Jean Ceulemans

Did some enhancing myself, there is indeed "something" going on there, but it's hard to draw a conclusion. Shadow tones are consistent imo

In the first enhacement of Powell, is the figure raising his left arm? Almost touching his chin with his left hand.

Whatever informaton came from Mexico, it needed to be tripple checked. Like the mystery man capture, first reported to be 10/1 later turned out to be captured on 10/2 when Oswald was on his way home. Even without a cover-up, a possible mole, talks of a shady money deal, pouches with transcripts or tapes, parties, an elderly woman with bad eyesight handling the observation camera,... it sure was a messy bit.. Deliberate? Cfr other topic, even Hoover was getting seriously confused and worried, it wouldn´t take much to spin out of control.

I think the open section in the window https://youtu.be/CpFPJ-hjVZ8?si=Y8u2S2MHC4qY6PhR Above is just an example from youtube (I have nothing to do with comments on/in it) However... could be the upper part? Not sure

I once read a French book and a number of reports on it. Strange was the 2nd poisening a few days later. They did find issues with the bread that was polluted with something. A lot of it was destroyed. In the end there were 6 or 7 options that may have been the cause, it was never concluded wat it could have been. Samples never really matched a cause that could make it to court. 2 bakeries closed shop and never sold bread again... Some say mass hysteria also had a role in it I´d be very interested in the doc's Albqrelli used to make his point.

441 is street dress again

437 to me really reads street DRESS(ing), referring to a non-uniformd person (more often one would say plain-clothes officers...)

I think it leads to a man in plain clothing, it is confusing, would come from street dress(ing).

Thank you for your time and effort, and for sharing this!

Couldn´t the impersonation just have been part of it, to provide deniability when needed? Easy, fairly simple, and effective till this very day... Sometimes, it doesn´t have to be complicated.

From bill's chapter : .... this man was LITAMIL-3, a diplomat of more than 30 years in Mexico. Although I am not 100% certain on this observation, my research indicates that LITAMIL-3 may have been cultural attaché Osmin Fernandez Concepcion, who also served as the mayor of the city of Marianao. When in Cuba, Fernandez lived in the same home as Castro’s executive secretary Conchita Fernandez, who apparently was his sister-in-law.[ 67 ] There are two photographs of Osmin Fernandez in the Cuban mugbooks – he does not appear to be in his fifties, but the photos are small and may not have been totally current.[ 68 ] LITAMIL-3 had been “anxious to ‘get out’ for considerable time but…‘stayed in place’ at station request” back in April 1961 during the Bay of Pigs.[ 69 ] Osmin’s 201-334092 file number is just digits away from Azcue’s 201-334089. ‐----------------- I don´t know if Bill has an update on the above

The New Orleans FBI report made it pretty clear the FBI knew LHO was using a fake name, PO box, etc. False info as you say. Would it be possible for the FBI to use that knowledge to get LHO to do things in MC? Unless LHO was already doing things for the FBI before that, that would actually explain some of his actions on behalf of the FPCC before his arrest. But other than "being made to", I just don't get why LHO would do things for the FBI (in the joint operation against the FPCC). On the other hand, it could also explain why he was so agitated when Hosty was still bugging him (and/or Marina, did he use her to avoid exposting the real reason?)... So many questions still out there....

Bill, Tilton's request is indeed an important key to understand the relation between FBI and CIA in these matters. I first read it thanks to you referring to it in State Secret : MEMORANDUM:FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE (maryferrell.org) And as you state, what happened on Sept. 16 is likely no coincidence. I don't think either they knew about a mole-hunt. But wouldn't taking the flash down be a risk just too big to take? It could seriously backfire, so something very serious was going on. IMO it must have been something pretty heavy. Otherwise I would have preferred to keep the alarm active, if he was being used at least they would be notified when het got in trouble. Would the alarm really endanger the joint operation against the FPCC? I'd rather consider the alarm to be usefull in such a case. Who would be notified? The same guys running the operation? Or any FBI agent requesting a name check? I need to learn more about the FBI warning system, as so far we have conflicting statements (Branigan versus Gheesling and Anderson).

I will make it easy for myself by referring to Bill Simpich's State Secret Chapter5 (maryferrell.org) Subtitle : "Right before the 10/10 memos were created, the alarm that Oswald was a security risk was turned off". Especially Bill Branigan versus his subordinates Gheesling and Anderson only raises more questions. Would the FBI do such a thing upon the request (or tip) of the CIA ? Because LHO's file is to be used in a mole-hunt? Don't think so, in a mole-hunt that simply wouldn't be very wise (informing some FBI guys about it... nope) So it seems unlikely to me, there was a lot going on with LHO, the FBI knew he was arrested, he used a fake name, fake mailbox, you name it... LHO did beat the flash-system by asking for the FBI himself... (good boy that Lee). But removing the flash? Where was Hoover on this???

Will do

I don't think Bill was referring to the "big mole-hunt", or Project Oswald if you like. Now, one doesn't exclude the other IMO CI did start "moving" when Oswald was being impersonated in MC. Looking for who was responsible for that, can also be called a mole-hunt. O well, there are so many interesting bits. Not to side-track, but what are your ideas on the removal of the FBI flash (or how it worked while it was "up" - or should I say how it didn't work....). That removal/cancellation (dd 10/9/1963 I believe) has been bugging me for some time now... Perhaps I should start a different topic on it, focussing on the FBI-CIA interactions.

I get that, it was indeed effective to get them all in the same messy tub. I just didn´t see a mole hunt in it.

Personally, I don't see how they would catch a mole in sending this disinformation to various departments. To - at least - locate a spy you need to send different sets of information to different departments, each set a little different from the other, even sending it out on different dates. To catch a high-level/HQ mole you could only make it seem like the information was distributed, but in fact didn't. You need a very limited amount of people knowing about it anyhow. So actually sending out identical disinformation to various departments ? Just don't see it working. And with different disinformation a high-level mole would see they are out on a fishing expedition... The pretended distribution system however, could work, under very strict conditions that is. From how-to-catch-a-mole basics : "Construct k𝑘 different fabricated pieces of information which are clearly distinct, all plausible and closely related to a true sensitive piece of information. Your own people must buy these stories, so make them believable."

Hehe.. noticed you are using filebin. No problem, just that filebin has been the subject of some controversy (some bad guys using it to distribute malware). It will not cause a problem here, but some browsers will block access (Microsoft doesn't like it...) when people right-click "open in new window" or tab or something like that (direct access). The way you are using it, it works fine.

Yep, it works

In Google Pictures you have to go to "Share", next "Create a link" and copy that link in the forum mesage. I think you copied the direct URL link to the photo's in your file in your Google account, you can see them that way, we can't as we don't have access to your files. So, Share, Create a link, copy, paste. Should work

I think it has to do with the Google Pictures/Photo's set-up, they have shifted to "sharing with people that also have a Google account", and things like that (...) The "old" way-to-go should still work, but you might want to check the sharing-options just to be sure. Over the last few years Google has changed a lot... leaving a lot of frustrated users (that have a website there, folders, photo's, etc...)

This works also

This works

Depends to what degree you want there to be a consensus. "Rogue elements within government agencies" could go a long way (versus "LHO did it" by himself)