywhere else for that matter...  he had one destination and one job to do...

No doubt that spy craft continued in every nook and cranny of the Cold War landscape...  the 50's and 60's were the CIA's expansion heyday...

they grew, got into MANY illegal activities to fund covert ops, and ran roughshod over the planet...  Vietnam being the culmination of this arrogance...  they wanted to run countries and knew they could...

I see little mystery in the concepts within Oswald's journey....  I see mystery in the details... 

David, this where I side with Jason. All of the comments you are making are speculative. None of them can be proved and consequently I am sure there are alternative explanations. It is the speculation that prevents any conclusion. What should be done is to bring all of the hard evidence to one place - without interpretive commentary. Then the picture such as it is, may create its own picture. This is how criminologists work. It's okay to have a working hypothesis or two or three to be tested, but not to reach a conclusion and try to get the pieces to fit it, no matter what. Mervyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

None of them can be proved and consequently I am sure there are alternative explanations.

If they can't be proved - they can't be disproved...

How can you conclude with SURETY there are alternate explanations when we aren't finished with this explanation...

Nothing I said is speculative within the context of the 1959 Cold War...

Recreating a trip with a paper trail and some well placed witness stories has been done in this case... there's no arguing that.

Mervyn, when the same circumstances involving the same people is played out over and over within the CIA world of covert operation, the universe from which to make conclusions narrows...   These other ALTERNATIVES of which you speak cannot exist without the context of what happens during this trip and how his completely distancing himself from anything ASC... or Univ of Turni...

IT.   WAS.   A.   RUSE.    

Yet this doe not negate the desire to have you find out what happened between La Havre and England... and from Heathrow to Helsinki...  if you can...  all I can say with surety to you is that following the assumption that Oswald had actual interest in ASC will lead you in circles...

Not sure it you haven't read this from Vincent Salndria from the weekend of the assassination, but it's worth repeating...  The bigger picture here supersedes the red herring micro details with which we are playing... as badly as we'd like to follow these leads, we find them generating more questions than answering them...   If you're looking for rational explanations for spy craft behavior... aint gonna happen

            "I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly.  "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early.  I see that now.  We spent too much time and effort micro-analyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy.  Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way?  They chose not to.  Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner.  The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny.  The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear:  'We are in control and no one -- not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official -- no one can do anything about it.'  It was a message to the people that their government was powerless.  And the people eventually got the message.  Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination.  People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

            "The tyranny of power is here.  Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by* promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad.  And that will lead not to revolution but to repression.  I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities.  No doubt we  are dealing now with an international conspiracy.  We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence.  That's exactly what they want us to do.  They have kept us busy for so long.  And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you.  They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

If they can't be proved - they can't be disproved...

How can you conclude with SURETY there are alternate explanations when we aren't finished with this explanation...

Nothing I said is speculative within the context of the 1959 Cold War...

Recreating a trip with a paper trail and some well placed witness stories has been done in this case... there's no arguing that.

Mervyn, when the same circumstances involving the same people is played out over and over within the CIA world of covert operation, the universe from which to make conclusions narrows...   These other ALTERNATIVES of which you speak cannot exist without the context of what happens during this trip and how his completely distancing himself from anything ASC... or Univ of Turni...

IT.   WAS.   A.   RUSE.    

Yet this doe not negate the desire to have you find out what happened between La Havre and England... and from Heathrow to Helsinki...  if you can...  all I can say with surety to you is that following the assumption that Oswald had actual interest in ASC will lead you in circles...

Not sure it you haven't read this from Vincent Salndria from the weekend of the assassination, but it's worth repeating...  The bigger picture here supersedes the red herring micro details with which we are playing... as badly as we'd like to follow these leads, we find them generating more questions than answering them...   If you're looking for rational explanations for spy craft behavior... aint gonna happen

            "I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly.  "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early.  I see that now.  We spent too much time and effort micro-analyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy.  Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way?  They chose not to.  Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner.  The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny.  The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear:  'We are in control and no one -- not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official -- no one can do anything about it.'  It was a message to the people that their government was powerless.  And the people eventually got the message.  Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination.  People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

            "The tyranny of power is here.  Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by* promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad.  And that will lead not to revolution but to repression.  I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities.  No doubt we  are dealing now with an international conspiracy.  We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence.  That's exactly what they want us to do.  They have kept us busy for so long.  And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you.  They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down."

David, you are a good investigator and I do tend to agree with you that with all of the hard evidence you have produced, the college idea was, as you put it, a ruse.

Then I draw a line.

The reason is this: Nothing began or ended with the death of John Kennedy. Nothing. He was part of the continuing problem and so was his brother. If anyone put his finger on the problem it was Eisenhower with his warning about the growth of the industrial military complex. But to see who really yelled about that read 'War is a racket' by Smedley Butler, and his warning takes us back in time to his experiences during WWI. After that there was an attempt to stage a real coup d'état, but it failed when Smedley Butler told all. Of course it was downplayed, but the attempt was revealed.

Mervyn

 

Edited by Mervyn Hagger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

The reason is this: Nothing began or ended with the death of John Kennedy. Nothing.

the amounts to a truly uneducated view of history and the JFK presidency...  and, well, a fairly stupid thing to post on a JFK forum...

I'm not here to give you a history lesson Mervyn... not that you'd  believe me in any case....

As a student of history I know that Plato wrote about the same thing thousands of years ago as is occurring now...
The Tragedy of the Commons...
Property Ownership
Sovereignty and how that is interpreted by each nation-state
Sun Tzu's The Art of War *...

I have Butler's book...  and it truly does not expose anything that earth-shattering if you spend any time looking at history...

On the other hand - most people are not aware of George Creel and - "How We Advertised America" or one of Dulles' favorites: Edward Bernays - "Propaganda - the birth of modern advertising and mass psyops (1928)

Then there's AA Berle's "Modern Corporations and Private Property"  The Asst Sec of State pushed intelligence gathering in the Western Hemisphere to the FBI's SIS - the precursor to today's "Legit" network...

Mervyn....  I am glad you are aware of the semi-covert Wall Street backing of FDR and the entire Roosevelt family...

By 1933 Butler started denouncing capitalism and bankers, going on to explain that for 33 years he had been a "high-class muscle man" for Wall Street, the bankers and big business, labeling himself as a "racketeer for Capitalism."

Speaking of "high-class musclemen"... you truly need to go back to COLONEL HOUSE and Woodrow Wilson to find the greatest coup and change in US history... the creation of the Federal Reserve Banking system...  and the formation of the Council on Foreign Relations...

======================

And just keep going back Mervyn...  the rich constituted the SPY class up thru the 60's since they could afford to travel on their own dime... often did and then reported back to interested parties....  when the OSS was formed it made sure to recruit Ivy League, fraternity-based rich men... and it also made sure to be controlled by the Military...  the CIA is born... run by a Navy Admiral...

As you read thru these WAGING WAR tenants, remind yourself of the Tragedy of the Commons...  and begin to see that should man ever rise above his greed, he can experience WAR like this...  but since WAR remains one of the most profitable activities for those supplying the military, the TRAGEDY turned those with the power into war-supporting machines...

JFK wanted to do away with WMDs and work to make the world a safer place...  that you cannot see what happens immediately after he is gone as a change in US policy is kinda sad...

That you cannot see how Salandria's word were prophetic The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear:  'We are in control and no one -- not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official -- no one can do anything about it.

Until JFK - the all happens behind the scenes... with JFK and after, the population's confidence and total trust in the government erodes to the point now we KNOW we're getting screwed every day in most every way

*WAGING WAR

1. Sun Tzu said: In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand li, the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men.

2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men`s weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.

3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.

4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

7. It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.

8. The skillful soldier does not raise a second levy, neither are his supply-wagons loaded more than twice.

9. Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs.

10. Poverty of the State exchequer causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished.

11. On the other hand, the proximity of an army causes prices to go up; and high prices cause the people`s substance to be drained away.

12. When their substance is drained away, the peasantry will be afflicted by heavy exactions.

13,14. With this loss of substance and exhaustion of strength, the homes of the people will be stripped bare, and three-tenths of their income will be dissipated; while government expenses for broken chariots, worn-out horses, breast-plates and helmets, bows and arrows, spears and shields, protective mantles, draught-oxen and heavy wagons, will amount to four-tenths of its total revenue.

15. Hence a wise general makes a point of foraging on the enemy. One cartload of the enemy`s provisions is equivalent to twenty of one`s own, and likewise a single picul of his provender is equivalent to twenty from one`s own store.

16. Now in order to kill the enemy, our men must be roused to anger; that there may be advantage from defeating the enemy, they must have their rewards.

17. Therefore in chariot fighting, when ten or more chariots have been taken, those should be rewarded who took the first. Our own flags should be substituted for those of the enemy, and the chariots mingled and used in conjunction with ours. The captured soldiers should be kindly treated and kept.

18. This is called, using the conquered foe to augment one`s own strength.

19. In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.

20. Thus it may be known that the leader of armies is the arbiter of the people`s fate, the man on whom it depends whether the nation shall be in peace or in peril.

 

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

MH: Nothing began or ended with the death of John Kennedy. Nothing. He was part of the continuing problem and so was his brother.

First I prove to him that LBJ knowingly reversed Kennedy's withdrawal plan from Vietnam.  Then he says, well that is not what I meant.

Now he contradicts himself and says nothing changed because of JFK's murder.  Oh you mean that four million people who died as the end result of the Vietnam War, not to mention Nixon and Kissinger's expansion into Cambodia for two million in the Pol Pot takeover, they don't matter?

Which is it partner? 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James, I am not your partner. Your lack of comprehension speaks for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

the amounts to a truly uneducated view of history and the JFK presidency...  and, well, a fairly stupid thing to post on a JFK forum...

I'm not here to give you a history lesson Mervyn... not that you'd  believe me in any case....

As a student of history I know that Plato wrote about the same thing thousands of years ago as is occurring now...
The Tragedy of the Commons...
Property Ownership
Sovereignty and how that is interpreted by each nation-state
Sun Tzu's The Art of War *...

I have Butler's book...  and it truly does not expose anything that earth-shattering if you spend any time looking at history...

On the other hand - most people are not aware of George Creel and - "How We Advertised America" or one of Dulles' favorites: Edward Bernays - "Propaganda - the birth of modern advertising and mass psyops (1928)

Then there's AA Berle's "Modern Corporations and Private Property"  The Asst Sec of State pushed intelligence gathering in the Western Hemisphere to the FBI's SIS - the precursor to today's "Legit" network...

Mervyn....  I am glad you are aware of the semi-covert Wall Street backing of FDR and the entire Roosevelt family...

By 1933 Butler started denouncing capitalism and bankers, going on to explain that for 33 years he had been a "high-class muscle man" for Wall Street, the bankers and big business, labeling himself as a "racketeer for Capitalism."

Speaking of "high-class musclemen"... you truly need to go back to COLONEL HOUSE and Woodrow Wilson to find the greatest coup and change in US history... the creation of the Federal Reserve Banking system...  and the formation of the Council on Foreign Relations...

======================

And just keep going back Mervyn...  the rich constituted the SPY class up thru the 60's since they could afford to travel on their own dime... often did and then reported back to interested parties....  when the OSS was formed it made sure to recruit Ivy League, fraternity-based rich men... and it also made sure to be controlled by the Military...  the CIA is born... run by a Navy Admiral...

As you read thru these WAGING WAR tenants, remind yourself of the Tragedy of the Commons...  and begin to see that should man ever rise above his greed, he can experience WAR like this...  but since WAR remains one of the most profitable activities for those supplying the military, the TRAGEDY turned those with the power into war-supporting machines...

JFK wanted to do away with WMDs and work to make the world a safer place...  that you cannot see what happens immediately after he is gone as a change in US policy is kinda sad...

That you cannot see how Salandria's word were prophetic The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear:  'We are in control and no one -- not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official -- no one can do anything about it.

Until JFK - the all happens behind the scenes... with JFK and after, the population's confidence and total trust in the government erodes to the point now we KNOW we're getting screwed every day in most every way

*WAGING WAR

1. Sun Tzu said: In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand li, the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men.

2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men`s weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.

3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.

4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

7. It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.

8. The skillful soldier does not raise a second levy, neither are his supply-wagons loaded more than twice.

9. Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs.

10. Poverty of the State exchequer causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished.

11. On the other hand, the proximity of an army causes prices to go up; and high prices cause the people`s substance to be drained away.

12. When their substance is drained away, the peasantry will be afflicted by heavy exactions.

13,14. With this loss of substance and exhaustion of strength, the homes of the people will be stripped bare, and three-tenths of their income will be dissipated; while government expenses for broken chariots, worn-out horses, breast-plates and helmets, bows and arrows, spears and shields, protective mantles, draught-oxen and heavy wagons, will amount to four-tenths of its total revenue.

15. Hence a wise general makes a point of foraging on the enemy. One cartload of the enemy`s provisions is equivalent to twenty of one`s own, and likewise a single picul of his provender is equivalent to twenty from one`s own store.

16. Now in order to kill the enemy, our men must be roused to anger; that there may be advantage from defeating the enemy, they must have their rewards.

17. Therefore in chariot fighting, when ten or more chariots have been taken, those should be rewarded who took the first. Our own flags should be substituted for those of the enemy, and the chariots mingled and used in conjunction with ours. The captured soldiers should be kindly treated and kept.

18. This is called, using the conquered foe to augment one`s own strength.

19. In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.

20. Thus it may be known that the leader of armies is the arbiter of the people`s fate, the man on whom it depends whether the nation shall be in peace or in peril.

 

David, you are obviously describing by your words what I meant by the "Kennedy Cult". You also have a set interpretative view that others do not agree with. You do scurry around and turn up documents that others have previously discovered and then you post them here. It shows that you are drowning in a rather unhealthy fixation, because if you don't understand why nothing changed, then I guess I will observe any future documentation you may post, but I will not engage in this conversation any further. I have a life to live. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

James, I am not your partner. Your lack of comprehension speaks for itself.

Mr Hagger, I think everyone can see that you are avoiding the question.

I proved to you on another thread when you hinted at this idea there was no difference between LBJ and JFK, that Kennedy was withdrawing from Vietnam and that LBJ knew this, and he then deliberately got McNamara to turn around this policy.  With utterly horrendous results.  Now are you saying I do not understand this break in policy on Vietnam  between JFK and LBJ, or its utter horrendous expansion by Nixon and Kissinger?  

If that is what you are saying then I can assure you that you are mistaken.

Now, this is what you said:

Nothing began or ended with the death of John Kennedy. Nothing. He was part of the continuing problem and so was his brother.

There is very little wiggle room with that quote.  You wrote it.  And in fact if you read it closely, not only are you saying that there was no difference between Kennedy and what came before and after, but you are actually saying that Kennedy was actually a part of that network that created things like Indochina.  

How you can drop something in there like that and then say that somehow i don't comprehend that, and try and shrug it off by saying I am not your partner--when in fact I am fully aware of that--this further reveals your rather enigmatic reason for being here.  

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

David, you are obviously describing by your words what I meant by the "Kennedy Cult". You also have a set interpretative view that others do not agree with. You do scurry around and turn up documents that others have previously discovered and then you post them here. It shows that you are drowning in a rather unhealthy fixation, because if you don't understand why nothing changed, then I guess I will observe any future documentation you may post, but I will not engage in this conversation any further. I have a life to live.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Standing there urinating into the wind and telling yourself and everyone else it's lemonade is amusing, but now a complete waste of time...

  By all means MH... STFU and GTFH...  :up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, David, let us not quit trying to figure out who paid for the two hotels in Helsinki.

To me that has not been answered yet.  I mean if someone else did not pay for them why would Oswald stay there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×