Robert Charles-Dunne

As I specifically stated, but which you deliberately snipped as “irrelevant,” I didn’t and don’t question your honesty regarding this story. But making claims in the absence of evidence to believe them is futile. Why this bothers you so much is anyone’s guess, but surely you must at least remember the name of the woman who told you the tale? Is there some reason why even that name cannot be shared? Or is the HSCA’s failure to locate and procure affidavits from Witt’s acquaintances to blame for your inability to recall her name? If not, why mention their failures when it is your own that are the issue here. Also deemed “irrelevant” by you and consequently snipped by you was something I will now re-post for the benefit of those who may have missed it the first time around, and are denied it in your response as a result of your self-serving censorship: “Whenever Lifton is pressed for evidence he doesn’t have, he lashes out at others, questions their sanity, puts words into their mouths - with hallucinated dialogues - that they themselves haven’t said, or uses guilt-by association tactics, as he attempted to do with Greg Parker’s website. Needless to say, this self-evident pattern of immaterial insinuations happens only because he wishes to distract attention away from his own gross failings, attempting to impugn others. To the Forum’s everlasting detriment, he is given a pass by its moderators when attacking fellow members this way; Farley and Parker mostly, but not exclusively.” Which segues brilliantly with your decision at this point to post your unflattering depiction of me. When pressed for evidence you do not have, you go on the attack. You are nothing if not entirely predictable. Perhaps if you can blacken me enough, people might actually forget that you’ve been asked a number of times by several members to post any details regarding your Witt story, to no avail. Evidence is the very thing that you would rightly demand of others, but requiring the same of you is something you deem unfair to you. It has come time for you to either put up or shut up. Which will it be? I appreciate your ardent desire, which you share with Ray Carroll, to see my face clearly, but I don’t really see the point. What I say is either true or not, irrespective of whether I am blonde, brunette or redhaired. I cannot fathom how my comments would differ in any way by how I look. Other than give you an opportunity to mock my appearance, as you have repeatedly done with people whose hair you think too long or whose taste in Grateful Dead T-shirts you think disqualifies them from comment. That only a fool would judge a person’s comments by their appearance hasn’t stopped you from doing precisely that repeatedly in the past. (Luckily, I don’t wear T-shirts.) The vast majority of your profile of me is - surprise! - completely erroneous. As just one example, I am not a “close associate” of John Armstrong, have never met the man and haven’t read “Harvey & Lee.” I was asked by JA’s point-man Jim Hargrove to critique an early portion (the first chapter or two, if I recall) of the book, did so, was unpersuaded by it, said so in my written responses, and was thereafter left out of the loop. I had hoped to at least receive a copy of the finished work for my efforts, but did not. There you have the sum total of that uneventful episode, from which I have somehow morphed into Armstrong’s “close associate.” Your obsession with Armstrong must be quite debilitating, for in this thread alone you have accused both Greg Parker and me of being Armstrong's acolytes, when precisely the opposite is true. Greg has been outrightly hostile toward Armstrong's methodology, whereas I am simply unpersuaded by his premise. How is it that you so often self-defeatingly end up with the wrong ass-end of an argument? Most of your other comments about me are equally spurious: a dash of truth covered in a heaping helping of malarkey; or just outright malarkey of your own hallucination. Prior to joining here, I posted at the late Rich D.’s forum, where I don’t recall crossing your path. I’ve made no secret that I find your book unpersuasive, but I have no special animus toward it, precisely as I felt about Armstrong's. As is true of even the most unremarkable books, yours contains some valuable information, even if I don’t concur with its central premise. Whatever accolades you earned from that book, however, you've long since frittered away in threads such as this one. You've coronated yourself to be singularly capable of dismissing something as open-to-interpretation as the Witt episode. When asked for evidence, you basically replied: "Evidence? I don't need no stinkin' "evidence." I heard a third hand story and that's good enough for me." That you cannot even comprehend how this lowers your stature yet further indicates the extent that you are divorced from reality. You have, however, just demonstrated the veracity of several of my points for me. For example, Pat Speer seems to think you've just demonstrated your tendencies to bully rather than reason, which I have previously noted here, and on this score I see no point in disagreeing with him. It is only the most recent example of your essential nastiness destroying your facade as a researcher. Each time you indulge in such underhandedness, you unmask yourself a little bit more and what we are left to see is behaviour that repulses rather than attracts. With a friend like you, you don't need enemies.

Pat, as you know, if people wish to be taken seriously, there are rules for gathering and interpreting evidence. The first such rule of evidence is “provide some.” Lifton’s sole contribution to this thread has been to say that he allegedly heard third-hand an unverifiable story that Witt allegedly told his dentist. From this, he asserts that it’s case closed. Except that were this any other researcher, he’d be laughed out of the marketplace of ideas for so cheeky a paucity of evidence for his contention. Unattributable gossip isn’t evidence, let alone proof. You say that I “suspect he JUST MADE IT UP. And that is totally unjustified, IMO.” I suspect no such thing. But I don’t believe anything anyone insists I should just because they insist I should. Call me old-fashioned, but I draw conclusions from evidence, not merely reiteration or vehemence. I don’t begrudge Lifton’s right to believe whatever he likes; I refuse to grant him the right to insult those who disagree and ask for actual evidence for his contentions. Is there another member here with the audacity to say “I heard something from someone a long time ago about Witt’s dentist,” and thereby expect it to be accepted at face value without providing the necessaries: the name of Witt’s dentist or the names of those who daisy-chained the tale to Lifton’s ears? I don’t fault him for not following it up then; I do fault him for thinking the repetition today of something so meaningless should sway Forum members, most of whom are not gullible idiots. As already pointed out by me previously in this thread, Lifton has asserted that there is something wrong with people who don’t take Witt’s story at face value, because the umbrella can only refer to “appeasement,” something Witt maintained he heard had angered Kennedy. Evidence presented by Lifton and Witt for these contentions? Zero. Evidence available to those who have searched for it? Zero. Yet the same Lifton - in this very thread - chided both himself and Tink Thompson for not instantly realizing to what Witt’s use of the umbrella pertained. No researcher can simultaneously assert that he himself didn’t recognize its significance for 15 years, yet now claim to others they are somehow faulty for not instantly realizing what he, himself, didn’t understand until it was explained to him. Whenever Lifton is pressed for evidence he doesn’t have, he lashes out at others, questions their sanity, puts words into their mouths - with hallucinated dialogues - that they themselves haven’t said, or uses guilt-by association tactics, as he attempted to do with Greg Parker’s website. Needless to say, this self-evident pattern of immaterial insinuations happens only because he wishes to distract attention away from his own gross failings, attempting to impugn others. To the Forum’s everlasting detriment, he is given a pass by its moderators when attacking fellow members this way; Farley and Parker mostly, but not exclusively. This is not the hallmark of a neutral researcher, or even an ardent advocate. It is the trait of a bully who holds others to a standard which he refuses to apply to himself. When all this fails, he bellows words to the effect: “What’s wrong with all you people? Why can’t you connect the dots?” Were there evidence, there would be no need to read dots like tea leaves. You say that from your dealings with him, Lifton strikes you as honest. Despite the fact that this is hardly a universally held opinion, I state unequivocally that his honesty is entirely immaterial to the issues at hand. Lifton is free to dismiss the significance of the Umbrella Man and the Dark Complected Man for whatever reasons he chooses, tooth fairies included. He is not free to insist that others follow suit on his say-so alone, particularly when it is based upon nothing more than third or fourth party gossip of undetermined provenance. That he ridicules others for not agreeing with so specious an example of “connecting the dots” - to use one of his favorite meaningless phrases - earns him the upbraiding he deserves and gets from fellow members. You don’t like Lifton being expected to put up or shut up as is expected of all others here? Then why don’t you provide the evidence he hasn’t, and then we’ll see what grounds there are to dismiss Witt’s story as true? If you cannot be bothered, you’ve just joined Tink and Lifton in a club of men who’ll believe what suits them without requiring evidence. I don’t take such men very seriously precisely because they do not provide reasons to do so. I don’t think that’s so terribly difficult to grasp, no matter how complicated you struggle to make it appear.

So, the tripe-meister doubles down. Unwilling or unable to provide the slightest details that might lend credibility to his “dentist” story, he attempts instead to mock those who prod him to do what he knows he must in order to be taken seriously: make good on his tooth-fairy tale by providing the details. How? By impugning Greg Parker’s website content without even understanding what it contains. By claiming that Greg should "own up" as to its contents, as though what Parker has put on public display is something he is somehow anxious to hide. What utter nonsense. This attribution of such underhandedness is pure projection. How? By asserting that another writer’s work, which appears on Greg Parker’s website, must represent Greg’s own views. By that illogical standard, John Simkin is a believer in both a lone gunman and a conspiracy; in the Zfilm being genuine and fabricated; in Oswald being both innocent and guilty; ad infinitum. How? By asserting that Greg Parker is a Harvey & Lee acolyte, which is the precise opposite of what I have known Greg to argue in the past. But why let mere facts get in the way of another pointless Lifton diatribe? How? By quibbling over whether Oswald was dyslexic or was on the Asperger’s spectrum. Without, however, providing any reason to sway the reader toward or away from either conclusion. How? By referring to Greg’s “credentials - or lack thereof,” as though such a thing must matter. This is, in particular, an astonishingly stupid move, for Lifton himself has not the slightest credentials necessary to pass judgement on any of the topics covered in his own book. He is not an assassin, a pilot, a forensic pathologist, a detective, a photo-analyst, a Secret Service or FBI agent, et al. He knows precisely nothing that the average poster here doesn’t also know. Other than how "connect the dots" that are invisible to those who hold out for actual evidence, and how to alienate those with whom he should be in common cause, a talent which most here refrain from displaying. He knows only how to use the fact that he wrote a best selling book - that didn’t solve the assassination - as a cudgel to browbeat others. Neither helpful nor charming, but unintentionally revealing of his twisted methodology and smallness. Fail.

So, the admission - FINALLY - that our star researcher trafficks in wholly unreliable, unverifiable scuttlebutt of wholly unreliable, unverifiable and unknown provenance yet DEMANDS we accept it as probative. To borrow from Tink, that's SO ridiculous, it MUST be true. Which is more cringe-worthy? The bankrupt LACK of methodology on display here? Or the fact that Lifton is apparently oblivious to how completely foolish this makes him seem, while demanding that we accept as genuine the crud he passes off as probative. That the same man holds himself out as a paragon of logical analysis and sneers at what he presumes to be lesser mortals is just the icing on the cake. Some people have absolutely no self-awareness. The imaginary conversations he hears in his head are just sad. He really ought not share them with us. They have no bearing on the case and should remain between he and his therapist.

Hilarious. First, David Lifton admonishes himself (and Tink) for failing to understand the alleged purpose of the Umbrella Man’s so-called protest until fifteen years after the fact, and then says Jim D. is ignorant because it is quite obvious what UM intended. Only one can be true David, so which is it? I knew that Lifton fancies himself a superior intellect, because he never stops telling us so. I just had no idea that he is a comedian in his spare time. But his posts just keep getting funnier, albeit unintentionally so. Who, exactly, does he think he fools with this parlor game?

Because nor would anyone else. For a supposed “protest,” it was closer to dadaist performance art, unimaginable as an allusion to Joe Kennedy even to minds so bright as Tink Thompson and David Lifton. And everybody else. How an umbrella refers exclusively and unambiguously to Kennedy or Chamberlain has yet to be explained by anyone. If the allusion to Joe Kennedy failed to materialize as an explanation in the minds of anyone and everyone interested in the topic of the Umbrella Man, and the HSCA staff that sought him out, what made him think it was a protest that anyone would recognize? What is the point of a protest that nobody understands, not even the intended target of the protest? It only became apparent when Witt stated it fifteen years after the fact. As protests go: epic fail. Perhaps more germane to consider is whether it was in fact Witt at all. We have only his word for it. Perhaps more germane to consider is that if it was Witt, he worked in the Rio Grande Building, which also housed the local Military Intelligence group. The very people who, if Robert Jones’ HSCA testimony is accurate, knew immediately that Lee Oswald and A. Hidell were either synonymous or in some way related, as the names were apparently cross-referenced within MI files. Perhaps more germane to consider is that if the story is true of Oswald taking an eastbound walk to catch a westbound bus, he would have done so almost directly at the location of the Rio Grande Building. Perhaps more germane to consider is that the umbrella was closed immediately before the event and immediately afterward, but pumped vigorously during the event itself. Oddly, he was joined in the pumping motion by the fist of Dark Complected Man who, of all the bystanders he might have stood next to, chose to stand directly next to Umbrella Man. And pumped his fist at precisely the same time that the umbrella was being pumped. What was Dark Complected Man’s action designed to obliquely protest: the Nazi salute? Equally germane is that Umbrella Man and Dark Complected Man presumably knew each other, in that they acted in tandem during the event, and immediately afterward, sitting down as though nothing had occurred while all others around them dispersed hither and yon chasing phantoms or hit the dirt. While we might not understand the true dimensions of what Umbrella Man and Dark Complected Man were doing next to each other that day, we do recognize today when efforts to explain this away as irrelevant fail. Oddly, the explanation comes from two conspiracy advocates who pat each other on the back while dismissing the most obvious possible evidence of conspiracy. Nothing to see, move along. Swing and a miss, boys. Nice try, though.

Over the years, I've repeatedly encountered the suspicion that Josiah Thompson is a disinformation agent. Why, that's so ridiculous, it MUST be true.

From the under-appreciated Canadian band SPIRIT OF THE WEST, a song called "The 6th Floor," dating back the better part of 20 years or so: At the corner of Elm and Northeast Houston Staring up at the Southeast window Someone circled allegedly I refuse to pay six bucks to see People posing on the grassy knoll How many was that just him and Lincoln? I was squinting through the sun, do they count the bottom floor as 'one'? And I phoned home from the bottom of the building with the '6th floor' You seem unimpressed at best that I phoned home From the bottom of the building with the '6th floor' aah-ho Suitable for family viewing, cracked a joke about who he was screwing Stood in the centre of a concrete square (Human nature took me there) Debbie did Dallas yah, so did I Found myself taking pictures of a brown stone against a blue sky blue sky, oh-ho, oh-ho, oh-ho, oh-ho oh-ho,oh-ho And I phoned home from the bottom of the building with the '6th floor' You seem unimpressed at best that I phoned home From the bottom of the building with the '6th floor' And I phoned home from the bottom of the building with the '6th floor' You seem unimpressed at best that I phoned home From the bottom of the building with the '6th floor' aah-ho, oh-ho oh-ho, oh-ho, oh-ho, oh-ho

Any number of possibilities exist. However, this assumption presupposes that the conspirators wished for only a single weapon to be discovered, and that it would lead to a single gunman, LHO. For a variety of reasons, I would respectfully suggest that’s an unsafe assumption. Based upon the evidentiary record, more than one weapon was found in the TSBD, and since not all of the gunfire originated from there, even more weapons were used, or one more at the very least. We know from the historical record that the Commission did all in its power to scuttle any and all data that suggested more than one gunman, by fair means and foul. But we have no reason to believe that this was the intent of the conspirators. It is entirely feasible they may have wished to leave evidence that it was a conspiracy, with Oswald’s proximity to it indicating it was Communist in origin. That was certainly the charge originally filed against him by Bill Alexander. I think that at all times it is imperative to distinguish between: 1) what the evidence suggests the conspirators intended or did; and 2), what the Commission did to misconstrue, misinterpret and diminish that evidence, because the two aren’t necessarily synonymous. Let me just add in closing that Andric and Zach are younger, newer members here whose contributions have been insightful and well reasoned. Their posts are a pleasure to read and I hope they will continue to make their mark. Many older hands here can learn much from them. And some already have, to their chagrin and dismay.

So sorry to be late to the party, but I’ve been away. Rich ran a first-class operation and gave many people their first chance to collaborate on this topic. I know that I made many connections with people I admired, whose posts I continue to read with interest. Rich will be recalled by all as a pioneer in that regard, and it is heartening to know that his site’s content didn’t die with him. RIP, amigo.

"Formenter?" Sheesh. Note to self: proof read first and then hit 'add reply.' As for the veracity of reports that Ruby was a commie, I shrugged off most of them as the result of mistaken identity, perhaps from people who knew the NYC guy of the same name. The Havana report, which I believe had him selling Hungarian weapons there in person, is a different matter. [However, I'm also going from memory here, and since I cannot even remember how to spell "fomenter," I'm clearly not to be trusted.]

This thread began due to concern for DPF’s well-being. Now that DPF has sorted itself out and is online again, is there really any productive reason to keep this thread alive? The hostility toward DPF expressed herein by Evan Burton and some others leads me to suspect that there is some gleeful schadenfreude on the part of some EF members over DPF’s misfortune. It is infantile and has no place here, particularly when penned by a moderator here. It also leads all the usual suspects - those wholly disinterested in who killed Kennedy - to play divide and conquer by stoking animosity between members of two forums that claim to share an identical goal. This behaviour would shame high schoolers and we should be above such things. If John Simkin is the man I think him to be, one I have long respected, he will realize this reflects poorly upon the forum he has so laboured to achieve, and it must stop immediately. It would also be helpful to disallow DPF members initiating new future threads about all of this nonsense. It has no bearing on our reason for being here, so why is it allowed? I was pleased to see that the mods here deep-sixed Len Colby’s disingenuous poll regarding whether Dawn Meredith should be placed on moderation. Now do the same for this thread and let’s get back to who killed Kennedy, shall we?

Try misspelling names whenever possible in doing JFK/CIA related searches. For example, try searching "Beckoff" instead of "Beckhoff." It may not provide what you're looking for, but will yield results you wouldn't obtain otherwise.

Is there some reason the DPF foodfight has to play out here? These are a half dozen EF members who decided to create their own site because this one wasn't good enough to suit their tastes. Yet now that they're at each other's throats, this site is good enough for them to attack each other? Shame on all involved. This has NOTHING to do with who killed Kennedy and should be disallowed here, imho.

Tony: You may wish to amend your statement, because your bias is showing. Having combed old Village Voices and NYTs from the period, I can assure you that the demonstrations cited by Armstrong did take place and that nothing cited by John Armstrong is materially incorrect. Landesberg may have been mistaken or delusional about including Oswald in his post-assassination reports to the FBI, but he most assuredly did create provocations, because they were reported in the media. Here, for example, is a re-run of a Village Voice piece that first ran in their December 12, 1963 edition: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2009/06/clip_job_oswald.php The header to this thread - written by David Andrews, not John Armstrong - suggests that the two men named Steve Landesberg were one and the same. To the best of my knowledge, Armstrong hasn't alleged that. You owe Armstrong an apology.

My scanner is not functioning, so I cannot post it. However, you can find a good clean copy of the photo in Groden's "The Search For LHO" on the bottom of page 101.

For an eye-opening revelation, examine Assistant DA BH Timmins' role in the Whitter-Miller Terrell armory arms heist and the prosecution of Ruby. The two are not unrelated.

Don't believe a word of it. The record shows that I only asked him to show his true face. Yes, because my face will determine whether what I have to say on this topic is accurate, right Ray? Feeble. It’s equally obvious that those who have a case to make don’t need to stoop to epithets like “little boys” when addressing their adversaries. They rely upon the facts at hand, not ad hominems. But I guess I should consider myself lucky for getting off easy compared to what Ray has apparently doled out in the blameless Michael Hogan’s direction. As desperate as it is despicable. Ray, let’s cut to the chase here. You’ve mused aloud - as we’ve all done - but you’ve insisted that your musings trump actual documentary evidence. That’s not the way these things work. When you can demonstrate that a US citizen in 1959 in some city other than Helsinki was given service as expeditious as that which Oswald received, you might have a case to make. (I say “might” for a reason that may or may not prove germane, depending on what you procure . We shall see in the fullness of time.) Now, that shouldn’t be too hard for you, given your insistence that the Soviets had an all-but open borders policy. Yet you’ve resorted to every feint and dodge imaginable in order to not produce the single thing you need to prove your premise might hold water. Allow me to suggest that we agree to a cease-fire while you busy yourself looking for that single piece of evidence needed to demonstrate your musings are more than only that. The alternative is for me - and others - to keep rubbing your nose in your failings, and for you to keep digging deeper the hole in which you find yourself. To me, that ceased to seem sporting some number of posts ago. I don’t see how you can ask for more than a fair chance to make your case, Ray. I’d take the reprieve, were I in your corner about now. This is as sportsmanlike as I know how to be.

It grows increasingly ludicrous and tedious. Unable or unwilling to demonstrate his hypothesis by finding a US citizen who received expeditious treatment - such as was granted Oswald in Helsinki - from a Soviet consul in a city other than Helsinki, Carroll now appeals to a third party who, he claims, is “considered something of an authority in this area.” Here’s what Carroll doesn’t realize. I know Peter Vronsky, and we had a lengthy meeting on this topic prior to his trip to the USSR to film the Oswald documentary, the producer of which was my ex-spouse. Peter Vronsky is accomplished at many, many things, and I mean that sincerely, but I suspect even he would hesitate to consider himself an authority of what Soviet consuls did in cities other than Helsinki, since that is the only city from which Oswald obtained a tourist visa, and consequently the only one that concerned Vronsky. (If I’m wrong on that score, I’m sure Peter will correct me, if he cares to weigh into this pissing contest at all.) Moreover, Carroll now wishes to rewrite the definitions of the English language in his quest to evade the obvious. Carroll insists that I am mis-reading the intent of the Rotarian article. The sentence says: “To get a Soviet visa, tourists are not required to appear in person, and you can have your papers by mail in less than a week.” And, no doubt, one could have one’s “papers by mail” in less than a week. However, were the sentence referencing a visa, would it not have been constructed less ambiguously? “To get a Soviet visa, tourists are not required to appear in person, and you can have your visa by mail in less than a week.” Or: “To get a Soviet visa, tourists are not required to appear in person, and you can have it by mail in less than a week.” In my prior post, I illustrated Carroll’s contention - that Soviet rules and regs on tourist visas suddenly changed in 1959 - didn’t explain the CIA document I’ve posted in this thread. It clearly states that CIA knew in 1957, two years before Carroll’s hypothetical new regime, that Consul Golub could wave his magic wand and make a visa appear within minutes, if he chose to do so. Carroll has yet to utter a thought or write a word to explain this discrepancy. Why? Because it undercuts his entire central premise and he is not gentleman enough to admit it. Instead, we now see him file a special pleading with somebody he claims is “considered an authority.” Should Carroll not be able to make his own case, if there’s one to be made? It is increasingly extraordinary the lengths to which Carroll will go to avoid providing what is required to accept his hypothesis. He has tried in this thread to have my posting privileges revoked, rather than provide what he must to prove his point. He has tried to ignore the points I’ve raised that are exceptionally problematic for his hypothesis, as though I’ve never raised them. He has asked me to provide him with evidence of his mistake regarding the WC seeking Soviet visa documents because he cannot be bothered to find it himself. He has even asked Greg Parker, who disagrees with Carroll, to provide him with the evidence he won’t search for himself. Now he wishes Peter Vronsky would do his homework for him. When will this charade end? I've got all the time in the world, but I do have better things to do than repeatedly illustrate that Carroll cannot make his own case. Life is short, and I'd really rather not spend mine this way.

I submit that, if you "can have your papers BY MAIL in less than a week", then you could get them even faster with a personal visit. The Rotarian article is really telling us that the local Consulate is issuing tourist visas WITHOUT any need to send the papers to Moscow for approval. Just as it was in Helsinki. So, the ridiculous game of silly buggers continues apace. Had the Rotarian wished to refer to securing a “visa” within a week, rather than the application papers needed to obtain one, it would presumably have employed a word like, for instance, “visa.” Ray Carroll assures us that we can ignore: the WC and HSCA due to their incompetence; CIA personnel because Helms was a xxxx; the State Department because he claims we don’t know what question Chayes was asked by Rankin; the Helsinki travel agents who were polled on this, because we don’t have their testimony under oath or know how “sloppy and corrupt” the investigation was, etc., etc. None of this produces probative evidence, let alone proof, according to Ray Carroll. We need adhere to a higher standard for evaluating evidence, apparently. However, Carroll is perfectly prepared to accept as probative - and insists we do so as well - the following: *** a blind-sourced one sentence snippet from the Guardian, written by a reporter who remains unidentified, cited from a book Carroll’s never read; *** his own musings, including about mail times that don’t apply to Oswald’s instance since he didn’t apply by mail. Carroll insists we observe only the highest standards of evidence. Unless the requirement is applied to him. Carroll asserts without proof that a change in Soviet attitude led to the Kremlin granting their consuls worldwide the latitude to determine who should be granted visas. Given the large influx of tourists that must have resulted from this new “open borders” mentality, how hard could it be for Carroll to find one US citizen receiving the type of service given Oswald, by some other consul in a city other than Helsinki? Depending on what he came up with, it might prove his point, or at a minimum that he cares enough about the topic to at least try. Yet Carroll provides not a single instance of this. Instead, Carroll asks if Greg Parker - with whom Carroll has argued this topic for some time - might provide Carroll with the 1960 edition of a book that might contain the evidence he needs to make his point, because the 1959 edition of that same book - already provided by Greg Parker - does not. Why? Carroll insists that “There is reason to think that it was sometime DURING 1959 that overseas consulates began issuing visas without reference to Moscow.” He does not provide the “reason to think” this, because this too is his own speculative invention. Nor does he address the CIA document I have already posted indicating Golub had personal discretion to grant an instant visa a good two years prior to the hypothetical 1959 policy change that Carroll posits, without providing any proof. How does Carroll rationalize Golub's two year-plus head start over a policy change asserted but never proven? Soviet pilot project? Carroll has complained that the WC and HSCA didn’t ask the Soviets for the visa application documents. When I pointed out that this is incorrect, Carroll stated he would very much appreciate me doing his homework for him, presumably because he cannot be arsed to do it himself. All the while insisting that those with whom he disagrees deal in speculation and assertions, rather than “facts,” which is what he fancies himself to peddle. Are there two people posting under the name Ray Carroll? Or just one who indulges in the most wince-inducing, hilarious intellectual hypocrisy when it suits his purpose?

A further thought on this: Somewhere Greg Parker posted info. to the effect that it was not necessary to actually visit a Soviet Consulate in order to get a tourist visa, it could be obtained by mailing in a written application. I suspect that many -- if not most -- tourist visas were handled by mail. After all, relatively few Americans lived near a Soviet consulate (and ditto for Europeans). So it may be that when Chayes of the state department reported that a visa normally took a week, that week included the time it took to travel back and forth by mail. If it is true that a visa could be had by mail from a Soviet consulate in 1 week, that would almost certainly mean that the application was processed locally, because there would hardly be enough time to send everything to Moscow, have it approved, and then returned to the consulate in London or Helsinki or wherever, and then mailed to the applicant. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do;jsessionid=30EF2BE4D93E4C7E05EC774498BC55D2?docId=800&relPageId=242 It is becoming increasingly obvious the lengths to which Ray Carroll will go to avoid acknowledging the obvious. “So it may be that Chaynes.....” No, it may not be. Herein we see Carroll referencing mail times, as though those apply to Oswald appearing in person at the consul’s office. On the page preceding the very one Carroll posted - 211 of the HSCA Final Report - we find the clear and unambiguous truth, which has nothing to do with Carroll’s invention of mail times or anything remotely connected thereto: “Rankin noted that he had recently spoken with Abraham Chayes, legal adviser to the State Department, who maintained that at the time Oswald received his visa to enter Russian from the Soviet Embassy in Helsinki, normally at least 1 week would elapse between the time of a tourist’s application and the issuance of a visa. Rankin contended that if Chayes’ assessment was accurate, then Oswald’s ability to obtain his tourist visa in 2 days might have been significant.” Why, yes it “might have been significant,” which is precisely the reason that both the WC and HSCA paid attention to it. They discovered that Consul Golub had a latitude - which he boasted about to CIA and which it reported as though it was significant (to all but Carroll) - and that he had demonstrated that latitude repeatedly. And each time it was done, according to the extant documents, it was because the US Embassy in Helsinki had prevailed upon him to do so. Is it really so far-fetched to wonder if the US Embassy there likewise intervened on Oswald’s behalf? Carroll mis-attributes the “unique” status of Golub to Richard Helms, then disparages the notion of Golub’s uniqueness because Helms would later be convicted of perjury. Whomever points out to Carroll that these unrelated matters are confabulated by his own invention is then branded an apologist for Richard Helms. It doesn’t matter what the Warren Commission or HSCA determined, because Carroll asserts “the incompetence of the Warren Commission and the HSCA is recognized by nearly everyone who has seriously studied this case.” Presumably there’s no point in reading their two score of volumes. Carroll says “These august bodies, if they were interested in the truth, could have simply asked the Soviet government.” Carroll seems unaware that they did ask, that they did receive pertinent documents, and Carroll seems to assert the Soviets are more credible than all who have studied this issue on behalf of the US government. It doesn’t matter what the State Department discovered about visa wait times from Helsinki travel agencies, because, according to Carroll, “I am not aware that any Helsinki travel agent was actually called to testify under oath, and I don't know who conducted that phase of the investigation, or how sloppy or corrupt it may have been.” These are the tip of the iceberg of things that Carroll doesn’t know. So, CIA, State Department, WC and HSCA personnel, and researchers are all idiots, sloppy, corrupt and/or liars, or apologists for Richard Helms, when they claim that Oswald receiving a visa within a day or two was “controversial,” “unusual,” or “might have been significant.” We know this because Ray Carroll - who has yet to identify a single US citizen in 1959 who received visa treatment similar to Oswald’s in a Soviet consulate other than Helsinki - says it is so, and might involve including mailing times. To posit otherwise is “grandiose.” What a farce.

It is remarkable to me that I am now accused of carrying water for Richard Helms, when I have a decades long history of placing him toward the top of my assassination suspect list (and much more besides). It is fascinating that I could be depicted as a CIA proxy when I have a decades long history of positing that the Kennedy assassination (and much more besides) was facilitated by parties within the Agency. It is a measure of Carroll’s desperation, one presumes. As for Helms lying about the length of time needed to obtain a visa from Golub, there is an entirely plausible rationale, provided one is prepared to think about the circumstances. Anyone who has read the extant CIA documents on Golub knows CIA had paid very close attention to him, either because they wished to recruit him, or had already done so. Pro forma. In either instance, what on earth would possess Helms to state to the WC that CIA knew Golub was a “friendly” who could grant immediate visas? This could only make it seem that Oswald had been specifically directed toward Golub - which I contend is the case, since it had already been done before - and undercut the otherwise false notion being promulgated by CIA that the Soviets had so intense an interest in Oswald they gave him his visa within a single day. Carroll nevertheless expects Helms to make so self-defeating an admission? Astonishing. Moreover, the Agency didn’t simply “discover” in 1959 that Golub had personal latitude in such matters, per the notorious luncheon. They knew this two years earlier and seem to have exploited it even then. To wit: On another thread, Ray Carroll has posted a one-line snippet from the Guardian asserting that the Soviet consul in London cheerily granted visas on a same-day basis in 1959. How odd that the parsimonious Oswald would not apply for his visa in London, since he was already there, but forgo that chance for the apparently unnecessary expense of a trip to Helsinki. Without wishing to impugn the Guardian specifically, one mustn’t believe everything one reads in the papers. I have cited the Swedish newspaper that insisted Oswald got his visa in Stockholm, rather than Helsinki. Is that true? If not, whose purpose was served by disseminating that falsehood? I have also read in the New York Times that Oswald alone murdered the President. Is that true? If not, whose purpose was served by disseminating that falsehood? I have read in the old Toronto Telegram that the Guardian was a commie newspaper. Is that true? If so, it could explain why it provided such cheery coverage to the USSR. If the Guardian’s contention is correct, it shouldn’t prove too difficult for Carroll to cite an actual instance of the Soviet consul in London providing such same day service in 1959 . That could constitute actual proof, not merely an unverifiable assertion. Carroll should be held to the same evidentiary standard he demands of others. As for Carroll’s latter comments about Michael Hogan, such twaddle again bespeaks desperation and is beneath even Carroll.

I have only one question, and it is still the same question I posed to Bill Simpich that prompted greg parker to open up this new thread: What is/are your source(s) for this grandiose claim that Helsinki was unique among Soviet embassies? One notes that Carroll declines to dispute any of the observations made by me about his modus operandi in my prior post, thereby stipulating them to be accurate. He offers nothing of value in this thread, yet clings tenaciously to his self-invented illusion that all Soviet consuls had the same breadth of discretion exercised by consul Golub in Helsinki. Such lazy armchair critics are a dime-a-dozen and don’t move us an inch further toward resolution of such questions. Carroll could, of course, demonstrate his point by supplying us with indications where other US citizens were granted a visa from other Soviet consuls in other cities within a single day, yet refrains from doing so, despite having wagered $50 on the outcome. Even the analysis of Oswald's contemporaneous "defectors" might provide him with such data. Yet, where we should have evidence, we have sneers and then a telling silence. He could, of course, provide CIA and/or State Department paperwork from that period, illustrating - as do the Golub docs - that other Soviet consuls were likewise discovered to speed up visa application approvals when they wished to do so. Yet no such evidence is forthcoming. Only sneers and a telling silence. What’s more, neither the State nor CIA inquiries into this matter wished to leave the impression that Oswald’s trip to the USSR had somehow been facilitated by US intelligence interests, for that would have raised the specter that Oswald was a US spy. Rest assured: had other US citizens been granted one-day approvals for visa applications in other cities by other Soviet consuls, State and CIA had every good reason to brandish same far and wide, if only to demonstrate that Oswald had in no way received special treatment. And yet the only similar instance presented, to my knowledge, was Golub’s prior solicitude toward US citizens who had been expressly and directly sent to Golub by the US officials in Helsinki. When the Warren Commission cited that instance [Report, page 258], it did so without disclosing that US officials had directed the applicants toward Golub. Are we to take from this that since Oswald received similarly speedy approval that he, too, was directed toward Golub by US officials? Yet when the patina of preferential treatment toward Oswald remained because of the inexplicable speed with which his application was approved, it was skewed by US officials in polar opposite terms. CIA hadn’t told Oswald to use Helsinki because of its already-demonstrated ease of entry; the Soviets had expedited his application because they were interested in him. Which is why they thereafter watched him from a distance and refused all his advances. Given these two opposing propositions, which seems the more likely? It would have been helpful had CIA and State decided to conduct a comprehensive analysis of standard wait times for US citizens seeking Soviet visas throughout Europe. But, then, that wasn’t really their interest, was it? They concerned themselves with Helsinki, because that’s where the overly-solicitous treatment was afforded to Oswald. However, as I pointed out in the ancient article I wrote and posted above, there was near instant reason to suspect that Stockholm may have played a role in this intrigue. Whether it was true was less important than that it had been reported in the Swedish press, thereby requiring a yea-or-nay conclusion as to its validity. Consequently, when CIA and State set about plumbing the issue, they inquired about wait times in both cities. To wit: "The Warren Commission asked the State Department to estimate the "average time required to obtain a Soviet tourist visa from Helsinki in 1959." The Department of State had an Embassy contact seek information on Soviet visa application time from three Helsinki travel agencies. These agencies reported that, uniformly for five years from 1959 through 196, "usual time required for receipt of Soviet visa applied for by Americans has been seven to fourteen days." [FBI 105-82555] The CIA conducted numerous studies of this, finally prepaing a memo, "Lengh of Time Required To Obtain Tourist Visas in Helsinki and Stockholm, 1964." This document conceded it normally took from five to seven days, at best, to obtain a visa at any time in 1964. [WR p258.]" Consequently, the standard wait time remained the same whether in 1959 Helsinki, or 1964 Helsinki or Stockholm: 5-7 days “at best.” Does that make it sound as though the Stockholm Soviet consul in 1964 had the same latitude for granting visas that Golub did in 1959 Helsinki? If so, where’s Carroll’s proof? My prior post already demonstrated that Oswald’s request for a visa was granted within a single day, because Golub was the only such consul granted that discretion. My challenge to Ray Carroll should be quite simple for him given the faux bravado of his stated certainty: provide a single instance of any US citizen being granted a visa within a day by any other Soviet consul in any other European city in 1959.

Greg: Debating Carroll's a waste of time. Thus far in this thread, we have him: **making the baseless assertion about Helms having either invented or been the sole source of info regarding the quickie visa application (not true), primarily because Helms was convicted of perjury a dozen years later. It is easier to impugn the man than refute his message, and even THAT Carroll got wrong; **asserting that a brand new cultural detente was taking place and any US citizen wishing to do so could all but board the next Aeroflot from NYC to Moscow (not true); **claiming that he's "got fifty bucks that says Soviet Consuls in other cities got the same directive from Moscow central." But not the proof needed to win the wager. Too much effort apparently; **asserting that "Lee Oswald set out for Moscow shortly after Kruschev's visit to the United States, and I suggest it was Kruschev's open invitation to American tourists that emboldened him." No doubt a prior Khrushchev speech is what inspired Oswald to learn to speak Russian, to apply for a Marine Corps discharge a month before Nikita's US visit, to apply for a US passport by claiming his intent to visit the USSR, all more than ten days before Khrushchev's first state-side speech; **groundlessly spitballs conjecture such as "Khrushchev made it official policy to encourage tourism into the USSR, so in that context it is not surprising that embassies (including Helsinki) had power to issue short-stay tourist visas with a minimum of red tape." Yet fails to provide any documentary evidence for any of it; **doubles down on such baseless hypotheses by stating as near fact: "You make the extraordinary claim that Helsinki was the ONLY consulate where a quickie visa could be had. But in view of the new Soviet policy on tourism, that claim is not even plausible." Without, again, troubling himself to provide us with a single iota of fact, merely assertions, suppositions and fantasy; **upends logic and exposes his own spectacular inabilities to read and comprehend with this bon mot: "I took a look at Mr. Charles - Dunne's post. I did not reply, because it is common knowledge -- thanks to the British reporter who researched the issue, that there were several indirect flights from London to Helsinki that would have gotten Lee Oswald there on schedule." Carroll makes it seem that Mills' piece rebuts mine, yet a grade school child can see this isn't so. Anyone better able to grasp the English language will find that my piece contains everything material addressed by Chris Mills, but moreso, contains much else besides that Mr. Mills didn't see fit to include. **leaves unremarked upon Mr. Mills' own closing comments, which everyone here should read - for it is the real enduring puzzle - even if Carroll cannot bother himself to do so; **resorts to foolishness like: "I cannot tell you exactly when the new Soviet policy on tourism was FIRST announced. No doubt it was decided well in advance of Kruschev's trip." And no doubt telepathically beamed to Comrade Oswald so he would know how to cross the frontier within a day. Yes, A DAY. While Carroll's been busy pretending that all manner of US travelers could avail themselves of near-instant visas wherever they chose to apply, he seems not to have noticed that Oswald's was granted within a day of applying. No doubt Carroll will have no trouble providing a few dozen such examples of one-day waits in locales other than Helsinki, since he's got a hot fifty dollars riding on his ability to do so. http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald/journey.htm As for Carroll's intended insult toward me - "Charles-Dunne makes assertions. Since his assertions are not supported by evidence, they cannot be called "facts." - I have nothing to fear from forum members reading his output and mine and reaching their own conclusions. To wit, the original piece I wrote that originates somewhere between 15 and 25 years ago, to which Greg Parker originally alluded: According to passport stamps, Oswald departed from England on October 10 and arrived the same day in Helsinki. Records clearly show there were no direct commercial airline flights between London and Helsinki, other than a single FinnAir flight. The Commission learned that the FinnAir flight on that date arrived in Helsinki at 11:35 PM local time. Since Oswald checked into the tony Hotel Torni before midnight, it was untenable - to even the Commission - that he had checked through customs and made it to the hotel in less than a half hour. But if that was the only direct commercial flight available and he couldn't have flown aboard it, how did Oswald get to Helsinki so quickly? Many researchers have suggested a covert military flight, though even that is an unnecessary [and needlessly suspect] contrivance. On November 25, 1963, the Stockholm newspaper Squib Dagans Nyheter reported Oswald passed through Sweden in October 1959. The article postulated Oswald had spent several days in Helsinki without being granted a Soviet travel visa, so he came to the Soviet Embassy in Stockholm, where his visa was granted. Though the report did not identify its source, the wording employed led some to believe it originated with Swedish authorities, who would be in a position to know such a thing. As for how this detail was known by November 24 [in order to be published in the following day's paper], is a mystery to which we shall return shortly. The Commission attempted to resolve these contradictions, but with little success. The Soviets were asked to supply all of Oswald's travel documentation, which they did. The signatures of eight persons on these various documents were all illegible, making it impossible for the Commission to declare with certainty who had granted Oswald his travel visa. It was felt the indecipherable signatures were a deliberate ploy by the Soviets, so that any US intelligence agency sponsoring Oswald would not have been able to trace back the personnel involved in the process. The Commission may have been stymied, but by deductive reasoning, we can draw some strong conclusions. There is no stamp in Oswald's passport for a trip to Sweden, which should have been present had he obtained his Soviet visa from the Soviet Embassy there, as alleged by the Stockholm newspaper article. It has been suggested that because both countries were members of a common customs bloc, Oswald could have traveled from Helsinki to Stockholm and back without his passport being stamped. This is false. Such flexibility would have pertained had Oswald been a citizen of either country. As a US citizen, Oswald would have been subjected to the same customs scrutiny as other foreigners. Additionally, there was no reason for Oswald to resort to a Stockholm solution, because there was no Helsinki problem. On the contrary, Oswald's visa was granted to him in record time. The Commission asked the US State Department to determine the length of delays typically encountered by US citizens visiting the USSR. In turn, State asked the same question of three travel agencies in Helsinki who dealt with such matters daily. The consensus was: uniformly, for the period of 1959 to 1964, US citizens would face a minimum 7 to 14 day waiting period. Lee Harvey Oswald, however, knew that he would receive his in far less time. Arriving at his hotel before midnight on Saturday, October 10, he applied for his visa on Monday, October 12. The visa was granted two days later on Wednesday, October 14, and Oswald departed for Moscow the same day. Oswald knew he would not face a two week wait for his visa. In 1978 a Finnish government document came to light. It was a "For Facilitating Passport Examination" form filled out by Oswald before or upon his arrival in Helsinki. One question asked of all respondents was how long they would be staying. Oswald incorrectly advised that he arrived October 11, and predicted he would depart on Thursday, October 15. That would allow only three days between his first opportunity to apply for his visa [October 12] and his planned departure from Helsinki. Oswald either knew nothing about the traditional waiting period and simply assumed his application would be expedited, or he knew that he would receive preferential treatment at the Helsinki Embassy. Unknown to the average US citizen, but well known to the US State Department and CIA, was an obscure detail about the way in which the Soviet bureaucracy worked. Soviet Embassy personnel in European capitals were not authorized to rubberstamp Soviet travel visa applications. Protocol required such applications to be forwarded to Moscow, where approval was either granted or denied, and then returned to the Embassy where the request originated. In Europe there was a single exception to this hard and fast rule. The Kremlin granted the Soviet consul in Finland discretion to unilaterally authorize travel to the USSR. Consequently, while the average traveler might have waited one to two weeks for a visa in Helsinki, this was the single European capital wherein the consul's personal prerogative allowed him to expedite the process, witness Oswald's case. What's more, the US State Department and CIA were well aware of this fact. During a prior luncheon, Soviet Consul Gregory Golub had announced that "as long as he [Golub] was convinced the American was "alright," [Golub] could give him a visa in a matter of minutes." The US government also knew this was no idle boast from a vodka-soaked bureaucrat. As a State Department dispatch from the US Embassy in Helsinki noted, "Since [september 4, 1959] Golub has only phoned once and this was on a business matter. Two Americans were in the Soviet Consulate at the time and were applying for Soviet visas through Golub. They had previously been in the American consulate inquiring about the possibility of obtaining a Soviet visa in 1 or 2 days. [We] advised them to go directly to Golub...which they did. Golub phoned [us] to state that he would give them their visas as soon as they made Intourist reservations. When they did this, Golub immediately gave them their visas..." The date of that dispatch was October 9, 1959, the day before Oswald's arrival. Was the State Department's interest solely in testing Golub's willingness to grant such travel visas, or in exploiting that it knew he would? Golub's unique ability to expedite foreign visa applications raises several interesting points. The State cable cited above clearly indicates that when two travelers wanted speedy approval for their applications, it was the US government which steered them toward Golub, indicating the US government knew of his ability to expedite such requests. Moreover, in that instance, Golub didn't advise the applicants directly, but contacted the US Embassy to advise the applications were approved. Golub's only precondition was that Intourist reservations be made first, so that the travelers could be met upon arrival in the USSR, which was a requirement for all foreigners. One assumes that this was also known by PFC Lee Harvey Oswald. Of all the possible entry points that he might have chosen to cross the frontier, Oswald selected Helsinki. What led him to this, the least problematic of entry points, if not the foreknowledge possessed by the US government? We know that Oswald must have also made the required Intourist reservations, because he was met upon arrival in Moscow by an Intourist guide. How did Oswald, so unaware of travel protocols according to travel agent Louis Hopkins, become so incredibly astute on the same subject in so short a time span? Yet, if Oswald received the tip to seek out Golub from the US Embassy in Helsinki, as had the two previous US citizens, why is there no State Department dispatch on the subject as there was for the two prior travelers directed to Golub? Why did the sidebar trip to Sweden receive consideration as an alternative explanation for Oswald's mode of travel, if the US provided this information to Oswald in Helsinki? While in Helsinki, Oswald stayed at a most expensive and exclusive hotel. The frugality ascribed to Oswald by the Warren Commission, a trait necessary for him to save up the money required to travel to the USSR, was apparently no longer in evidence. Recall also that Oswald could have obtained cheaper means of travel had he chosen more direct routes, instead of zigzagging to France, England and Finland. In July of 1964, CIA determined that there was a means by which Oswald might have been able to travel so quickly from London to Helsinki. An October 9 flight had left London at 7:05 PM local time, which arrived in Stockholm at 1:30 AM local time. A connecting flight, SK 734, then left Stockholm at 3:15 PM local time, arriving in Helsinki on October 10 at 5:35 PM. Such a flight might explain Oswald's means of travel, but left open three questions: Why did his passport contain an October 10th UK exit stamp if he flew out of London the previous day? What might Oswald have done for half a day in Stockholm? And why didn't he register in the hotel for more than six hours after his arrival in Helsinki. Despite self-evident signs to the contrary, the Commission declared Oswald left London a day earlier than his passport stamp indicated. Also, given the timelines, what exactly was CIA's report attempting to resolve? Was CIA attempting to explain the speed with which Oswald arrived in Helsinki? Or was CIA explaining the reports that Oswald had been in Stockholm? Or both? Had Oswald taken such an indirect route, it would not only offer a reason for the Stockholm sighting of Oswald, but a plausible rationale for his presence there without a Swedish stamp in his passport. Had he been in transit, awaiting a connecting flight, he would only have passed through passport control if he wished to leave the terminal. If he spent 14 hours in the terminal waiting for his connecting flight, there would be no such stamp. Yet sitting in the terminal for 14 hours was not what the Squib Dagans Nyheter reported; it stipulated he received his Soviet visa in Stockholm, which he could not have accomplished without leaving the terminal. Whatever the CIA's and Commission's purpose, the Stockholm option was problematic. If the October 9 flight to Stockholm departed from London at 7:05 PM, it left before Oswald even arrived in Southampton, let alone London. To posit that Oswald was aboard this flight required that he used some means other than the Liberte to reach Southampton from Le Havre, France. While possible, there is no record that this occurred, and would make inexplicable the presence in Oswald's passport of a UK entry stamp for October 9 at Southampton. Moreover, if Oswald left aboard the 7:05 PM flight from London on October 9, why did his passport carry a UK exit stamp dated October 10? Again, Oswald's route indicates that time was of the essence. Had he simply waited an extra day, he could have taken a direct flight from London to Helsinki. Instead he must have taken an indirect flight either to Stockholm on the previous night [which the Commission considered] or an October 10 flight to Stockholm or Copenhagen [which the Commission did not consider], the connecting jumps from which would have placed Oswald in Helsinki between 5 and 5:35 PM local time. Either possibility, however, again raised the question of where Oswald might have bided his time for six hours before registering at the Helsinki hotel. The possibility that Oswald was met in Helsinki by another party, with whom he then spent many hours, never received the Commission's attention. Nor did the fact that Oswald seemed to be in an unnecessary hurry to get to Helsinki by any means possible. Was there a reason Oswald felt compelled to arrive late on a Saturday night if his first chance to apply for a visa would not occur until the following Monday? Instead of taking a connecting flight to Stockholm or Copenhagen at a greater cost, Oswald could have spent an extra day in London and then flown to Helsinki directly for less money. At this juncture, it is apparent that saving money was not the object, whereas saving time was. But for what purpose? Whatever his means of travel, Oswald seemed determined to reach Helsinki well before he could even commence the next leg of his journey. This in itself suggests he may have wished to leave himself the time necessary to consult with another party prior to filing his visa application with the Soviets in Helsinki. Perhaps he required instructions on how to achieve his visa without unnecessary delays. Or perhaps CIA had already recruited Helsinki's Soviet consul Gregory Golub, who would then expedite the visa applications of travellers who volunteered a particular code word. Hence, Oswald may have arrived in Helsinki early specifically to be advised of that code word. There are any number of possibilities, none of them easy to credit. As for the Stockholm newspaper report of Oswald's presence there, it too may help resolve a small mystery. Within two days of the assassination, Swedish authorities had located four year old immigration files to determine Oswald's presence in their capital. Why? There was, and is, no known documentation for Oswald's presence there in October 1959. There is no plausible reason that FBI or CIA or the State Department would have requested such information from the Swedes immediately following the assassination, so why did the Swedes feel the sudden need to scour through years worth of immigration paperwork to procure their four year old Oswald documents?