New Information on Oswald in Mexico City

[Douglas Caddy]

New Information on Oswald in Mexico City

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CuzlTxv3K8&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1E_3S3NR1BvPrdoIVdGOKz9RidOaFXhQGgysleDv8iysOILprTMpN4zwk

[Paul Brancato]

Hi Douglas - two hours - too long. Can you point to a specific place on the tape or summarize what might be new info?

[Matt Allison]

Best podcast around right there   Big, big fan.

[Larry Hancock]

Paul,  Carmine describes the new information at different points in the session, primarily having to do with his research on the third secretary of the Soviet embassy in Mexico city.   The overall conversation is really about the host of anomalies that go along with the official story of Oswald's visit to Mexico.  I am discussing it on my blog so you might want to check that for reference.

I should certainly point out that it is speculative, just one more attempt to make sense out of an official story and timeline that simply does not work, as has been pointed out on this forum many times - and why the fear in Washington that weekend (including the missing call and tape erasure related to Johnson/Hoover conversations which are so suggestive of information being suppressed) was all about a confrontation with Russia rather than Cuba.  I won't pursue it here, but jump into the blog responses if you choose, some good point-counterpoint already.

https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2020/01/11/wrestling-with-mexico-city/

 

[James DiEugenio]

I disagree.

The really fascinating new info, which is not really new, is in the current issue of garrison.

Those, like Larry, who have advocated for the fact that LHO was in Mexico City have always held out that it was the passport application that was the saving grace of their argument. When I told him, that hey, the FBI went to every passport shop in five miles and no one recalled Oswald being there, he said, well he went to a CIA safe house.

Well, due to the work of David Josephs, and now Larry Rivera, even that has been neutralized.  

I wish someone would post that article here, since it deserves everyone's attention.  To just make one comment for starters, there were two applications and the signatures do not match.

Now add that to the proof produced by Armstrong and Josephs about how Echeveria and Ochoa faked the evidence for the bus trips down and up, plus the coaching of the two Australian girls, plus the fact that there was no photo in ten tries  and its the wrong voice on the tapes, plus the two CIA plants inside the Cuban consulate who never saw Oswald, plus the Russians never mentioning Oswald being there the day after the assassination.  

Recall many years ago what Mark Lane said about Phillips' declaration during their debate? 

 

Edited January 16, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Brancato]

I’m inclined to agree with Jim, and Josephs, that Oswald was never there, and that great efforts made to create the impression that he was. No clear motive for Oswald in MC exists, and if there had been a pic of him there, given those efforts to place him in MC, we would have seen it. Why go to such lengths, and then deep six the photo proving the case? I’ve seen Josephs presentation on the bus trip, and it convinced me. Any discussion of KGB/Oswald connections in MC has to address this. 

[Larry Hancock]

This is one reason why I often don't post here other than to offer information....simply because even introducing speculation or a new lead seems to force everyone into taking a position.  If you read my blog entry I state that I remain totally open on the whole question of Mexico City and totally question the official story line, although I believe Oswald was in Mexico for some time at least.  I've followed David on the official story and accept that there overwhelming holes all though it....Including the photo issue which we discussed in the show.  I had even invited David to present on his studies at an earlier Lancer conference.  Clearly there is reason to question that Oswald himself was in either embassy, and I will be blogging about more in that.  Anyone interested in a focused discussion can follow or post on it there.

JFK research used to be pretty open ended, it seems to have become more a matter of finding what fits a preferred scenario or even political worldview - and then defending that territory.  I don't believe that's the best approach so I'll leave it at that. 

 

 

Edited January 16, 2020 by Larry Hancock

[Paul Brancato]

30 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

This is one reason why I often don't post here other than to offer information....simply because even introducing speculation or a new lead seems to force everyone into taking a position.  If you read my blog entry I state that I remain totally open on the whole question of Mexico City and totally question the official story line, although I believe Oswald was in Mexico for some time at least.  I've followed David on the official story and accept that their are holes all though it....Including the photo issue which we discussed in the show.  I had even invited David to present on his studies at an earlier Lancer conference.  Clearly there is reason to question that Oswald himself was in either embassy, and I will be blogging about more in that.  Anyone interested in a focused discussion can follow or post on it there.

JFK research used to be pretty open ended, it seems to have become more a matter of finding what fits a preferred scenario or even political worldview - and then defending that territory.  I don't believe that's the best approach so I'll leave it at that. 

 

 

Larry - I read your blog post and the comments that followed with great interest. 

In your extensive research over decades have you ever come up with what you consider to be a good explanation for Oswald’s trip to Mexico? 

[Larry Hancock]

I wish I had Paul,  so far the only conclusion I have is that the official story of it does not wash at all.   And that something about Mexico City raised grave concerns in regard to Oswald and impersonation - within the first 24 hours after the assassination.  Otherwise there would be no need to have removed a record from the Johnson phone call log relating to his call to Hoover Friday evening and then take 14 min out of a tape from the following morning when Johnson calls Hoover specifically to raise the issue of new information regarding Mexico City - and in response Hoover brings up evidence of others being involved with or impersonating Oswald there - and then a section of the tape is removed. 

I haven't given up on constructing my own scenario for why Oswald might have at least been in Mexico, if not in the fashion of the official story, and that will show up in my final thesis about the overall conspiracy.  But that's a ways down the road....

[David Josephs]

I believe this passage from Lopez’s report moved us away from even considering the trip, so we are left with the ambiguities of the calls and photos and BS stories engineered imho by Phillips.  Once you dismiss this as simply more HSCA prattle.... and look at the investigation docs, it appears quite obvious the CIA wanted him to be found traveling with others to solidify the Cuban/Soviet conspiracy angle...  The young couple, the Brill’s, become a whole new red herring.
 

 

[David Josephs]

But once conspiracy becomes lone nut.... the story MUST change... Alvarado is discredited and sent home...  Paz the same only that party lie takes a long time to die on the vine...  thanks to LIHUFF... Ms. June Cobb, among others...  

Please correct me if I mistake Larry... thanks.

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

This is my point, which I do not think should be dismissed out of hand with the banishment of "this is why I don't post here that often".

This new work really sets a new paradigm.  And I do not say that very often in this field.

If Mr. Josephs, Mr. Rivera and Armstrong are correct then I believe it sets aside the previous work of people like Scott, Newman and Simpich. What I mean by that is this:  if Oswald was not there, then what becomes of the whole "piggybacking" operation?  If Oswald was not there then, as Dan Hardway once stated, could it all have been made up after the fact?

If such is the case, then IMO, the cover up was planned with the conspiracy.  And in a multi layered manner.  And it took, how long to figure it out?

As Paris Flammonde once said about Jim Garrison--the first critic to point out something was really rotten in Mexico City--its not that he was too radical.  He wasn't radical enough.

 

[Larry Hancock]

In regard to Jim,  to be clear, my choice is not to post new "work" here because I feel serious work requires a lot more context and discussion (and citations) than you get in a thread, which inevitably begins to wonder into other directions.  I certainly do publish,  with JFK and other subjects on my blog and with projects like the Wheaton names paper which has research (thanks to David Boylan and Bill Simpich) available nowhere else.  We just need to get that up in its newest version,  its at version 9 now.  And I plan to make my thesis paper on the conspiracy available free of charge on the internet - when its done.  Aside from that, my newest book will be available in March and among other things hopefully it will totally change the conversation about President Kennedy, the Cuba Project and the Bay of Pigs.

David,  I have no corrections to offer, although I don't consider what happened in Mexico City as totally resolved; I do consider the official story to be indefensible and less and less relevant.  I also hold open the possibility that Oswald was taken to Mexico (not necessarily Mexico City) for another purpose...but that's another story entirely.  What I would say it has now reached a  point where I do not consider Mexico City as being significant to the attack in Dallas nor to the basic conspiracy.  But that will step on lots of toes and drive everyone to defending their territories so that's another story for a later time. 

[Matt Allison]

I believe during the podcast it is mentioned that Hosty stated other FBI agents told him that the FBI themselves had Oswald under surveillance in MC. If that is true, that obviously has some bearing on the question of whether LHO was actually there or not.

 

[Larry Hancock]

Hosty did state that during his Lancer conference appearance, expanding on it a bit to clarify that it came from friends of his serving in the MC field office.  I followed up on that point with him by email and eventually by phone and he confirmed his remarks to me.   Interestingly enough he was quite adamant about that and other points which are at variance with the official FBI position.

The one thing which I brought up to him and which he would never comment on or really acknowledge was the point of his telling a Secret Service agent that Oswald had been under observation meeting with subversives shortly before the assassination....I even provided him with documentation on that and he declined to comment.