Jump to content
The Education Forum

Brendan Boucher

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Brendan Boucher's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)

  1. I have been reading your blog Larry, great stuff, glad to know more is coming! I listened to a podcast you and David were on as well. Suffice to say I cannot stop thinking about these connections. Gene Wheaton was a man in an incredibly unique position to obtain unguarded first hand knowledge of some of the most pivotal yet lesser know events in modern history. It's not difficult to understand why Carl Jenkins decided long ago this chapter of his life was closed and that any efforts to drudge up these matters would be met with hostility. From the 2005 Wheaton interview I believe he says he was somehow trying to broker immunity through Sen. Hugh Scott of Penn. I got the impression that this was during the mid 80's but Sen Scott's last year in office was 1977. Possibly he was still trying to use his clout in 85-86? Whatever it was he was clear that Jenkins in no uncertain terms said he would not be involved. Even the knowledge that Wheaton thought this might have been possible likely unsettled Mr Jenkins.
  2. Oh yes, I have been devouring any and all threads mentioning Wheaton or Jenkins since Mr Simkin posted last week. Thank you all for your efforts. Are there likely records concerning Jenkins that are still classified because he is alive?
  3. I am fascinated by Carl Elmer Jenkins and Gene Wheaton right now. The information relayed through his (Gene's) taped interviews is utterly priceless and makes SO MUCH sense when looking back at the Guatemala-Iraq period of US history. I realize the absolute specifics are few, and that stands to reason. He emphatically says at one point in his interview, 'It's not like somebody sat me down and explicitly laid out what happened in 1963', he was able to piece together what happened through decades of conversation both to and around him by covert operators at that time. Is there any reason to doubt Gene Wheaton? I also find it amazing that Carl Jenkins was able to avoid the "spotlight" for so long, even though it's only like the dim flickering of a lighter actually... The guy responsible for the recruitment of BOP participants, who ran Maritime operations against Cuba for years, and was training a rifle assassination team to eliminate Castro in 1963 was basically unknown to researchers until 2005? I suppose it was his ability to fall into what appears to be a fairly normal existence in the 1970's right until the present day that enabled this invisibility. I believe he is still alive and must still be protected by certain (most?) doc releases, correct? Although it seems clear Carl Jenkins was highly unlikely to discuss his life/career with anyone outside his immediate circle of family and friends, it's hard to understand the (apparent) inaction of Anne Buttimer of the ARRB when dealing with Gene Wheaton. The fact that she left the Board and is apparently unwilling/unable to discuss Mr Wheaton is a bit peculiar. It's impossible to believe that someone could forget such allegations during a face to face interview. Daniel Sheehan's book look's to cover a critical juncture in the live's of Wheaton and Jenkins. The copy online leaves out the page right after Elisabeth Jenkins, herself a high ranking CIA psychologist, gives her husband the OK to work with Wheaton and Sheehan in an effort to blow the lid off Iran-Contra (among other goals). I've ordered a copy and hope to learn a good deal more concerning this matter. Are there indications that Wheaton and Jenkins had a falling out after this jaw-dropping scandal was (sort-of) exposed? Possibly due to the way that Sheehan handled it? Any info on Jenkins or Wheaton would be gladly welcomed.
  4. Would we expect the Cultural Attache to have had any encounters with the individual identified as Oswald on 9/27? And on that same page above he reports that Duran confirmed the Visa visit. I was going through these reports last night and I just come away thinking, what was this all for? Obviously in the midst of the Cold War these people thought they were doing their part to take down the monstrous USSR and it's Communist brethren. But in the end the information gleaned from the extensive surveillance operations around the Globe, and Mexico City in particular, amounted to a hill of beans. It's truly hard to fathom the amount of time and energy that went into these colossal intelligence gathering efforts and in the highest profile investigation ever undertaken they are shown by the historical record to be little more than Keystone Cops. Whether that was actually the case or a gigantic ruse is a worthy debate and the MEXI Station should really face much more scrutiny on this front. Alberu does have some interesting observations of Azcue, Mirabal, and Duran in early November 63 though.
  5. I base my opinions on common sense in this matter and am not casting aspersions on anyone. Nobody was being granted travel to/through/or around Cuba when taking the course of action exhibited by the individual who frequented the Cuban and Russian embassies on 9/27/1963. I say "individual" because I can allow for a scenario where Oswald was impersonated from the get-go in Mexico. However, I'm not ready to go down the rabbit hole where the CIA has the chutzpah and the means to falsify foreign documents from a government who happens to be an avowed adversary, whose original copies they have no control over, and who would then "play along" again in 1978 (and to this present day) when they produced a different page/copy of the same document package.
  6. George, I don't follow your logic with regards to the existing documents. The WC received photos of Cuban documents. If they then altered these photographs and published them, wouldn't Castro/Cuba jump at the opportunity to embarrass the United States and their sham investigation. I'm truly baffled by the suggestion that it "really doesn't matter" to the Cuban Gov't whether their documents were forged or falsified as depicted in the Warren Report volumes. And the idea that Cuba actually did grant Oswald a Visa is ludicrous.
  7. Hi George, I've based my statement that he was denied on the document in Commission Exhibit 2564. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1141#relPageId=846&tab=page The next page is a translation explaining what he had been told several times in Mexico, "let us know when the USSR will have him for a visit and then he can swing through Cuba." The reason why I accept the Cuban documents is because I cannot seriously entertain the possibility that Castro wanted Kennedy dead. Therefore I don't see the documents as "covering their tracks" of any kind.
  8. I sincerely applaud your work on this matter. I'm not sure how anyone could read your series and conclude that Lee Oswald, or anybody at all, could have made the trip laid out in the Warren Report. You've literally put that one to bed. I do find PDS' work on Mexico City fascinating and much of it makes sense. Thank you for this debate, I think Mexico City is central to understanding the forces at play in this drama. It is disconcerting though that so many people have worked at this angle for so long and yet there are so precious few concrete facts available.
  9. Then why has Cuba been playing along with this charade since 1964? The Warren Commision exhibit is a photo of a photo sent from Havana. I find it inconceivable that this image could be altered and Castro would go along with it.
  10. It doesn't matter where the photos originated. For the purpose of establishing Oswald's presence in the Cuban Consulate on 9/27 they stand as the best evidence. David asks if I can imagine a scenario where the Oswald photographs are added to a blank application that unknown individuals have procured, filled out with the same kind of typewriter used in the Consulate, somehow signed by Consul Mirabal, sent to Havana, processed and stamped on 10/10, then finally denied on 10/15 by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I mean, I suppose it's not completely out of the realm of possibilities. Surely it is easier to believe than the US altering the documents and photos that were provided to the WC by Cuba. I'm not saying I'm certain Oswald was in Mexico, as I think out and out impersonation is nearly as likely. But to rule it out completely and invalidate the Visa Application as a historical document on account of minutiae from Duran's 1978 testimony is unwise in my opinion. Especially as she does not unequivocally say the LHO killed in Dallas was not in her office on multiple occasions.
  11. I fail to see how the location of where the photos were obtained is of any consequence. Minsk, NO, or Mexico, the crux of the matter is this. How would Oswald's photo be present on a document coming out of Havana, Cuba if it was not provided to their Mexican Consulate on September 27, 1963?
  12. In CE 2564 I think you can make out where a staple once was. And as these would have been from a photo strip, naturally there will be differences. Just to be clear though David, you believe the Visa application images in existence today are not what was completed on 9/27/63? That somehow Cuban files were manipulated?
  13. I just find it hard to envision a scenario where the Cuban Consulate in Mexico forwarded an application to Havana that did not contain a photograph. And if they actually did, then it's even more bizarre that the US would be able to doctor the documents (actually photos of documents) without any protestation from Cuba. We know that the application packet consisted of 6 pages/layers and that at least 3 variations of the application would be made in one sitting. This is obvious when you compare the images provided to the Warren Commission and then to the HSCA by the Cuban government. I don't have an issue with the absence of staples/staple holes in one of the photos either. Different photographs were used for different copies of the application. And I think you can actually see where a staple may have once been on CE 2564 anyway. I have no problem accepting that US Government documents were tampered with regularly, but I have serious doubts that pictures of Oswald were somehow added after the photographs of original Cuban documents were obtained. To me, this is THE main sticking point of the "Oswald never went to Mexico" version of events, because it is not inconceivable to me that he may have been transported surreptitiously without leaving a documented trace. If we allow for the idea that Oswald was never in Mexico, I would think that an impersonator using pictures of Oswald to apply is more likely than after the fact additions/alterations.
  14. As always, great documentation David. How do we explain the application filed by Sylvia Duran which was then sent and processed in Havana? Was it an Oswald impostor/lookalike in and out of the Consulate that day? I think we all agree that these interactions occurred between Duran and someone. I'm just having a great deal of trouble working out how an impersonation fits in here with the shenanigans that ensued in the days and weeks to follow in the MEXI Station. If we accept that someone other than the LHO killed in Dallas was in the Cuban Consulate filing paperwork I think this action must have been perpetrated from outside the framework of the main assassination plot.
  15. Jim, I'm not commenting directly on the OP here. I was going off something David Lifton said and I am merely speculating. To even entertain this line of thinking one must assume Oswald was in Mexico City at some point. I'm not trying to impugn anyone's work in this field, just trying to add something to the debate. On Azcue, I'm not implying any sort of Cuban connection, just that I find his testimony of little consequence.
  • Create New...