Anthony Mugan

There's an impressive body of evidence concerning the quite extensive counter-intelligence operation in Mexico City in the days and weeks immediately after Oswald's visit, starting straight after the interception of the impersonation of Oswald on the telephone call on the 1st October, intercepted by the LIENVOY project. There has been some phenomenal work done on all this by a whole range of people and I am deeply indebted to the team that has put together the remarkable range of resources, such as the CIA Cryptonyms pages and the repository of documentation on the Mary Ferrell website. In the attached paper I argue that the nature of the CI response excludes anyone connected with the wiretap operations and also excludes any reference to Cuba and Cuban operations. The reaction was very focused on Soviet operations and appears to include agents involved in an operation targeting a GRU officer, Valentin Bakulin, as a possible defection target, as well as agents involved in physical surveillance or who might have plausibly physically encountered Oswald. In the paper I suggest that, rather than the molehunt in Mexico City being based on a concern that LIENVOY was compromised, it was based on a concern that the operation targeting Bakulin had been compromised, with the blatant impersonation of Oswald telling the CIA (particularly Bill Bright who had been long aware of Oswald and was involved in the Bakulin operation) that something had gone wrong. As always, any facts that would create a counter arguments, or any errors of fact or interpretation you may be able to point out (or for that matter other information that may add to the case) would be greatly appreciated. The Mexico City Molehunt_Was Oswald part of an operation targeting Bakulin.docx

Thanks for the various helpful replies and interesting photo montages. I would argue that the Cuban visa application photo could not have been taken in August or September 1963 and must have been taken significantly earlier than June 1963. The reasons for that are that: a) It is a reasonably clear photograph and in good focus and clearly shows that Oswald's hairline was not receding. b) Many photographs of LHO are not all that well focused. Some that are include his June 1963 passport photograph which very clearly shows that his hairline was receding at that time. The police 'mug shot' from New Orleans that August is also reasonably clear and you can see the same thing there too. The best fit would seem to be to after February 1962 to possibly as late as early 1963. There is a close match in hairstyle to the 1962 family photographs with Marina and June which another commentator has identified as from November 1962 (not checked that at this time, but must at least be around then from the age of the baby). As this is a passport type photograph I'd also be very interested in seeing his exit visa from the Soviet Union but that seems to one of quite a few interesting documents we don't have in the public domain. The point of this was to dig a little into the background behind the possibility that LHO was impersonated at the Cuban consulate on the 27th September, including the suggestion that this could have been by Leonov. I haven't formed a firm opinion on that basic idea. There would seem to be several difficulties with it including the possibility that Soviet and Cuban diplomats would recognise each other, LHO's later letter which discusses his conversation with Comrade 'Kostin', which at least suggests some involvement in the Mexico City activities and this photograph. If it was attached to the application at the time it's hard to see how the person there could have been Leonov. The basic idea does have a certain logic about it though, so I wanted to dig a little and see which way facts started to go... So...it's an old photo not taken in Mexico City, that much is clear. Unfortunately the possible date range doesn't preclude at the moment an origin of the photo in either the Soviet Union or the USA at some point in 1962 or very early 63. To support the Leonov idea it would need to be of Soviet origin and then added to the application form prior to it being given to the Warren Commission in 1964 (to avoid the Soviets getting dragged into it). At the moment that is neither confirmed not falsified unfortunately, hence the interest in the exit visa. It's a shame the image of him and Marina in the train window setting off from Russia isn't a little clearer on his hair but it doesn't look quite right. On balance the odds go for a photo taken later in 1962, but it remains an open question in my mind. Thanks all...

In terms of the possible time the Cuban visa application photograph was taken I’ve been trying to find information about Oswald’s exit visa from the USSR. So far, apart from various references to him having received one, I’ve not found a copy or image of it. Does anyone know if this has been released? Also, would it have been a Type 2 visa or was that just for Soviet citizens such as Marina? Thanks

Following on from a discussion over on Larry Hancock’s blog I became interested in the date of the photograph used in Oswald’s Cuban visa application, as this appears to have been an old photograph. The photograph of Oswald on his visa application for Cuba from September 1963 can be seen in Warren Commission Exhibit CE 2564 https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0422b.htm A copy of the photograph can also be seen, perhaps more clearly, at CE 2788: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0107a.htm. In this photograph Oswald is dressed smartly in a shirt and tie with a V-neck sweater. His hair is cut relatively short with no trace of a receding hairline. Given the debate concerning the possible impersonation of Oswald at the Cuban consulate, with the description of the visitor as being significantly older (35-37 years of age) and shorter than Oswald (around 5 foot 7 inches or less), as well as being blonde by both Consul Azcue and Silvia Duran, a question arises as to the origin of this photograph. It is clear from the absence of a receding hair line that the photograph was not taken in September 1963. Oswald’s June 1963 passport photograph shows a receding hair line and a very different hairstyle. https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0346b.htm The receding hairline can also be seen in several photographs from New Orleans in August 1963, including this police ‘mug-shot’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald#/media/File:Oswaldneworleans.jpg Looking at earlier pictures of Oswald we find that most earlier time periods are also inconsistent with Cuban visa application photo. He is clearly older in this photo than when he was in the Marines, during which time he tended to have a severe crew cut. His 1959 passport photograph (WC CE 946) is also not a good fit https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pdf/WH18_CE_946.pdf The ‘defector’ photograph from late 1959 is interesting, with a similar shirt and tie and sweater (under the jacket) but the hair style does not look quite right. http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald/moscow4.htm Many of the photographs of Oswald in Russia show him with longer hair, such as this one with Marina (circa 1961) http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald/pavel1.htm and this one with Marina’s uncle and aunt https://www.pinterest.com/pin/367887863290245841/ In an interesting group photo with friends in Russia, Oswald is wearing similar clothes to those in the Cuban visa application (the different levels of contrast in various photos makes identification difficult, see, for example, how the apparent hair colour varies considerably in some photographs). He also has relatively short hair in this photograph (taken in Minsk), although possibly slightly longer than in the visa application photograph. The exact date of this photograph is not known to this writer at this time. In February 1962 Oswald had a very different hairstyle, seen here shortly after the birth of his first daughter, June. Oswald appears to have quite short hair by the time the family left Russia in May 1962, but the clarity and angle of the photograph makes the length difficult to determine precisely, it could be consistent with the visa application photograph in terms of overall style In what would appear to be the closest match to the Cuban visa application photograph we see the Oswald family in what, from June’s appearance, would be in mid-1962 with a very close match of hairstyle for Oswald to his Cuban visa application photograph. https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=qD%2bxhDbp&id=F7611A0DBD1B1203780329F744977A9AD3C00301&thid=OIP.qD-xhDbp78w3JyoxZo9fWAAAAA&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fi.guim.co.uk%2fimg%2fmedia%2fa4311a053d387f25a7ce90dc53e9295232ee8869%2f0_88_2394_2991%2fmaster%2f2394.jpg%3fwidth%3d300%26quality%3d85%26auto%3dformat%26fit%3dmax%26s%3d3a45e29b4b062c7faf87170431707802&exph=375&expw=300&q=lee+oswald+marina+and+june+1962&simid=608005697367836071&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0 The famous ‘backyard’ photos of Oswald holding his rifle from the spring of 1963 are also possibly consistent with the hairstyle, but not clear enough for this writer to fully assess in terms of the hairline and seem too close in time to June 1963, when the receding hairline was very clear. In short, the visa application photograph appears to have been taken significantly earlier than June 1963 as there is no receding hairline. The similarity to the mid-1962 family photograph in terms of hairstyle and Oswald’s general appearance suggests a similar timeframe, and probably after February 1962 (see the image of Oswald and Marine with the new born June). The relatively smart clothing and the plain background, together with the passport sized image suggest a passport type photograph taken for some identification purpose (but he used his 1959 passport to return to the west in 1962). The wearing of a sweater suggests a time and place that was not particularly hot (such as Texas in mid-summer would be, for example). These factors and the possible similarity to the image of the Oswalds setting off on a train from Russia may be consistent with a photograph taken in Russia shortly before their departure but at this stage an image taken for an unkown purpose shortly after their arrival in the west cannot be ruled out at this time. Considering the possible time range of March 1962 to early 1963 for the visa application photograph, further work will consider what documentation Oswald may have needed to leave Russia and immediately after his return. Any thoughts or suggestions for other evidence that could further narrow this range of possible dates down would be very gratefully received.

Larry That is something I was also unaware of... I’ve been trying to think of where Harvey and Angleton overlapped operationally, as they may we’ll have had a few shared secrets, to say the least. The Philby case, Staff D operations (e.g. Mexico City) and possibly shared contacts in Italy spring to mind, and they must have worked together on all sorts of projects, as CI would have been involved in most things to some extent. I don’t think Harvey was involved in the Israeli A bomb business??? It’s not immediately obvious to me what would stand out as a shared secret above all the various projects they were involved in (without going down the obvious speculation from that point, but that would be premature). Can I ask how this bit about the shared secret was phrased...? (I really am going to have to get the book, but...)

The points I was trying to make earlier, perhaps not all that clearly were that, as far as I understand the current evidence: 1) Professor Newman has convincingly demonstrated that Veciana lied about the circumstances of his recruitment by the CIA. The reason for that lie is not yet clear to me although there are a wide range of possibilities it is premature to form firm conclusions on that. 2) Other researchers have long since demonstrated that Alpha 66 was not under CIA control by 1963 (e.g. Hancock’s ‘Someone Would have Talked and references therein.). They have also discussed that Alpha 66 did collaborate with CIA personnel on specific matters but also that they worked with Army Intelligence. 3) We will just have to wait for Professor Newman to develop his thesis to see exactly what the significance of the material he is working with is and how it fits into the wider picture. 4) It would be as near a certainty as anything in this area can be that, however the Veciana information develops, it will have to fit into a wider picture of a network of individuals centred on the most radical elements of the anti-Castro groups (many of whom were in Operation 40 and in one or more of the groups such as Alpha 66, the DRE etc.) together with individuals very closely associated with them. The current evidence developed by many researchers over many years strongly suggests this will include people from the CIA and the mob. If people more directly associated with the Army fit into that picture more convincingly that they do currently (yes, I’m aware of the DPD officers who were also reservists and various others bits around that side of things such as Prouty’s accusations about Lansdale etc.) then fine, but at the moment the purpose behind Veciana’s lie is unclear.

I would join Larry Hancock and others in urging a degree of caution here at the moment. One of the difficulties here is in differentiating between evidence of participation in the actual conspiracy itself and, other activity that was going on anyway (such as a lot of the FBI and Agency involvement that appears to have been going on with LHO - and perhaps army intelligence involvement with Alpha-66). It is probably a mistake to think of this in terms of 'the CIA' or 'the army' or 'the mob' rather than as a network of individuals that came together to do this, centered, at an operational level around a core group of anti-Castro Cuban exiles, many of whom seem to have been in Operation 40 or very closely associated with that, supported by individuals such as Morales, Robertson, Martino, Roselli etc who were also closely connected into operations out of Miami against Cuba. The very short connection path from Roselli (and Giancarna) to Ruby via the Chicago mob is highly persuasive of how that side of things came together. I just do not know where Professor Newman's work on Veciana and other matters will take us. As I can't work full time on this sort of thing, like most of us, I shall have to wait and see were the evidence takes us. At the moment we have a puzzle - why did Veciana lie about this? I could well be wrong, but it's not like anyone was seriously going after army personnel involvement in the JFK case in 1976 (or were they?)

Just one further thought. Oswald was on the second floor 90 seconds to 2 minutes after the shots. The west lift cane down from the fifth floor, with the movement commencing more than 1 minute but no more than about three minutes after the shooting. Some minutes later the west lift was reported by Vickie Adams as being on the 2nd floor....Nobody reports the west lift on the 1st floor.... Oswald had bought the Mannlicher Carcanno and probably brought it into the building. The plotters almost certainly had someone (or more than one) inside the TSBD (witting or unwitting) Why would the shooters get off at the second floor....? Was Oswald meeting them for some purpose??? Now that really is speculation!

Hello all Coincidentally I was considering a post on a very similar theme. I agree with with main points being made by Colleen McGuire, Pat Speer and some others. Whilst we can not be certain the exit route proposed via the passenger elevator (including lifting floor boards etc.) seems unnecessarily complex, time consuming to set up and would leave visible traces (loose floorboards). The west lift was on the fifth floor when Baker and Truly were on the 1st floor and not on the 5th floor by the time they got there. None of the employees reported riding it down and it had not responded to Truly’s attempts to bring the elevator down. In other words person or persons unknown got into the west elevator between 1 and approximately three minutes after the first shot based on the WC timings for the Baker-Truly run and how fast people seemed to be able to move between floors. Victoria Adams stated in her WC testimony that when she came back into the building the west elevator was on the 2nd floor, but that neither the passenger lift nor the west elevator was working. I’m not therefore averse to the idea that someone may have switched the internal power supply off and on again (and off again.....???) it may be simpler to consider that the door of the lift may have been left ajar of course, which would hold it on the fifth floor. So overall, the most likely exit route would seem to involve the stairs from the 6th to the 5th floor and then the west lift. Not clear if they took the lift all the way down or got off at the second floor and walked out from there (or someone else then moved the lift back to the second floor). Oswald’s presence on the 2nd floor just after the shooting and Adam’s statement about the west lift made me sit up a bit, but the timings don’t work re: Baker and Truly for it to be him moving it down. Overall I’m increasingly of the view that the decision to select the TSBD as one of the shooter locations requires the shooters to have been reasonably confident of entrance and exit routes and having suitable positions to shoot from, which would require collaboration (witting or unwitting) from inside. Discussion on that seems to focus on Truly and Shelley (possibly correctly) but for some reason misses the obvious point that Oswald was clearly involved in some way in this (he bought the rifle) and was on-site for over a month beforehand.

Hi Larry yes, that seems consistent with my impression of it. Not trying to prove anything about this but rather the opposite...looking for contra-indicators that would make the basic idea problematic.

Thanks all... very helpful Paul...please see the thread There Third Shooter’ from the 25th October where I discuss the implications of the absence of a shockwave on the acoustic signature of the shot at Z 204 David...Think that is a police shotgun?

Hello all. I've been attempting to locate a review of the extent to which the search of the TSBD on the afternoon the 22nd November 1963 was thorough or not, but not really getting a clear picture of it. On the one hand there are pictures of officers looking into various nooks and crannies and various individual accounts but against that a lot of officers seem to have left the area after news of the Tippit shooting came through. In particular I am interested in if there is a documentary record anywhere as to what was or wasn't searched and perhaps in particular if the larger wooden crates (as opposed to the smaller book boxes) that get referred to were opened up and searched. The reason for asking is that, after concluding from my previous post (The Third Shooter) that there were two shooters in the TSBD based on the absence of a shockwave on the shot at Z204, the question arises as to why only one weapon was recovered and where the second one went. Does anyone know anything about that side of things? Thanks

Larry An interesting thought...I’ll have look at the line of sight angles from different z frames time points around that. thanks

Hello There will be many different factors that influence bullet velocities. The key thing here is that for a given velocity there is then a corresponding internal angle to the shockwave (for a given speed of sound). That then determines the area of shadow. What was interesting is that for even very low velocities (for rifle ammunition) the absence of a shockwave rules out the buildings on Houston. It is the lower velocities / larger internal angles that define the limiting conditions as that gives the most scope for including as many locations as possible in a particular shockwave shadow. Thanks Anthony

Hello I was wondering if I could begin a thread to discuss some preliminary thoughts around the implications of the acoustic evidence for the possible location of a third shooter in Dealey Plaza? I did originally plan to write a paper on this but in practice I'd need to learn how to be a cartographer to get all the diagrams in to do it to the standard I'd like, which in reality just won't happen so, after mentioning this briefly elsewhere (on Larry Hancock’s blog, as a comment) I’m taking advice to present it here for scrutiny and for others to take it forward or falsify it. The Third Shooter: A Preliminary Discussion: Introduction: When reading Dr Donald Thomas' 'Hear no Evil'1 it struck me it might be possible to extract a little more information from the second of the five shots recorded on the acoustic evidence (in this discussion my starting point is the model of the physical events presented by Thomas - so that is itself a key set of assumptions). In Thomas' model shot 4 correlates to the fatal headshot at Z312-3. It is reasonable to assume three shots were fired from the 'sniper's nest' in the TSBD from the number of cartridge cases recovered at the scene and the strong statistical correlation in the HSCA test shots of a number of the shots to that test location. The time gaps between shots create a problem, however, in that shot 2 is 1.65 seconds after shot 1 and shot 3 follows on 1.1 seconds later. These intervals are too close together for all three to have come from the same bolt action rifle in an aimed manner. Rather illogically, the HSCA discounted shot 3 as a false positive and in the process introduced problems with their proposed timings in relation to the Zapruder film, as they were trying to fit the data to a conclusion that the fatal headshot came from behind. More logically, the data implies (together with the correlation to that location in the acoustic model) that the shots from the SE corner window of the 6th floor ( the ‘snipers nest) were shots 1, 3 and 5 with shot 3 impacting on JFK and the Governor around Z224. That leaves shot 2 which is too close in time to shots 1 and 3 to have come from the same bolt action rifle. That shot statistically correlated to the test location used in the TSBD (although this does not rule out an actual point of origin in the general vicinity) and, for reasons discussed below, the Grassy Knoll can be ruled out as the point of origin for that shot. In other words, there was a third shooter. What struck me is that the HSCA acoustic analysis2 notes that there is no shockwave recorded on this shot and that is consistent (assuming the modelling of the location of Officer McClain's bike is approximately correct) with a shot from the TSBD. That is correct even after adjusting the location of McClain's bike to the better correlation with the Zapruder film developed by Thomas1, who notes that the absence of a shockwave rules out a location for this shot on the Grassy Knoll, which is also correct. My suggestion is that we can go slightly further in drawing information about the possible locations for this third shooter from the absence of a shockwave. Background on the significance of the absence of a shockwave: Rifle bullets are typically supersonic. Their acoustic signature therefore contains two components. The muzzle blast extends out in all directions from the muzzle of the rifle at the speed of sound. A shockwave is generated by the bullet and forms an expanding cone, the apex of which is at the bullet and the sides of which expand out at the speed of sound. The inner angle of the shockwave cone is related to the velocity of the bullet with faster velocities having a smaller internal angle given by the formula θm = arcisne (1 / M) where θm is the inner angle and M is the Mach number and equal to V/c where V is the velocity of the bullet and c is the speed of sound. As the velocity of the bullet will vary over time the shape of the cone will in reality be somewhat curved. I am not having much success at embedding images into this but I have attached (I hope!) a Word version of this with relevant diagrams and a straightforward overview and relevant schematics can be found at Maher (2006)3 The shockwave expands out in a direction perpendicular to the shockwave. This creates a zone of shockwave shadow which expands out from the muzzle at the same angle as the inner angle. A good illustration of this point can be found in the HSCA discussion of the acoustic evidence2 To give an example, imagine a shot fired horizontally and straight out from a window (i.e. in a direction perpendicular to the wall). If the inner angle for the particular bullet is 30o there will be a zone that extends out from the muzzle at an angle of 30o in all directions. Locations within this shadow zone will not experience the shockwave but will hear the muzzle blast. Locations further away from the wall will experience both the shockwave and the muzzle blast. An important factor is the orientation of the shot. If the weapon is angled down at (say) 30o the shockwave will be felt at a point at the base of the wall directly below the window (in our example where the inner angle is also 30o). Similarly, the angle of orientation of the rifle horizontally will also influence the locations that lie in the shadow zone. Table 1 summarises some examples of inner angles for different bullet velocities using the speed of sound relevant for Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination (1123 feet per second). In practice lower bullet velocities (larger internal angles) lead to a larger shadow area which in turn allows for a greater range of possible locations. Table 1: Table of shockwave inner angles for a range of bullet velocities where c = 1123ft/sec. bullet velocity (ft/sec) M inner angle (degrees) 2000 1.7809 34.2 2100 1.8700 32.3 2200 1.9590 30.7 2300 2.0481 29.2 2400 2.1371 27.9 2500 2.2262 26.7 2600 2.3152 25.6 2700 2.4043 24.6 2800 2.4933 23.6 2900 2.5824 22.8 3000 2.6714 22.0 Application to the second shot at approximately Z204: This is the point in this discussion where I would really need cartographic skills to illustrate the point properly. I will however try to summarise the main points and ask readers to challenge or develop the analysis as appropriate. If you construct the relevant angles from any location in the building on the east side of Houston (DalTex, Dallas County Records, Court House) and apply a wide range of possible bullet velocities (lower velocities equate to a larger internal angle for the shockwave) I would suggest that the shot could not have come from any of those buildings. This result came as a surprise to this writer as, prior to undertaking this analysis I had thought the most likely location for the third shooter was in one of those building (and had personally been inclined to the DalTex). Any location in the TSBD would be consistent with the absence of a shockwave, however. Practical considerations come into play in that the shot is exceptionally unlikely to have come from an open area which suggests (but does not formally prove) that there may well have been an additional shooter in the TSBD. Some additional considerations include: Target visibility around Z204 suggests a location some distance away from the 'sniper's nest’ itself (the tree blocking the line of sight at this time). The roof doesn't seem to be a practical location (see the testimony around Roy Truly and Officer Baker heading up there and mentioning that the wall was sufficiently high to need to step up on cracks in the brickwork to look over the top). The Seventh floor doesn't seem to have had an open window at the critical moment. Lower floors tended to have more people on them. Preliminary conclusion: Overall, therefore, my provisional proposal is that the most likely scenario was an additional shooter located in the TSBD and probably further west on the 6th floor. There is some limited witness evidence consistent with this possibility (the man in the brown coat) but numerous problems - not least the absence of a second weapon recovered from the TSBD. I would be very grateful for any constructive challenge to this hypothesis or suggestions as to how to improve it further. I am also happy for anyone to take the basic idea and develop it up themselves if they have the relevant skills. References: Thomas, D. B., 2011, ‘Hear no Evil’, Mary Ferrell Foundation Press. House Select Committee on Assassinations Report, 1979, Volume VIII, ‘Analysis of Recorded Sounds Related to the Assassination of President John F Kennedy’, https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/pdf/HSCA_Vol8_AS_2_BBN.pdf Maher, R.C., 2006, Summary of gunshot acoustics, Montana State University. http://www.montana.edu/rmaher/publications/maher_aac_0406.pdf The third shooter note for education forum.docx