David Josephs

yes - I see you doing that quite often - in fact with virtually every post...

no Tracy, they are based on the 7th grade NYC schools entry physical given Lee with the FBI spelling it out, literally. The rails at the Bronx zoo are 18" & 36" - yes I did call them to find out. The boy in the zoo photo is not 5'4" and not 115lbs. He does not have the neck of Lee Oswald, the largest kid in the class and natural leader of the others. Harvey Oswald, as the boy on the left in the photo was now called, was small, scrappy, and smarter than Lee. THIS is Harvey, compared to the 5'10" 165 lb Lee.

Myra DeRouse, DOROTHY DUVIK, ED VOEBEL, & the CUMULATIVE RECORD is the ONLY evidence of his attending SPRING 53-54 at BJHS. Myra remembers very well and is sure that Oswald was not in homeroom 303 as his grade cards show. The FBI took all originals and provided photocopies of the school records - all of them. The items offered in evidence are copies designed to support the story of one Oswald. Problem being there are many conflicts that only begin in 1952. Google "John Ely" and get a flavor for what it was to do a bio on Lee Harvey... It is my understanding of the evidence that LEE attended a different PS44, in Manhattan while Harvey attended in the Bronx.. here is an annotated map showing the relationship between these locations. Robert Oswald tells us in his book that in Sept 1953 Lee entered 8th grade at PS44 on Columbus and 76th.. this is in Manhattan, not the Bronx. We must remember that they took the records of 2 children and created 1 record that satisfied the evidence. Carro claims he is in 9th grade in Sept 1953, not 8th as his brother claims. In the highlighted article next to Carro's photo it states Oswald went to PS44 at 1825 prospect in the Bronx. 2 different apartments, 2 different schools, 2 different children attending PS44 at the same time. Only Harvey's mother moved him often enough to make tracking him virtually impossible. =====

Agreed... and if you go to his testimony and the LIFE images, he correctly picks Lee from Harvey every time.... Here is Pic and Harvey at Thanksgiving 1962. The famous jacket/rifle photo is offered... that jacket and the Westbrook jacket look extremely similar right down to the button at the cuffs... but that's just my old eyes talking...

What he attempts to show is the meaning of "Re-Ad" and the fact that record only shows 2 complete classes on the FALL 53-54 line. He suggests, as the record shows, that Oswald started January 13, 1954. No sir it is not. If you cannot trust your own eyes to see the difference, I feel for you. If I had meant the time at Youth House which is not reflected anywhere on his PERM record (not strange to you, we know - no absences or mention of Youth House once this child starts school again on March 23, 1953) I would have considering how much more fluent I am with the evidence If you were a teacher Tracy, and a child started in your class on 3/23/53, and then on April 10th is sent to Youth House and does not attend your class again until May 8th or 11th how would you record that time period? ATTENDED ? ABSENT ? Furthermore, this record claims there were 127 days of potential school for this child from March 23rd. From March 23rd until June 26th - the last possible day of school - is only 70 days TOTAL, minus Youth House and Spring break leaves barely 50 days to attend school The following line on this record is the start of the 54-55 school year at PS44 (of which there were 4 different ps44's within NY City at the time, Lee attended in Manhattan) Maybe they are counting back to January 16? That would add 44 more days of school to the 70 possible days making 114 yet wouldn't the days from 1/16/53 until 3/23/53 be listed under DAYS ABSENT? 109 3/2 + 15 3/2 = 127 if and only if you include all the days he did NOT attend as days he attended... Sorry boys, doesn't work that way - never did and never will. Unless you;re the FBI.

{sigh} This isn't about one instance, one school year, on set of conflicting facts... the duplicity permeates the evidence. Does John nail each and every minute detail... in my opinion, no. John and I talked thru many of these conflicts. The book was published 20 years ago taking ten years prior to that to research and write. There is information offered in H&L not offered anywhere due to the repeated visits to the archives. At the end of summer of 1952, Lee Oswald moved to NYC and entered 7th grade a 5'4" 115lb boy. The Bronx zoo photo was taken in August 1953 supposedly by Robert Oswald. A full 18 months later the "Lee" Oswald is now barely 4'10" and weighs 90-95 lbs. I'm truly sorry for those who use the rebuttal WHY? or NOT POSSIBLE when in truth you have no idea of what craziness these people are capable of. That you or anyone else cannot fathom such an act does not refute or negate the act act all... it just shows how little you know of history and the depravity of human beings. What I find most amusing is that EVERYONE needs to be mistaken for over 11 years. Records MUST be wrong, the DoD MUST be mistaken about their conflicts. Everything about Oswald and the world around him was dull, boring and normal - as you would hope to have us believe... There are simply too many specific items of evidence which support the existence of both of these men. IMO from the evidence I've reviewed, Robert Oswald helped to set-up the person pretending to be his brother, knowing full well he was not incriminating his family. Mr. JENNER - Then to the right there is a picture of two young men, the upper portion of the one young man at the bottom and then apparently a young man standing up in back of that person. Do you recognize either of those young people? Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - Is he the one to which the black arrow is pointing? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that? Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City? Mr. PIC - No, sir.

It appears the name is UPSTREAM and was written about in a number of different books starting with Weisberg. This is "Not In Your Lifetime"... and here is the CHOADEN memo...

If LHO was in MC the evidence would not need to have been so tainted. All Oswald had to do was purchase a 3 or 4 part ticket to and from Mexico City by bus from New Orleans... he does not do this, instead he supposedly arrives at each location and buys or converts a ticket there.... he does this repeatedly, according to the FBI's bogus account. Why does the FBI cover for the CIA here? Cause Oswald is doing his "Harry-Dean-like" job of infiltration and reporting in Dallas that week with 2 Cubans If there is reason for Odio to lie, and for the FBI to hold her evidence until late 1964 please tell us. DJ Mr. LIEBELER. You mentioned when your sister saw Oswald's picture on television that she almost passed out. Did she recognize him, do you know, as the man that had been in the apartment?Mrs. ODIO. She said, "Sylvia, you know that man?" And I said, "Yes," and she said, "I know him." "He was the one that came to our door, and it couldn't be so, could it?" ==== Mr. LIEBELER. But they did in fact, introduce him as Leon Oswald? Mrs. ODIO. And I shook hands with him.Mr. LIEBELER. That is also what you told Agent Hoary when he interviewed you on December 18, 1963, and that is indicated in his report? Mrs. ODIO. Oh, yes.Mr. LIEBELER. Now, a report that we have from Agent Hosty indicates that when you told him about Leopoldo's telephone call to you the following day,that you told Agent Hosty that Leopoldo told you he was not going to have anything more to do with Leon Oswald since Leon was considered to be loco?Mrs. ODIO. That's right. He used two tactics with me, and this I have analyzed. He wanted me to introduce this man. He thought that I had something to do with the underground, with the big operation, and I could get men into Cuba. That is what he thought, which is not true.When I had no reaction to the American, he thought that he would mention that the man was loco and out of his mind and would be the kind of man that could do anything like getting underground in Cuba, like killing Castro. He repeated several times he was an expert shotman. And he said, "We probably won't have anything to do with him. He is kind of 1oco."When he mentioned the fact that we should have killed President Kennedy--and this I recall in my conversation he was trying to play it safe. If I liked him, then he would go along with me, but if I didn't like him, he was kind of retreating to see what my reaction was. It was cleverly done.Mr. LIEBELER. So he actually played both sides of the fence? Mrs. ODIO. That's right, both sides of the fence. The WC concluded that everything Odio said could not be true - why? Cause Oswald was in Mexico City or on his way They go on to say that Oswald was not in Dallas from Sept thru early Oct... This is the same exact time period that Maurice Bishop meets Veciana in Dallas and they see Oswald. So despite NOT proving anything conclusive about Mexico, Odio had to be wrong. I don't think she or her sister were wrong.

Jim... Not really sure other than it's quite obvious to me that the name "Oswald" was only used to create a reaction in those who would be listening yet logs, transcripts and the like can easily be manipulated after the fact. No, the Lopez report does not offer anything related to a mole hunt or anything of significance related to the travel. Furthermore, the WCR says nothing about Oswald after the 27th... It claims on page 735 of Appendix 13 that he "contacted the Russian and Cuban Embassies again during his stay" with footnote 1170. The footnote states: 1170: "Confidential source". This source is the CIA wiretap transcripts. Except the woman there claims he never returned. CORNWELL - Let's just talk hypothetically for a moment. Is there any chance that he was at the Consulate on more than one day?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. Let's look at the Lopez conclusions: Evidence from the CIA suggests it was LHO yet someone else using the name LHO with these contacts cannot be absolutely dismissed The Committee cannot determine LHO's activities outside the Cuban and Soviet Embassies (the FBI checked the entire month of Nov and also could find no evidence of LHO being in Mexico. Even their Gobernacion asset stated he was not there yet later assists the FBI create the needed evidence The report of the tall, thin blond-headed man with Oswald has not been confirmed The CIA had electronic surveillance of all locations. The phone from the Cuban Consulate was not tapped. (iow all transcripts come from Russian buildings) The CIA (Win Scott via Goodpasture) definitely knew of "Oswald's" contacts at the diplomatic compounds (this would be Goodpasture's memo done with "LADILLINGER" Bill Simpich provided me with the documentation links showing that Goodpasture, working with LADILLINGER (Soviet Desk officer Barbara Murphy Manell), took what was obviously a photo from 12:22 on Oct 2nd and represented it as Oct 1 to match the call transcript. ) All CIA Mexico data was not reported to CIA HQ in a timely manner PRIOR to 11/22 All CIA Mexico data was reported to CIA HQ in a timely manner AFTER 11/22 Info was sent from CIA Mexico was generally relayed to WC in a timely manner THIS COMMITTEE concludes the CIA has photos of Oswald in MC - but there is no evidence and CIA denies it. The tapes which were claimed destroyed were probably in existence on 11/22 (which we know is true) The committee is aware of allegations against Duran as a spy but there is no direct evidence So really, the only thing in question is whether of not the man Ruby killed met with Azcue or Duran on the 27th. We've already read where Duran does not think Oswald was the man and here is Azcue's testimony stating the same... only a couple of months after the fact... If these two were supposed to confirm it was Oswald, they do a terrible job. Once we understand the man on the 27th os not Oswald... the rest of the report is simply chasing its tail. Mr. CORNWELL. Directing your attention to the period of time immediately after the assassination, the day of the assassination or the day after the assassination, did you during that period of time have an occasion to see pictures of the alleged assassin in the newspapers or to observe on television the man identified at that time as Lee Harvey Oswald? Senor AZCUE. Yes, sir, not so close to the date, not in the first few days, not immediately thereafter. Some time I calculate approximately-and I say this because I am not a great movie fan, but it was in mid-December approximately--I saw at that time the film in which Ruby appears assassinating the Oswald who was there, and I was not able to identify him and only 2 months had gone by since I had seen the Oswald who appeared at the consulate. And I had a clear mental picture because we had had an unpleasant discussion and he had not been very pleasant to me and I did not recognize when I first saw him. I did not recognize Oswald. The man who went to the consulate was a man over 30 years of age and very thin, very thin faced. And the individual I saw in the movie was a young Man, considerably younger, and a fuller face. Mr. CORNWELL. What color hair did the individual have to the best of your memory who visited the consulate? Senor AZCUE. He was blond, dark blond. Mr. CORNWELL. Did the individual you saw in the movie, the person who was killed by Jack Ruby, resemble more closely the individual in these photographs to your memory than the individual who visited the consulate? Senor AZCUE. I believe so. Mr. CORNWELL. I would like to show you JFK exhibit F-434. Do the representatives from the National Archives have the original or a small photograph of that exhibit? While they are looking, Mr. Chairman, I believe we neglected to ask that JFK exhibit F-407 be admitted into evidence. Chairman STOKES. Without objection it may be entered into evidence. [The information follows:] JFK EXHIBIT F-407 Mr. CORNWELL. That is a passport. May we have that exhibit admitted into evidence, Mr. Chairman, JFK F-434? Chairman STOKES. Without objection it may be entered into evidence. [The information follows:] JFK EXHIBIT F-434 Mr. CORNWELL. Did the individual who visited the consulate look like that individual? Senor AZCUE. No.

Not so Ironic.... here is Mystery Man & Lee with the S West window man from Dillard

Michael - no matter how many times it is shown to them, addition is something that eludes them. It is claimed by both these researchers as well as the FBI that an Oswald attended 200 days of school between March 23, 1953 and Jan 12, 1954. The FBI report is below... 171 days + 11/2 = 5.5 days + 18 and 11/2 absent days = 18+5.5 = 23.5. 171 + 5.5 + 23.5 + 200 total days of school including absences. There are 210 TOTAL SCHOOL DAYS POSSIBLE between the dates mentioned. These men would have us believe that Oswald attended and/or was absent from a total of 200 of these 210 days. Oswald was at Youth House missing 17 days of school Oswald did not go to summer school - that's 54 more school days These is usually a 1 week Spring break and a 2 week Winter break - also deducted from the total # of school days For the time period mentioned, Oswald could only attend a MAXIMUM of 123 days yet when we look at the NYC school records we find a complete impossibility... as highlighted above, from March 23, 1953 until the end of that semester June 26, 1953 is only 70 total days of school MINUS the Youth House in April/May 1953 and spring break, there were only 46 total school days to attend. Yet what is written on the boy's cumulative file is obviously wrong... 109 3/2 attended days and 15 3/2 absent days is much more than 46 days So ok... the records are wrong... as Tracy would say, mistakes happen. So one needs to ask... How can the PERMANENT RECORD which gets added to as the years pass have 3 different versions with none of them matching the earliest version of this singular record.. (NYC public school do not keep multiple versions of the same child's perm record yet somehow there are 2 different completed versions - one an exhibit and one not - which do not match the 1952 version...) So Tracy... who do you suppose fills these records out? the school or the FBI? which would know how many days there were and from which source materials these dates derive... a school official or the FBI? These records were CREATED and very poorly as only the number of school days were counted, start to finish, and then retrofitted into an explanation. ============== Moving now to Beauregard The discussion here is whether an Oswald attended the entire semester at BJHS or started in January According to the BJHS it appears the "Re-Ad" column is the total number of days in a school year. If that is true then there is a problem with the 54-55 year since the total # of days is only 168 when the min # of days is 180. Hmmm. 168 + 12 = 180 days! This suggests that the "Re-Ad" column is the total days attended and when added to absences gives us a total of 180. 89 + 90 = 179; only 1 short of the min. if we add back the absences like what is done for 54-55, we get 184 and all is good again. This does suggest that this child attended 89 days of school, IF we use 54-55 as a guide. But wait, shouldn't the grade cards for 54-55 also show 12 absences? Tracy, how come the final grade cards for the 54-55 year do not show 12 absences and why are the total # of school days under the "re-ad" column short of 180?

These are the only 2 photos designated as taken on Oct 1 - time is 12:17. The Log's 1st photo for Oct 1 is taken at 12:51 yet it names 2 unknown men, not one, on the logs It's obvious from the following that this person's identity id known to senior officers of the CIA the stamps on the back, also shown below, either shows the stamped date to be wrong, or the logs of the photos being wrong. Here is the log sheet for the photos. The 2 photos from 10/1 say "2 U R M" = two unidentified Russian Men, which we see in the 2nd and 3rd photo on the proof sheet whereas Mystery Man is only photographed by himself... on Oct 2, 4 and again on the 15th. I hadn't noticed until I looked again... the 2 photos above are circled in the logs on the 2nd... Win appears to be lying to JC King...

You know PT, if you took some time and read my work on Mexico with the same attention as you gave State Secret, you may actually learn a thing or two about the evidence and Mexico City... then again you ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know.... ===== It was Goodpasture and she was questioned about it. No photos were listed as taken on October 1st. Tommy here is what Odum wrote... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/odum_b.htm PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss : I, Bardwell D. Odum, having first been duly sworn, depose as follows: I am presently a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, and have been employed in such a capacity since June 15, 1942. On November 23, 1963, while acting officially in my capacity as a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, I obtained a photograph of an unknown individual, furnished to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the Central Intelligence Agency, and proceeded to the Executive Inn, a motel, at Dallas, Texas, where Marina Oswald was staying. In view of the source of this picture, and, in order to remove all background data which might possibly have disclosed the location where the picture was taken, I trimmed off the background. The straight cuts made were more quickly done than a complete trimming of the silhouette and I considered them as effective for the desired purpose. I desired to show this photograph to Marina Oswald in an attempt to identify the individual portrayed in the photograph and to determine if he was an associate of Lee Harvey Oswald. It was raining and almost dark. I went to the door of Marina Oswald's room and knocked, identifying myself. Marguerite Oswald opened the door slightly and, upon being informed that I wished to speak to Marina Oswald, told me that Marina Oswald was completely exhausted and could not be interviewed. Marguerite Oswald did not admit me to the motel room. I told her I desired to show a photograph to Marina Oswald, and Marguerite Oswald again said that Marina was completely exhausted and could not be interviewed due to that fact. I then showed Marguerite Oswald the photograph in question. She looked at it briefly and stated that she had never seen this individual. I then departed the Executive Inn. The conversation with Marguerite Oswald and the exhibition of the photograph took place while I was standing outside the door to the room and Marguerite Oswald was standing inside with the door slightly ajar. Attached hereto are two photographic copies of the front and back of a photograph.* I have examined these copies and they are exact copies of the photograph of the unknown individual which I showed to Mrs. Marguerite Oswald on November 23, 1963.

Why do you suppose then, Tommy, that Odum of the FBI would show this photo to Marguerite in hopes of identifying him? if this was specifically a CIA 201 file matter it's interesting that it would be known as ODUM Exh 1

Phillips, "Michael Choaden" orchestrated the entire thing, IMHO. That was his specific specialty. Alvarado was Phillips' 1-2 punch in connecting the name "Oswald" to Castro. Within the span of a week Oswald had taken money from the red-haired negro on Sept 17/18, then 27/28, then not at all, then yes Alvarado still believes it occurs the 17/18th but was "coerced" into negating his statement... If there were concurrent Ops, which anyone knowing the time period and geography must consider strongly, they needn't have been connected. Despite the obvious, that man in MC was called "LHO" relentlessly in DC and Dallas... what "he" was doing there was marginalized in the WCR everything from the word "pursuant" forward is inconsequential to the sentence structure. It qualifies an assertion that is not made about a trip for which there is no evidence... the Commission has no evidence that he went for any reason despite them offering one for us to consider. Those rumors only became so when Oswald was no longer involved in a conspiracy, much to Phillips' disappointment I'd guess.

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Soviets-allow-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-to-attend-the-trial-of-Gary-Powers-as-travel-was-restricted-in-the-USSR This seems to lay out a contradictory argument to Oswald actually attending the trial.

I'm sorry Harry, please explain how FPCC which was heavily infultrated by FBI - so much so weren't some of the chapters predominantly FBI? Seems to me it was a way for Castro to keep tabs on the FBI, not the other way around. Also, Paul Trejo says that you're quoted in Simpich's work as stating it was a Banister Op with Hall and Howard taking Oswald to Mexico... The secondary evidence claims that Oswald was with a white couple in the car they took to Mexico City and then the FBI goes on this wild goose chase regarding the incorrect names of some white folks who supposedly crossed the border that day... their back story is a bit wonky too... All the while, who would have been the two people with Oswald at Odio's on the 27th... Do you know if Oswald was with these two at the shooting range that weekend? Thanks

Prove the positive PB... So Azcue was wrong, Duran was wrong, Mann was wrong, Scott was wrong... You still have not pointed out where in the LOPEZ report ... how did you put it? So assume we are all having this trouble Paul and link to the evidence... what are YOU talking about... Can you stay focused long enough to prove your point... you obviously had something specific in mind from that report..... Connect the dots PB.... Oswald's travel to Mexico City and the Cubans having his APPLICATION (if you have what you consider a Resume, post it please as from what I can tell, there was no "resume") THIS is the application and even it does no prove your point. The signatures don't match, the carbons don't match... a photo is not proof this person was there (there were no places for an Oswald to have these photos taken nearby the Consulate) both Duran and Azcue state the man Ruby killed was not this person while Odio and sister has him in Dallas Friday night... Post some evidence Paul, your soap box opinion is wearing thin....

Agree completely Mr. B! and then there's Mr. T {sigh} 1. It wasn't the military that was plotting to kill JFK and blame LHO -- it was a paramilitary plot led by former military General Edwin Walker. You keep stating this yet offer little to support the claims... Who within Walker's purview could tell Rear Admiral Galloway, Burkely, LeMay and Kinney to completely falsify the autopsy report, who could get the SS to remove the body from Dallas, and could keep everything under wraps with a threat of court-martial? 2. I agree emphatically that the core of the plot was to blame the USSR and Fidel Castro -- the Reds -- for the JFK murder. The core of the plot was to assassinate JFK and divert attention away from the real killers/plotters... whether we'd attack and occupy Cuba, attack the USSR or simply shift attention to SE Asia was the CONSEQUENCE of the plot, not the point of it. 3. Hoover was never clear about the Impersonation of LHO in Mexico City. He asked -- was LHO in MC or was he Impersonated? Choose one! Hoover was steadfast in his claiming that the man in the photo was not Oswald, so in fact there were 2 MEN at the Cuban Consulate... Oswald and this other person... it was only thru that one note that we learn how he felt about the CIA and their Mexico City charade... but he STILL went along and covered it up for them.... why? 3.1. However, the real answer was BOTH. LHO was not alone in MC. That is part of Hoover's "Lone Nut" mythology. Harvey Oswald Lee... LEE, Harvey Oswald as his paperwork shows, was not in MC during that period. The man who did visit Duran/Azcue is unknown and other than the hotel register - which was also in the possession of the FBI's asset the weekend of the assassination - there is simply nothing to corroborate that person was there... we already know the man's voice was not Oswald's. 4. LHO was in MC at the bequest of Guy Banister. This is clear because the Lopez Report shows the actual resumé that LHO brought to MC WTF are you jabbering on about? Cite the page and reference and explain how one has anything to do with the other. This is the same man who agrees with the FBI's travel explanation. 4.1. LHO made that resumé with help from Banister's team at 544 Camp Street. LHO also provided his photos and signature. Again PB, WTF are you jabbering about? I have searched for this resume and simply cannot find it in the 2003 Lopez report. 2 page hits in this report 1. Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City (aka "Lopez Report"), pg 76 Found in: House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) retention of the Soviet tapes is DIR-88680, which says: Upon receipt you may resume usual practice of keeping Cuban and Soviet tapes two weeks and then erasing 2. Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City (aka "Lopez Report"), pg 284 Found in: House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) assistant chief of the Mexican Security Service Kazar. Mr. Nazar gave an oral resume of the interviews which Mexican officials conducted in 1963 of Silvia, Horatio 5. But LHO was not alone in MC. Most likely Loran Hall and Larry Howard drove him there. Also, others met them in MC -- very likely David Morales. your opinion at best, and yes I see it comes from Bill's work. But since you cannot get him to MC, cannot place him in MC or get him out of MC... what he did there is conjecture based on an accepted assumption. 6. According to Bill Simpich (2014) it is most likely that David Morales impersonated LHO in MC over the wiretapped telephone at the Cuban Consulate, calling the USSR Embassy. Has nothing whatsoever to do with Oswald other than the name. Still does not get him in and out of MC or explain all the FBI's BS evidence created by that asset I've mentioned, who you nor Bill nor Armstrong had uncovered. Your lack of curiosity is amazing to me. You claim the FBI did not create a thing yet haven't the first inkling of who I'm speaking about... Again PB, if you can make it thru the 6 State Secret chapters you can at least look into the 6 chapters I did on the evidence... unless of course you don't care about research with sources, links and examples... 7. Bill Simpich (2014) fully explains Mystery Man -- he was a random photo inserted into LHO's 201 file in service of the CIA Mole Hunt, set to catch the impersonator. This is one of Bill's theories, I don't agree with everything Bill offers. the photo most assuredly was not random. What do you suppose Win means here in this letter to "J.C'" This is in reference to the Mystery man photo... and you are also aware the FBI's ODUM shows that photo to Oswald's mother. And despite all this, the FBI and CIA continued to reference this Anne Goodpasture/Phillips photo and the tapes as proof Oswald was in MC. 8. LHO's middle name was also changed to HENRY in his 201 file, in order to catch the Mole. They never caught the mole. But Bill Simpich (2014) did This has nothing to do with whether Oswald was in MC. you think Anne Egerter created this in Dec 1960 with the thought of catching moles in Mexico in 1963? Because Bill does not delve into the travel to and from as I did, I try to let those who've put the time in to tell the story. And Bill's is a great story with a very good chance of being accurate.... But I'm not in a position to challenge what I have not thoroughly studied From State Secret: (his name was never "changed" as they already aware of Lee Harvey. Egerter named him “Lee Henry Oswald”, and supplied the head of covert operations with a separate Lee Henry Oswald index card with the note “CIT?”, asking whether Oswald was a citizen. Egerter knew Oswald’s real name and was staying on top of his story, as shown by a late 1960 note signed by Egerter after reviewing the Soviet division’s latest memo on Oswald’s background. Oswald’s 201 file could now be used to keep track of Oswald’s alleged biography. As mentioned earlier, the covert operations desk had a separate Lee Harvey Oswald index card that was based on Fain’s interviews with the Oswald family. This card states flatly and falsely that Oswald was now a Soviet citizen! In the limited but important world of CIA record-keeping, there were now two different Oswalds by the end of 1960.[ 22 ] 22 For the limited but important purpose of CIA record-keeping, there were now two different Oswalds: By the time 1963 rolled around, a “Lee H. Oswald” index card would also be created based on his activity in New Orleans. This card had “P2” on it, which referred to page two of the report describing Oswald as a “(member) of the New Orleans chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee at 799 Broadway, New York City. See doc re distribution of Cuban propaganda”. This phrase is quoted on the index card itself. The CIA agrees that all three of these index cards were in existence as of 11/22/63), one for his 201 file, and the other two based on FBI reports from 1960 and 1963. The question is whether these cards were used for different legends of the man.

Nice post Steve... There's a lot in there to digest. Bundy redefined the role of National Security Adviser into a much more proactive one. Here is Bundy forwarding a memo from McCone to Johnson on the 23rd. This was before Alvarado changed his story from the 17th/18th to the 28th (Nagell said something about it occurring around the 18th) Sept 17th is described as the day Oswald applied for unemployment comp in New Orleans. Yet the 17th is also the day he supposedly applied for and got his VISA for Mexico... if they knew he had gone to EDD, and GAUDET was in line behind him, why do they not know he acquired his VISA that day which for this report would have been much more germaine? Because our man Harvey did not take this trip, nor did he create any of the paperwork evidence offered up to prove he did. Bundy was a master at manipulation and as Steve writes, his blue-blood connections are at the highest level. The Evidence IS the Conspiracy... here are just some of the conflicts that arise when trying to recreate a journey that never happened. As I showed earlier, his application was for an FM-5, not FM-8 which makes a world of difference in the record keeping of the visit. Furthermore, he traveled as Harvey Oswald Lee, HO Lee... a recap of the FM entries into Mexico are written on a master list called the FM-11. How come Mr. HO Lee is alphabetized as if his last name was Oswald?

Hope you don't mind my chiming in.... I don't see how it's possible for any Rogue CIA group to influence and/or accomplish what occurs at Bethesda - that is pure Military every step of the way. Can you name a single CIA agent possibly involved here NOT in the military at some point in their career? We should also remember that the Castro angle, and the Mexico charade were designed to keep investigators away from getting too close to the truth. We see this plainly in the manner CUBA and CASTRO were summarily dropped once JFK was no longer there. Involving Castro's Cuba was imo nothing more than leverage to be used against the FBI, to keep their focus on the CIA as opposed to the Military masters running that show. Don't we suppose that if Rogue CIA was behind this the result would show the truth, multiple shooters setting Oswald up in a Castro Conspiracy (which is why the other shooters were probably Cuban or Cuban related to complete the frame). Rogue CIA agents wouldn't want a simple patsy explanation, that leaves them nowhere in their fight against Communism in the Western Hemisphere. They played down the communism, they played down Russia and created a disgruntled Lone Nut. Back-up plan? Leave Cuba then and focus the growing efforts where the cash crop generates limitless black money... and is not 90 miles away. I truly think people forget that the history of intelligence is the history of the ONI and MIA/MID, the FBI's SIS, the OSS - all military organizations. The CIA's above board budget comes from Defense. It's black budget comes from Military-supported CIA activity. Fletcher Prouty's knowledge of the CIA, from his Military position should be more than enough proof the CIA and Military Ind Complex run hand in hand

So easy for you to post - not so easy for you to prove. Besides how can you be 100% sure about "all" those sightings? There is nothing offered in the evidence which excludes LH Oswald from being at that range on that Saturday... Later in Nov is a different story... Odio says Oswald was at her house in Dallas Friday night 9/27 Odio's sister says Oswald was at their house He is seen at the Sports Drome in Dallas... what about the other places he was seen on his way up to Dallas from New Orleans Paul? Something about his being in Austin? One of these witnesses, a waitress who claims to have served Oswald stated she has Wednesdays off. Sept 25th was a Wednesday and the day Mrs. Dannelly sees Oswald, so by process of elimination Mrs. Norman could not have seen Oswald. When shown a photo of HARVEY, both Ronnie Dugger and Mrs. Stella Norman claim the person they met was “identical with Oswald”. While the possibility remains that it was Lee coming down from Dallas who was seen in Austin on the 25th there would be no need to backtrack 165 miles East to Houston when Lee could have caught a bus in San Antonio 80 miles to the SW. Depending of course on how he gets from Dallas to Houston. Here is the entire trip... yknow Paul, maybe go to KINGS and read the work before you comment. btw - did you post the LOPEZ evidence of Oswald in Mexico yet? Have you even found it yet? Do you know what you're talking about at all?

From what I understand that is a shotgun. With regards to the "Mauser" I'd like you to consider an alternative which has been offered up before... Since there was no clip found on the 6th floor or near the rifle, those who did know rifles - Weitzman and Boone knew their weapons especially Weitzman - would or should know that only the Mauser is loaded with a stripper clip that is discarded once the ammo is loaded. No clip SHOULD mean the rifle was a Mauser.. so initially the story comes out that it was a Mauser. Also, as I show on the inset, if the Mauser had a scope, the mounts for the scope cover the "Mauser" stamp.. Here is the stamp on a 7.65mm Arg Mauser and the Mauser with a scope showing the mounts would cover the stamp. It is my conclusion that "Mauser" was used until a clip was either found or brought to the TSBD and jammed back into C2766. We must also remember that Craig was on the hot seat for mentioning the DPD shooter on the county records building with a scoped rifle. If he was not privy to the clip's creation he could have been sticking to the Mauser story for other reasons... Just a different POV for you to consider... Cheers DJ

PAUL - I ADDRESSED ALL YOUR POINT BUT THEN LOST THE POST. QUICKLY, YES THERE IS EVIDENCE OF A MR. OSWALD AND A MR. LEE. DO YOU KNOW WHERE THIS ORIGINATES AND HOW IT WAS TRANSMITTED AS EVIDENCE? DO YOU KNOW FROM WHERE THE SOURCE MATERIAL FOR THESE CARDS ORIGINATES AND WHO CREATED THEM AND THE ORIGINATING INFO? OF COURSE NOT. SO BEFORE YOU DECLARE VICTORY REGARDING HIS TRAVELING IN A CAR, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CONFLICTS WITH WHICH TO CONTEND. THE ANSWER IS NOT SIMPLE PAUL. MAYBE IF YOU TOOK THE TIME TO READ THE WORK, YOU'D HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHICH YOU SPEAK. KOSTIKOV, BTW, ORIGINATES FROM THE RUSSIAN SIDE OF THE CALL, NOT THE OSWALD SIDE. THE TRANSCRIPTS ARE VERY CLEAR ON THIS. THE STATE DEPARTMENT WHO WAS HELPING THE STORY ALONG FOR THE CIA PRESENTED THIS INFORMATION TO IN&S WHO FORWARDED IT TO HOSTY AT THE FBI. (THE "CC" BLACKED OUT ON THIS COPY SAYS IN&S) THE PHOTO IS A FILE COPY OF KOSTIKOV, WHO TO ME LOOKS A LOT LIKE OSWALD. FINALLY, I HAVE READ BILL'S WORK AND ENJOYED IT IMMENSELY. HE'S BEEN A GREAT ASSET IN HELPING ME FIND DOCS AND IDENTIFY THE ABBREVIATIONS. WHETHER HE IS CORRECT OR NOT ABOUT THOSE 5 DAYS, IDK. IN MY DEFENSE, WHATEVER DID HAPPEN HAS LITTLE BEARING ON THE EVIDENCE OF THE TRIP AS PRESENTED OR DOES ANYTHING TO CHANGE THE FACT OSWALD WAS IN DALLAS AT ODIO'S FRIDAY NIGHT AND AT SPORTS DROME THAT WEEKEND... Libeler: The Commission had information to the effect that sometime during November 1963, you saw a gentleman at the rifle range whom you subsequently came to believe was LEE HARVEY OSWALD? Price: That's right. The first time I saw this person was in September, the last week, the last Saturday of September, and that was the afternoon they opened the rifle range. Libeler: On the last Saturday of September? That would be Saturday, September 28, 1963? Price: Yes. AN OSWALD WOULD BE SEEN AT THIS SHOOTING RANGE A NUMBER OF WEEKENDS WHEN HARVEY'S LOCATION WAS WELL KNOWN Between November 9th and 22nd the record appears exceedingly thin with respect to Mexico City yet a number of other interesting event occur that allow us to understand some of the context of the times. On Friday November 8th Oswald rides back to Irving with Wesley. Michael gives Oswald a driving lesson on Saturday the 9th while sightings of another Oswald are reported at the Sports Drome. WCD 7 contains interviews of Slack, Price and Davis who corroborate seeing someone they identified as Oswald at the range on November 9th, 10th and 17th.

Well Jim, according to LOZANO, BOSCH was an officer with the "Presidential staff"... yet he was not the only one. WCD 78 p1 tells us that by Nov 23th the FBI had information that the Mexican Officials were able to find and relay information from the “official records” of the Mexican Government which they had been alerted to no later than the early morning of Nov 23rd. A few pages later the FBI tells us that according to their Mexican confidential sources, Oswald was on the Transportes Frontera bus #340 leaving at 1pm Oct 2nd. This information not only turns out to be wrong but specifically created by a Mexican Presidential Staff Official Arturo Bosch in front of the bus line personnel. I believe this is from part 3 of the Mexico series: WCD 1084, from June 10, 1964, is a 200 page report that reinforces among many things that these records were not available, nor were the duplicates at HQ. WCD 1084 continues with ALEJANDRO SAUCEDO describing what he experienced not long after the assassination when these unknown authorities take their desired records. WCD 1084 p106-108 In Summary: Alejandro SAUCEDO, manager Flecha Rojas bus terminal Mexico City, tells us that “soon after the assassination” the Flecha Rojas evidence was taken by “unidentified investigators” of the Mexican Government. He felt the name LEE HARVEY OSWALD did not appear thereon. SAUCEDO claims these men were only interested in the info related to bus #516 on Sept 26th. These men tell SAUCEDO that THEY WERE JUST AT FRONTERA where they located the PASSENGER list for Oswald’s departure from Mexico City.* Mr. SAUCEDO, as told by the same informant: T-12, added on April 2nd that the two men who took the evidence were Policia Federal Judicial (PJF) and that they already had Flecha Rojas duplicate from Nuevo Laredo. On March 24th, a week or so earlier, the DFS Assistant Director BARRIOS informs us that the DFS did NOT conduct an investigation with regards to Oswald’s travel. *We come to find only a few pages prior in this same report that the FRONTERA evidence was “corrected” by Arturo Bosch of the Mexican Presidential Staff. WCD 1084 p103 "Shortly after the assassination" appears again and again in reference to Mexican officials arriving at bus companies and "borrowing" the manifests for specific dates.... One wonders how they would know which bus manifests to change or "borrow" so soon after the assassination...