Thomas Graves Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) On 12/9/2014 at 10:48 AM, Thomas Graves said: On 12/6/2014 at 1:03 PM, Thomas Graves said: On 12/6/2014 at 0:01 PM, Thomas Graves said: On 12/5/2014 at 3:35 PM, Bill Simpich said: I made a mistake when I posted this a year ago - can someone blow it up for me? This set of photos dated Oct 2 1963, at 12:05 pm, taken at,the Soviet consulate minutes before the so-called Mystery Man, at numbers 6 and 7, shows the man looking like Witt listed as "LEON", https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=4490&relPageId=3 Could "Leon" be short for "Nikolai Leonov", the third consul who is in the russian parliament today? The two photos in the top half of this page are blow-ups of Leon looked at by HSCA - some thought he looked like LHO Here is a picture of Leonov during this era. For what it's worth, Leonov was a short blond man. There are lots of photos of Nikolai Leonov on the internet. Here's one showing Leonov interpreting for Castro and Khrushchev in Moscow. http://manchiviri.blogspot.com/2013/12/por-que-fracasaran-las-reformas-de-raul.html Same ears. Mystery solved. --Tommy Regarding another blond guy photographed in Mexico City whom some researchers think was Claude Capehart, according to Bill Simpich this guy was probably the Mexican graphic designer Ernesto Lehfeld Miller. As it turns out, there is an Ernesto Lehfeld (whose mother was Doris Miller) on ancestry.com. Maybe there are some photos of him there... http://records.ancestry.com/ernesto_lehfeld_records.ashx?pid=187823779 The following 11/20/63 CIA document about Claude Barnes Capehart says he was 6'1", 220 lbs and that he was born in Okemah, Oklahoma, on October 15, 1924, making him 40 years of age at the time of the assassination. So evidently Capehart wasn't the short, thin, Mexico City "blond Oswald". https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=14179&relPageId=2 [...] bumped Edited April 11, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Simpich Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 I'm pleased that I was able to successfully convey to you that Nikolai Leonov Is one of the two men in the 1978 HSCA photos. Now I want to make it clear that the other blond-haired man in the HSCA photos is Ernesto Lehfeld Miller. His HSCA photo is depicted below. I will go to the Archives later this year and pull the documents, unless someone beats me to it. The Duran family depositions and the photobook known as JFK Document 7549 (not at the Mary Ferrell website) make it complelely clear that the man in the 1978 HSCA photos who was photographed at the Cuban embassy on Sept. 26, 1963 is Miller. Take a look at the CIA's photo strip of the Cuban embassy on Sept. 26. See Miller's photos shown in the fourth column, first two photos, marked "24" and "23"? The CIA's log of the Sept 26 photos for items 23 and 24 states that Miller was sent from the Cuban embassy to the Cuban consulate. Sylvia Tirado Duran also identified Miller as the man depicted as #26 and #27 in the aforementioned photo book 7549. Duran said that he was the architect and friend of her husband - "Ernesto Lefel" (that would be Ernesto Lehfeld Miller) (#26 and #27). He was the guy who used to borrow her husband's car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) I'm pleased that I was able to successfully convey to you that Nikolai Leonov Is one of the two men in the 1978 HSCA photos. Now I want to make it clear that the other blond-haired man in the HSCA photos is Ernesto Lehfeld Miller. His HSCA photo is depicted below. I will go to the Archives later this year and pull the documents, unless someone beats me to it. The Duran family depositions and the photobook known as JFK Document 7549 (not at the Mary Ferrell website) make it complelely clear that the man in the 1978 HSCA photos who was photographed at the Cuban embassy on Sept. 26, 1963 is Miller. Take a look at the CIA's photo strip of the Cuban embassy on Sept. 26. See Miller's photos shown in the fourth column, first two photos, marked "24" and "23"? The CIA's log of the Sept 26 photos for items 23 and 24 states that Miller was sent from the Cuban embassy to the Cuban consulate. Sylvia Tirado Duran also identified Miller as the man depicted as #26 and #27 in the aforementioned photo book 7549. Duran said that he was the architect and friend of her husband - "Ernesto Lefel" (that would be Ernesto Lehfeld Miller) (#26 and #27). He was the guy who used to borrow her husband's car. Bill, So Ernesto Lehfeld Miller used to borrow Sylvia Duran's husband's car. I wonder if Sylvia had driven it to work that day, and Miller went to the Embassy / Consulate to borrow it? Ernesto Lehfeld Miller, Nikolai Leonov, Yuri Moskalev. It seems that the CIA in Mexico City took photographs of just about everybody except Lee Harvey Oswald. --Tommy PS Regarding the possibility that the "6 foot, athletic build" Mexico City Mystery Man was Moskalev, I understand that he could have been wearing a subtle disguise the days he was photographed in M.C., but I'm wondering why he would have been trying to hide his identity. Was he known for wearing disguises? Also, I read in a CIA document recently that he was only 5' 8". Edited February 7, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 It seems that the CIA in Mexico City took photographs of just about everybody except Lee Harvey Oswald. --Tommy ============================== Part 1 of 3 examining the Mexico-Dallas travel evidence Started by David Josephs, Feb 02 2015 05:11 PM http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21682&p=295714 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Gee LHO went to Mexico ??? maybe as you say in Spanish ..."NADA". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Has the CIA at any time made a statement, backed with facts, that Oswald visited Mexico City in late September 1963? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Jon G. Tidd Posted Today, 05:27 PM Has the CIA at any time made a statement, backed with facts, that Oswald visited Mexico City in late September 1963? oooooooooooooooooooooo 0000000000000000000000 2:25 - 4:04 P.M. Interrogation of Oswald, Office of Capt Will Fritz "My name is Lee Harvey Oswald. . . . I work at the Texas School Book Depository Building. . . . I lived in Minsk and in Moscow. . . . I worked in a factory. . . . I liked everything over there except the weather. . . . I have a wife and some children. . . . My residence is 1026 North Beckley, Dallas, Tex." Oswald recognized FBI agent James Hosty and said, "You have been at my home two or three times talking to my wife. I don't appreciate your coming out there when I was not there. . . . I was never in Mexico City. I have been in Tijuana. . . . Please take the handcuffs from behind me, behind my back. 0000000000000000000000000000000 Did the CIA track Oswald before JFK was killed? http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/did-the-cia-track-oswald-before-jfk-was-killed/ Yes, closely and constantly. This is one of the biggest JFK revelations of the past 20 years, and one that we need talk up in social and news media on the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination. While the CIA assured Congress in the 1970s that its interest in Lee Harvey Oswald before JFK was killed was "routine," the newest documents tell a very different story: Oswald was monitored closely and constantly by an super-secret office within the CIA’s Counterintelligence Staff from 1959 to 1963, known as the Special Investigations Group. The documents show that the CIA officers most knowledgeable about Oswald reported to two of the most powerful men in the agency: deputy director Richard Helms and counterintelligence chief James Angleton, both of whom thought JFK’s policy toward Cuba was weak and misguided. John Newman’s book The story was first documented in John Newman’s 1995 book "Oswald and the CIA." Newman is a former intelligence officer turned academic historian. Newman, who taught at the University of Maryland, traced how the CIA intercepted Oswald’s correspondence when he was living in the Soviet Union 1959 to 1962. He showed how the CIA’s own records document growing interest in Oswald in the course of 1963, culminating in October 1963 when a group of senior CIA officials collaborated on a four-page cable assessing Oswald as a security risk. These officials assured colleagues in the CIA and the FBI that Oswald was "maturing" and thus becoming less of a threat. This happened just six weeks before JFK was killed. Read this CIA cable — not fully declassified until 2001— from beginning to end. It shows that Oswald’s travels, politics, intentions, and state of mind were known to six senior CIA officers as of October 10, 1963. Oswald had just moved to Dallas and been taken off the FBI’s Watch List. Because the CIA is so often caricatured in JFK discussions, some background is helpful in understanding who wrote this document and why. Oswald in Mexico City In the fall of 1963, Oswald, a 23-year old ex-Marine, is said to have traveled from his hometown of New Orleans to Mexico City. There a man identifying himself as Lee Oswald visited the Cuban and Soviet Embassies, seeking a visa to travel to both countries. A CIA wiretap picked up his telephone calls, which indicated the person calling himself Oswald had been referred to a Soviet consular officer suspected of being a KGB assassination specialist. Win Scott, the chief of the CIA station in Mexico, was concerned. He asked his photo surveillance teams outside the Soviet Embassy to supply pictures of all American visitors. Scott was given a photo of the only American-looking visitor. He sent a query to headquarters: Who is this guy Oswald? Scott’s question was referred to the agency’s counterintelligence (CI) staff. The CI staff was responsible for detecting threats to the secrecy of agency operations. The Special Investigations Group had been closely monitoring Oswald ever since he had defected to the Soviet Union in October 1959. Oswald had lived there two years, married a Russian woman, and then returned to the United States in June 1962. Jane Roman a senior member of the CI staff, retrieved the agency’s fat file on Oswald from the SIG office which controlled access to it. The Oswald file included some three dozen documents, including family correspondence, State Department cables, and a Sept. 1963 FBI report. The FBI said Oswald was an active pro-Castro leftist who had recently been arrested for fighting with anti-Castro exiles in New Orleans. Jane Roman and the CI staff drafted a response to the Mexico City station that said, in effect, Don’t worry. Ignoring the recent FBI report, the cable inaccurately stated the "latest HQS info" on Oswald was a 16-month old message from a diplomat in Moscow concluding that Oswald’s marriage and two year residence in the Soviet Union had had a "maturing effect" on him. Their draft was reviewed and endorsed by five senior CIA officers, who are identified on the last page of the cable. At the same time these same also officers passed on an incorrect description Oswald to the FBI, State Department, and Navy. This peculiar series of actions has never been explained by the CIA. The many anomalies in the story convinced Newman and other JFK authors that Oswald had been impersonated while in Mexico City. In custody, Oswald denied going to Mexico City and some researchers believe that he never went at all. CIA Secrecy In any case, the CIA would kept the names of these highly-regarded officers — Tom Karamessines, Bill Hood, John Whitten ("John Scelso"), Jane Roman, and Betty Egeter — secret for 30 years. These high-level aides could have — and should have — flagged Oswald for special attention. All five were anti-communists, well-versed in running covert operations and experienced in detecting threats to U.S. national security. Karamessines was the trusted deputy to Dick Helms. Bill Hood oversaw all covert operations in the Western Hemisphere, and would later co-author Helms’s posthumous memoir. John Whitten, dogged and curmudgeonly, had built a reputation in the agency with his pioneering use of the polygraph. Jane Roman was a trusted aide to Angleton, who later told me that the cable reflected "a keen interest in Oswald held very closely on the need-to-know basis." Their complacent assessment of Oswald had real-world consequences. In Mexico City, Win Scott never learned about Oswald’s recent arrest or the fact that he had gone public with his support for Castro. He stopped investigating Oswald. In Washington, a senior FBI official, Marvin Gheesling, responded to one version of the CIA’s benign assessment by taking Oswald off an "alert" list of people of special interest to the Bureau. When it came to the erratic and provocative Oswald, the CIA and the FBI were standing down in October 1963. Conspiracy or not, the CIA blew it. Oswald had been calling attention to himself. He had clashed with anti-Castro students in New Orleans, then contacted a suspected KGB operative to arrange an illegal trip to Cuba. By standard CIA procedures of the day, he should have gotten closer attention. Instead, he got a pass from Helms and Angleton’s staffers. Oswald returned from Mexico to Dallas where he rented a room in a boarding house under an assumed name. Six weeks later JFK was shot dead, and the allegedly "maturing" Oswald was arrested. These same CIA officials then concealed key details about their pre-assassination interest in Oswald from the Warren Commission. But we now know what they suppressed )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Steven Gaal, As I read your post #128, I don't find reference to any CIA statement that Oswald was in Mexico City. Only reference to Win Scott's concern, which I assume has some tangible form, that Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City. From what you write I draw only the conclusion the CIA was quite aware of Oswald in the fall of 1963. Not the conclusion Oswald was in Mexico City. Not the conclusion Oswald was a CIA agent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) Steven Gaal, As I read your post #128, I don't find reference to any CIA statement that Oswald was in Mexico City. Only reference to Win Scott's concern, which I assume has some tangible form, that Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City. From what you write I draw only the conclusion the CIA was quite aware of Oswald in the fall of 1963. Not the conclusion Oswald was in Mexico City. Not the conclusion Oswald was a CIA agent. Jon Tidd, The topic of this thread is the identity of the (possibly two) Blond Oswalds in Mexico City, as described by Sylvia Duran and Eusebio Azque -- and possibly identifiable in CIA photographs as Ernesto Lehfeld Miller and Nikolai Leonov. Not the question of whether or not Oswald was a CIA agent. But now that I'm thinking about it (LOL) ... Do you think that your "Odd Duck Oswald" was intending to discredit the FPCC as well as he did, or did it just happen to turn out that odd-duckish kind of way? As to whether or not the CIA believed Oswald had been in Mexico City, you might want to read this Russell Holmes' CIA-based compilation of information and Intelligence documents. The juicy stuff starts around page 17. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=7613&relPageId=1 ( FYI: "[Russell] Holmes was the CIA liaison for all inquiries on the assassination after the end of the HSCA investigation until his retirement." http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/finding-aids/holmes-papers.html ) --Tommy NOW A QUESTION FOR BILL SIMPICH: In Chapter 6 of State Secret you wrote-- "I believe that the deepest reason Whitten was taken off the [PBFLOOR] case can be found in a Whitten memo, DIR 89366 - this is a priority memo to Mexico City dated 12/16/63, seeking an immediate response. Whitten asked “For our analysis of this case, can MEXI shed light on who Aparicio is, whether he has that number (author’s note: The phone number 14-12-99, quoted by Duran in a passing reference to Aparicio at the beginning of the 9/28 call), and what this might have to do with our case...please have monitors make every effort to identify voices of various Soviets to whom Oswald spoke on the telephone or who dealt with his case with Sylvia Duran". Whitten took pains to write that his request was being made pursuant to "direction of Helms”. Whitten labeled it as a priority memo. We saw in Chapter 3 Aparicio’s fascinating history as the case officer for double agent AMKNOB-1. I believe that Raul Aparicio was not only the Cuban embassy’s cultural attache and main press contact, but he was also a double agent working on behalf of the United States. The reference to Aparicio in the September 28 call was not only a signal to the Mexico City station that LIENVOY was compromised. It was also a signal that the operation with Aparicio was compromised." Question: Assuming that the September 28 phone call was made by impostors, are you saying that they wanted Mexico City CIA station to know the operation with Aparicio was compromised? Regardless, how would "Duran's" mentioning of the Cuban Cultural Attache Aparicio's name and home phone number, in Spanish, to someone next to her in the "Cuban Consulate" indicate to Mexico City station that the Aparicio Operation was compromised? Wouldn't it tend to suggest instead that the person next to her in the (theoretically closed) "Cuban Consulate" was a native Spanish-speaking accomplice, or the native Spanish-speaking Oswald impersonator, himself? Thanks, --Tommy Edited February 10, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Has the CIA at any time made a statement, backed with facts, that Oswald visited Mexico City in late September 1963? Made a statement? Like to the public...? Not that I know... to the FBI and State Dept... yes Starting with the Oct 10th cables to Navy, State & FBI the CIA HQ assumed that the person speaking who identified himself as LEE OSWALD was Lee HENRY Oswald with all the same descriptions of our Ozzie. Between Oct 1 and Nov 22 State, CIA and FBI worked together in Mexico since Amb Mann was very keen on establishing connections between Oswald and Cuba. Again, the big disconnect is assuming that the person claiming to be Oswald on the tapes, and the person they claimed crossed into and out of Mexico are the same person. On Nov 23rd the CIA sends cables admitting that the man IN THE PHOTOS is not Oswald yet never admits to the voice conclusions since they claim the tape was destroyed and only transcripts came to DC... They lied. Here is document where the CIA's John Whitten explains why it believes the phone calls are LEE HENRY/Harvey OSWALD https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1629&relPageId=3 I am actually writing about this now, CASH from INS gets info on the 23rd that Harvey Oswald Lee entered Mexico at Nuevo Laredo (how they knew it was there is addressed in this last article) and conveys this information to CIA who in turn will convey to FBI and LITEMPO (Win Scott's spy network in Mexico) who is to look for signs of Oswald in Mex City https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=2091&relPageId=3 The inspector whose stamp appears on O.H. Lee's visa is MAYDON who tells the FBI that he SEEMS to remember that Oswald was in a car with 3 "a young couple".. possibly the Brills. The info also says he leaves Mexico by Auto I write that I believe this was done on purpose since if the CIA or anyone else wanted to leave a wake of evidence of a bus ride, they would have. A young couple in a car suggests a conspiracy, Alvarado's story is a Cuban conspiracy and Alvarado was a documented CIA asset. Despite the fact that the photos, voice and description of this man are all NOT Oswald, the evidence continues to claim it was Oswald while specifically stating the only time they are sure Oswald is at the Cuban Embassy was on the 28th https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=7602&relPageId=18 btw - that entire file of cables is a great way to see a good chunk of the info in context... Sorry to be so long winded yet nothing about Mexico is cut and dried.... although admitting it was not him, the accusation of his trying to get thru Cuba to Russia is never dropped... From Oct 18 or so on the FBI/State/CIA tried in vain to find evidence of Oswald leaving New Orleans after Sept 24 going and staying in MC, and winding up in Dallas on Oct 4. I hope my work at CTKA shows they were not very successful and what happened to change a Phase 1 Commie plot incrimination to a Phase 2 Lone Nut, unconnected disgruntled little man incrimination leaves a wake of evidence and glaring contradictions. (I just read where it is claimed that Duran, from her "interrogations" was also shown the 1959 Russian stamped passport... exactly like the Australian Mumford on a bus Oswald was never on... just sayin') Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 David, In which document did a CIA employee state to any individual or agency that Oswald had been in Mexico City? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Hey there Jon... Win Scott and the State Dept seemed much more interested in equating the call intercepts with Oswald regardless of the photos and voice comparisons showing it was not Oswald. Most of the communication uses the terms "PROBABLY" "Possible presence", etc yet proceed with discussion and investigation as if it being Oswald is a foregone conclusion prior to Nov 22 and even moreso after 11/22, even in the face of the FBI and CIA and STATE agreeing it was not Oswald's voice or photo. Regardless of the fact that the CIA nor FBI nor State was ever able to find any authentic evidence that Oswald was in Mexico, by the morning of Nov 23rd they were all scrambling to find the proof he was. https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=9024&relPageId=2 is a letter from Helms to Hoover saying conclusion from their analysis is Oswald visited Russian Emb in Mexico City - he was there. https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=5552&relPageId=2 also on 11/22 Clark Anderson tells the FBI in Dallas that CIA has photos of Oswald leaving embassy I hope this answers your question.... just like Ozzie had the rifle while the evidence does not support the conclusion, same with Mexico... and most every other aspect of the case... I have yet to find an item of authentic evidence which incriminates Oswald. DJ On October 10th the CIA Mexico sends a memo to the Navy, FBI and State dept... (on the 8th and 9th only internal CIA memos refer to this intercept) "Lee Oswald who called SOVEMB 1 Oct PROBABLY IDENTICAL Lee HENRY Oswald (201-289248)...." (Hang on I posted the wrong memo... the one on top is to NAVY/STATE/FBI while the following one is back to MX from CIA HQ - notice the MX cable has a higher number than the Navy/STATE/FBI meaning the HQ to MX cable comes after the first one - notice the differences in the two) https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3339&relPageId=2 On Oct 16th Win Scott tells Amb Mann about this information and CC's quite a few people and organizations including Navy and INS "This office determined that OSWALD had been at the Soviet Embassy on 28 Sept...." Win decides from bad info that he met with Kostikov. https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=6673&relPageId=2 Finally - we have a recap of the Mexico City Oswald activities prepared in May 1975 recounting each of the cables and the activities related to them. The jist of the matter is that they erroneously paired the Mystery Man photos with Oswald based on the timing of the phone calls supposedly intercepted. Since the CIA continues to claim that all tapes of his voice were destroyed we come to learn this was not so and that State and FBI personnel listened to such a tape and determined the voice was not Oswald's. The CIA/State/FBI dismissed this determination and proceeded under the conclusion that OSWALD was in Mexico, even though there was no evidence to place him there other than the words on the tapes and transcript. I chose the tack of examining the travel to and from Mexico and find it is just as fraudulent as the determination he was ever ther at all... The evidence does not support the conclusion yet the conclusion proceeded to make the WCR and permeate the questions realted to this time period. Since the man Ruby killed was in Dallas at Odio's... and the travel evidence suggests an Oswald traveling with others in a car in and out of Mexico... come Nov 22 and the switch from Commie Conspiracy to Lone Nut we witness the back-peddling of these three agencies to cover their A$$es and rewrite the evidence to tell the desired story. https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=6513&relPageId=2 Edited February 10, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Although the report is not until Dec 23rd it discusses what the FBI knew on Nov 23rd... Which in turn is a rehash of a Dec 11th memo... as you can see... even though it was determin3ed before 11/22 that the photos and voice were not our Ozzie, the investigation and evidence continues as it it was... DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 (edited) It seems to me that this thread takes Sylvia Duran too literally when she said that OSWALD was "blond and short". Try to remember that English was her second language, and her culture was Mexico City -- where a blond person is a rarity -- unlike the USA. Just as the word "nieve" can be used in Mexico to refer both to "snow" and to "ice cream," because snow is so rare in Mexico, the word "blond" in Mexico City can have nuances that Americans don't understand. And then we try to be literal about it. Actually, her term could have simply meant, "lighter hair than usual in Mexico". Oswald had light-brown hair. I would point out that in Mexican-American culture, which is a mixed race culture, those members of one's family who have a lighter complexion are often told by their families that they could pass for white, when actually nobody outside their family in the USA would ever think so. It's a cultural thing. So, blond is a relative term. This CT is barking up the wrong tree, IMHO. The Truth must be found in the LOPEZ REPORT, which clarifies the point best: 1. Sylvia Duran told OSWALD to produce photographs of himself to staple to his Visa Application. 2. OSWALD left and returned with four photographs. 3. Sylvia Duran stapled them to OSWALD's Visa Application. 4. We have that Visa Application and Photo to see today in the LOPEZ REPORT. Now, if the photographs OSWALD submitted were of a TRULY blond person, in the USA sense, who believes the Sylvia Duran would have failed to notice that? If the face of OSWALD was different in those photographs -- who believes Sylvia Duran would have failed to notice that? Therefore, I conclude that the OSWALD that Sylvia Duran spoke with (and Ascue and Mirabar as well) matched the four photographs that OSWALD presented to them 100%. It was THE PERSON IN THIS PHOTO that they all said was "blond", so we can conclude safely that the Mexican use of the word, "blond" is very different from our American usage. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited April 29, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Therefore, I conclude that the OSWALD that Sylvia Duran spoke with (and Ascue and Mirabar as well) matched the four photographs that OSWALD presented to them 100%. It was THE PERSON IN THIS PHOTO that they all said was "blond", so we can conclude safely that the Mexican use of the word, "blond" is very different from our American usage. Paul... at some point don't you have to take a breath and stop guessing? "Ms Tirado described Lee Harvey Oswald as approximately five foor six, with sparse blond hair, weighing about 125 "?" pounds" 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 - And what did you do at that time? TIRADO - I filled out application. CORNWELL - You personally typed it, and did you type it in duplicate or triplicate or just one copy? TIRADO - Duplicate. CORNWELL - And was the second copy a carbon? TIRADO - Carbon? CORNWELL - Did you have it twice or did you type one and make two copies? TIRADO - Only one. CORNWELL - And made two? TIRADO - Yes. Except these two copies typed at the same time do not match - the pages when placed on top of each other with the text lined up results in nothing else lining up... The signatures are not the same The "10 OCT 1963" on the original supposedly comes from Cuba The HSCA reverses the descriptions of "copy" and "original" Neither signature is significantly similar to Oswald's The FBI looked and could not find a place anywhere close to the Cuban Embassy that could have taken these images.... If we are to believe that this person at the Embassy was the same as the photos, per Duran, then why is she wrong about his not being back after the 27th? Duran was of course, NOT shown these same photos or this exhibit during her testimony CORNWELL - Would you have ever allowed a person to take all of the applications outside and attach the photos or sign them themselves? TIRADO - Yes, because you may come, ask for the application and you may keep it. CORNWELL - You, on occasion, would allow someone just to have a blank copy. Is that correct? TIRADO - Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 (edited) David J., we're looking at the same data, but we're interpreting it differently. I am arguing that to understand the testimony of a Mexican witness, that you must learn to apply Cultural studies as well as data from the study of English as a Second Language (ESL). Your fault -- and the fault of most on this thread, IMHO -- is that you are taking Mexican, ESL testimony LITERALLY, as if it were spoken by white folks from New Jersey. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited April 30, 2015 by Paul Trejo 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