David Josephs

On ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 2:12 PM, Michael Clark said:

Not to sound like a wise-guy, but, LHO could have been in MC and still have been impersonated at the consulates.

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:   

1. Evidence from the CIA suggests it was LHO yet someone else using the name LHO with these contacts cannot be absolutely dismissed
2. 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
3. The report of the tall, thin blond-headed man with Oswald has not been confirmed
4. The CIA had electronic surveillance of all locations. The phone from the Cuban Consulate was not tapped.  (iow all transcripts come from Russian buildings)
5. 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 2^nd and represented it as Oct 1 to match the call transcript. )
   
    
6. All CIA Mexico data was not reported to CIA HQ in a timely manner PRIOR to 11/22
7. All CIA Mexico data was reported to CIA HQ in a timely manner AFTER 11/22
8. Info was sent from CIA Mexico was generally relayed to WC in a timely manner
9. THIS COMMITTEE concludes the CIA has photos of Oswald in MC - but there is no evidence and CIA denies it.
10. The tapes which were claimed destroyed were probably in existence on 11/22 (which we know is true)
11. 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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 3/6/2017 at 10:29 AM, James DiEugenio said:

"The explanation for mistakenly linking this photograph to Oswald advanced by CIA officers in Mexico who had knowledge of the circumstances is that this was the only photograph taken on October 1st, the day that a conversation occurred that appeared to be of a non Latin and hence possibly an American." (p. 137)

 

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.

On 3/5/2017 at 0:38 AM, Thomas Graves said:

Paul,

Even though I disagree with your overall theory, I must say this is an excellent post.

Simpich's free-to-read work is mandatory reading, imho.

--  Tommy

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

 

 

Quote

And PT scolds everyone for not reading the Lopez Report, when it does not appear he has done so himself.  BTW, I go through all of this skullduggery by Goodpasture in the paperback edition of Reclaiming Parkland. This whole Mystery Man imbroglio is not due to a mole hunt.  Its worse than that.  It really seems to be that, as Eddie Lopez told me, Goodpasture was carrying out orders from Phillips while he was away. (Reclaiming Parkland, revised edition, pgs 294-96)

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.

 

 

On 3/1/2017 at 9:10 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Let me ask again:  can someone post that photo of what is supposed to be Oswald at the trial of Gary Powers in the USSR?

Walt Brown thinks  it is him.  

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

Quote

What is your evidence that Oswald never made it to Mexico City?   The Cuban consuls have his resume, his photos, his signature, and his conversations.

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?

Quote

Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) surely was in Mexico City.  Anybody who thinks differently is having trouble reading the Lopez Report (2003).

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

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.

 

On 2/9/2013 at 3:59 PM, Steven Gaal said:

#############################

I think Bundy's role was deeper.

YOU HAVE DULLES,BUNDY,ANGLETON and the head lawyer for Treasury that handled the WC for Dillion , BELIN.

TENNIS ANYONE ??

Now let us go into the Secret Service. The Secret Service was penetrated by the elites. The person that founded it, Lansing, a relative of Allen Dulles, was an Anglophile. There were OSS connections to the Secret Service through Scribner. There was a law firm called Scribner, Hall and Casey. Casey and Hall were with the OSS. Casey worked with Dulles both during World War II and in the decades after. Scribner was the head attorney for Treasury Department, and thus also the Secret Service. Scribner’s successor was Gaspar d'Angelot Belin, who belonged to a secret society called Skull and Bones, which had British connections. It is possible that Belin was involved in a conspiratorial luncheon with Mary Bancroft and Allen Dulles. Researcher Richard Bartholomew comments on a passage that Mary Bancroft wrote in her autobiography (which CIA censors had in manuscript form for a year before it was published). She was the lover of Dulles and Luce at one point simultaneously, but in Switzerland she was Dulles’s lover. In the manuscript itself she talks about metalanguage that she and Dulles used. They talked in code in a metalanguage, and in a paragraph within the autobiography possibly getting it through the censorship of the CIA, she said that she and Dulles had lunch at the Bundys’ house with Gaspar d'Angelot Belin, who had married a Bundy sister. Also there was James Jesus Angleton, whom Probe magazine said was probably very central to the assassination. They had lunch and tennis there. She said that in 1963 Dulles was very competitive and would try to let no one beat him in tennis. It must have been quite a surprise for Mr. Dulles, when Kennedy fired him after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Dulles was one of these people toppling governments all over the world and controlling world events and the CIA, and two words from Kennedy and he's gone out the door, hat in hand. So Bartholomew believes, and I agree with him, that that paragraph describing those lunches was metalanguage code for discussions on how to assassinate the president. As a matter of fact, Douglas Dillon, a friend of British elites and British eugenists and other Anglophiles, let Gaspar d'Angelot Belin handle all the affairs between the Warren Commission and the Secret Service. There is a letter that is addressed to Belin, although it was misconstrued, that referred to him as the head of the Treasury Department, by one of the Secret Service people. So that shows you how much authority that Dillon, who is the actual head of the Treasury Department, gave to Gaspar d'Angelot Belin, a man who was supporting Britain more than the United States through his loyalty to Skull and Bones. So both Belin and his predecessor Scribner show that there was a Dulles connection to the Secret Service through the Treasury Department. So that takes care of the Secret Service.

link interview of Gaal http://educationforu...wtopic=17035

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?

  

 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

George - couple of points:

If JFK had been injured, or even just shot at and missed, and the would be assassin had been caught and identified with Castro, would that not have accomplished the same goal? Inotherwords, why kill JFK? 

Other point, referencing something you said on a different thread, do you suppose that it was some rogue CIA operation with no US military component? 

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

Quote

You're mistaken about any sighting of Lee Harvey Oswald at any shooting range.  All those sighting were cases of "mistaken identity."

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 9^th and 22^nd 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 8^th Oswald rides back to Irving with Wesley.  Michael gives Oswald a driving lesson on Saturday the 9^th 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 9^th, 10^th and 17^th.

 

 

Quote

 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

 

 

 

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 23^th 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 23^rd.    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 2^nd.  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...

 

   

 

KD - 

Taking it a step further, for that bullet to match C2766's barrel, it was fired from C2766 at some point.

When and where?

The "bullet(s)" brought to Frazier could have been place-holders for the rifle that would arrive later, from which they could fire a shot and retrieve the bullet... although that does fell a bit too thought out at this point.  CE399 would already have to be in Rowley's possession to insure a connection between the rifle, the shot and the man.  
C2766 was used to create this bullet in the weeks/months prior.  Would C2766 have shown up in Vallee's arsonal?      

And if the bullet in Parkland was not ce399 as we know it, the bullet described either fell out of the men or their clothes... or it was wrongly planted.  

The SBT had not yet been created.  If we agree a bullet existed at Parkland, we also must agree that bullet is gone.  

If that bullet was pointed as remembered it would suggest a 2nd shooter, the Castro-backed conspiracy... Phase 1 of Peter Scott's explanation. When that was so quickly changed to the Lone shooter...  we see the remnants in the evidence of them removing the 2nd of who knows how many shooters...  by removing the bullet evidence as well as the shot from the front evidence in the autopsy we cleanly and neatly have ALL the evidence pointing to our man Oswald.  

btw.. Chief Rowley with CE399 given to Todd for the FBI also has an 8mm "film" taken by Zapruder before anyone else in DC does. This is a full 20 hours before the NPIC has it Saturday with Dino B. and 2 days before SA Bill Smith delivers a 16mm version to the NPIC, again, but this time to Homer and team.

If they would look us in the eye and tell us CE399 did what it did, what could be done to the film with 20 extra hours?

Oh, The Evidence...

CE399 comes into existence when SS Chief Rowley hands Elmer Todd a bullet to be brought to the FBI Lab.

In a couple of places the time CE399 is handed to Frazier APPEARS to be 7:30pm.

Yet in the envelope signed by all the necessary players - after the evidence reaches the FBI I may add - it states Todd did not take possession of what would become CE399, now referred to as Q1, until 8:50pm, over an hour and 20 mins AFTER he delivers a bullet to the FBI.

So CE399 "was" planted, just not at Parkland ...the bullet recovered and seen by Nurse Bell, Tomlinson, Wright and SA Johnson that evening was a pointed-nose bullet and only becomes CE399 when Todd leaves Rowley's office.

 

One more thing Paul

Quote

The Cuban consul remembered LHO as "blonde," and many CTers try to make much of that -- but actually most Mexicans are black haired or dark-brown haired -- that is, Mexicans are by far mostly brunette.  LHO had "light brown hair," and for many Mexicans, that qualifies as "blonde."  That's really all there was to that.

Here is what Azcue and Duran actually said...   "..was not the same man..." while Duran has him barely 5'4" and very skinny.  

Your "excuses" for them notwithstanding, that is not "really all there is to that"...  and for you to think so and offer such a conclusion gives me an idea of the depth of your intent in finding the facts... as opposed to creating your own.

...."but he could be convinced he was wrong bu scientific evidence"...  Gotta leave a little wiggle room..  lol

 

Quote

David,

Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) surely was in Mexico City.  Anybody who thinks differently is having trouble reading the Lopez Report (2003).

Ok Paul, here's your chance....

Please post the evidence offered in the Lopez report which corroborates the man who was shot by Ruby was in Mexico City over those 5 days.

from my essays:

The “Lopez Report”, an excellent reexamination of the WCR’s underplaying of the “Lee Oswald calling” Mexico trip focusing on the Embassy/Consulate visits and transcripts offers the following and little else related to evidence of Oswald’s travels into and out of Mexico.  This is from page 3 of the introduction.

 

problem being the WCR's establishment of the travel did NOT correctly inform us about any of it.  Paul, if you don't know about what occurs at each of the Mexican bus stations once the investigation was set in motion, you're not looking.

Ask yourself...  why would the FBI go thru all that trouble to create fake evidence of his trip when it's the CIA who claims he was there?
What possible reason could Hoover need to put Oswald on buses to and from Mexico City for those specific days?  Where was he seen with 2 Cubans? 
Where does he claim he was for that week - for it certainly was not Mexico..  (hint: Odio)

What do you supposed Hoover means here about "the false story re Oswald's trip to Mexico"?  and again... if he KNOWS this, why does he not let the altered Frontera bus manifest stand as evidence and put the CIA on the defensive...  they were always warring with each other.

 

Fact is Paul, outside the phony CIA transcripts, there is simply no evidence which can be authenticated which puts Oswald in Mexico..  the evidence, in fact, proves the opposite.

Finally, like so many other authors who have over-looked the FBI asset at Gobernacion....  do you know who I speak of and all he was involved with... or will you just take the FBI evidence of his trips at face value without knowing of its origins...

Case in point:  The Frontera manifest was altered within hours of the assassination to include Oswald's name.  When it was found that Oswald could not reach the connecting buses necessary to get back to Dallas using this bus, it was dropped in the search for "better" evidence...  it took the FBI thousands of pages of reports to hide the fact that Oswald did not go 1)by the way described in the WCR by the FBI and 2)that if he did go, the evidence offered to date does not support that conclusion.

 

  

 

Finally, the FBI had a very extensive spy network grown during the SIS days of WWII.  When the word went out to find Oswald, even Hoover's FBI asset at Gobernacion (11/8) had no evidence of his being there... while the CIA came to their own conclusions

  

Furthermore, there was a FBI asset in the Gobernacion who handled/created/altered virtually all the evidence.

He's not mentioned in any book on Mexico that I've seen to date since virtually all work on the subject deals with the 5 days he was supposedly there
rather than the evidence which attempts to prove he traveled to and from.

Add to this the fact the FBI dropped physical evidence of Oswald's travel when it was learned that one Arturo Bosch of the Mexican president's staff changed the manifest for the Frontera bus line.  Until Hoover admits the evidence is altered, it serves as THE evidence of that leg of the trip...

Sorry, but Marina's husband was not in Mexico.  

This is from the 6 part series at  I did on Oswald not traveling to Mexico as described by the FBI over thousands of pages
https://kennedysandking.com/content/mexico-city-part-1  

There is so much more to this trip than Marina's ongoing lying about it.  The FBI's story doesn't hold water....  besides, he was with Odio and the 2 Cubans while he was supposed to be in Mexico...  That and the fact Alverado, the young Nicaraguan who tells the lie about the $6500 and the red headed negro, was a CIA asset - mostly likely brought in by Phillips...  but you'd have to get deep into the docs to find all this...  

or read my work...  

----------

As we’ve learned, so much of what Marina tells us is shrouded in conflict.  Yet as times and testimony change we can always count on her supporting the desired facts, even if she sounds terribly foolish doing so.

 

 

Prior to Ruth arriving, from early September though the 23^rd, Marina’s “husband” is not working yet is also not home every day reading as Marina claims.  Between the Unemployment Office, the library and Ryder’s Coffee shop, he was busy.  We finally learn about Oswald’s plans for Mexico from Marina in her testimony:

 

 

WCR testimony:

Mrs. OSWALD. Nothing. And it is at that time that I wrote a letter to Mrs. Paine telling her that Lee was out of work, and they invited me to come and stay with her. And when I left her, I knew that Lee would go to Mexico City. But, of course, I didn't tell Mrs. Paine about it.

Mr. RANKIN. Had he discussed with you the idea of going to Mexico City?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. When did he first discuss that?

Mrs. OSWALD. I think it was in August.
 

HSCA testimony:

Mr. McDONALD - When did you first learn of his planned trip to Mexico City? When did you first know about that?

Mrs. PORTER - Shortly before I left for Dallas with Ruth Paine.

Mr. McDONALD - How did you learn of this?

Mrs. PORTER - He told me about his plans to go to Mexico City and to visit the Cuban Embassy over there.

 

…..

Mr. RANKIN When your husband talked about going to Mexico City, did he say where he was going to go there, who he would visit?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. He said that he would go to the Soviet Embassy and to the Cuban Embassy and would do everything he could in order to get to Cuba.

The purpose of the visit as recorded and expressed by Chief of Mexico Station Win Scott was to get himself and his family to Odessa.  Cuba originally did not have anything to do with the evidence of the man calling himself Oswald.

…..

Mr. RANKIN. Did you learn that he had a tourist card to go to Mexico?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. If he had such a card, you didn't know it then?

Mrs. OSWALD. No

…..

 

 

And as usual, the FIRST STORY offered, which usually conflicted with the desired story, had to be changed or be supported by some rational explanation for the change:

 

 

Mr. RANKIN. When you were asked before about the trip to Mexico (CE1781 & 1792), you did not say that you knew anything about it. Do you want to explain to the Commission how that happened?

Mrs. OSWALD. Most of these questions were put to me by the FBI. I do not like them too much. I didn't want to be too sincere with them. Though I was quite sincere and answered most of their questions. They questioned me a great deal, and I was very tired of them, and I thought that, well, whether I knew about it or didn't know about it didn't change matters at all, it didn't help anything, because the fact that Lee had been there was already known, and whether or not I knew about it didn't make any difference.

 

 

Marina describing her husband going to Mexico is fraught with problems and contradictions.  So much so that a reading of each subsequent questioning on the subject appears as if she is reading from a prepared script regardless of the question.  It was CUBA-CUBA-CUBA all the time,  when actually there is little if any evidence anywhere else in this case to support Oswald’s desire to be in Cuba.

Q. Did Lee tell you why he wanted to go to Mexico?

A. He was disappointed in Latin America so he wants to go and try Cuba.

Q. Why did he choose Mexico?

 

A. He told me he was going to take the bus.  (sic)

 

(This bit of testimony is the reference used by the Warren Commission to determine Oswald had taken a bus from New Orleans)

One has to wonder what occurred to change Marina’s account of Mexico between November 28 & 29, 1963 and Feb 3, 1964 when she began giving the “adjusted” account of her knowledge about her husband’s Mexico Trip…

CE1781: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0209b.htm

 

And the SS interview Nov 29^th: 

“She was asked whether she had any knowledge of Lee's trips to Mexico or Washington, D.C.  She replied in the negative.  She was asked whether she or Lee had any cameras and she replied that Lee bought one camera in Russia and a second one in the United States . She said one was a small camera and the other was a box camera. She added that she was not proficient with operating any Cameras and she never had an opportunity to do so.”

 

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0220b.htm  (“never had an opportunity to work the camera” requires yet another back-peddling recant when the infamous Backyard photos come up)

 

 

 

"Never had the opportunity to do so" ??  Yet she claims she held a camera to her face and took from 1-4 photos...  she barely remembers it yet to take a photo with that camera, Marina needed to view the following.   Can we really believe she forgets the process of taking amazingly clear, crisp images with this cheap box camera?

No, Marina never established any credibility...  this is one of the easiest examples to illustrate....

DJ

 

 

Not only the WCR analysis but especially the HSCA handwriting analysis.

The most important items were copies of copies:  The Money Order, The Klein's coupon, etc...  

The "experts" even warn us against such copies:

(86) Photographic reproductions could only be compared visually with other photographic reproductions or with original documents.  All conclusions based solely upon photographic reproductions are necessarily tentative and inconclusive, since they cannot reveal much about pen pressure and other dynamic qualities of handwriting.

Further, they sometimes conceal, rather than reveal, evidence of tracings, alterations, erasures, or obliterated writing.

(71) Five items of evidence were not examined in the original, but
were copies . Photocopies have several limitations. They do not reproduce
all the fine details in handwriting needed in making an examination
and comparison. At best, they do not produce as sharp an image
as a properly produced photograph, and they lack tonal gradations,
a result of the contrasting process of reproduction . In addition, it is
possible to incorporate or insert changes and alterations into copies . A
method frequently used is to paste together parts of documents to make
one fradulent document, which is then copied. If the first copy can
pass inspection, it will be used ; if not, it will be reworked to eliminate
all signs of alteration. This amended copy is then recopied for the
finished product. This is usually referred to as the "cut and paste"
method.

(72) Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional
opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to
examine the original before a definite opinion will be made