reply to ray carroll

[William Kelly]

John McVicker, Snyder's assistant, wrote a memo to Thomas Ehrlich in the State Department saying:

“I recall thinking at the time that Oswald was behaving with a great determination and purpose for such a young and relatively uneducated person. He was certainly very independent and fearless in a rather blind way and it seemed to me that he could have acquired all these ideas himself…On the other hand, there also seemed to me the possibility that he was following a pattern of behavior in which he had been tutored by persons or persons unknown….It seemed to me that there was a possibility that he had been in contact with others before or during his Marine Corps tour who had guided him and encouraged him in his actions.” (CE 941, 18H 155, 5 H 384, WCT Francis G. Knight). Vincent Bugliosi – Page 581 (Thanks Vince)

[John Simkin]

Malcolm Blunt has suggested that "Mr Carroll and Mr Parker may care to look at Peter Wronski's work on this subject....he has Oswald getting his visa a day earlier... based on Russian Government 1992 releases which Yeltsin gave to Bill Clinton on his visit to the U.S."

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Malcolm Blunt has suggested that "Mr Carroll and Mr Parker may care to look at Peter Wronski's work on this subject....he has Oswald getting his visa a day earlier... based on Russian Government 1992 releases which Yeltsin gave to Bill Clinton on his visit to the U.S."

Thank you John and thanks to Malcolm.

Wronsky writes:

Oswald purchased "Deluxe Class" travel arrangements. They would have been immediately available and would have instantly earned him expeditious treatment at the Consulate. The rapid issue of Oswald's visa is probably more indicative of the USSR's historic hunger for hard-currency earnings than any intelligence shadow-play.

http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald/journey.htm

[Greg Parker]

Malcolm Blunt has suggested that "Mr Carroll and Mr Parker may care to look at Peter Wronski's work on this subject....he has Oswald getting his visa a day earlier... based on Russian Government 1992 releases which Yeltsin gave to Bill Clinton on his visit to the U.S."

Thank you John and Malcolm.

Although Peter Wronski's site is a good resource, he misses the mark on this issue by completely ignoring the CIA (under consulate cover) attempts to woo Golub, culminating in his loosening the guidelines on the issuance of visas.

Here is a Soviet Tourist guide book published in 1959. It states that tourist visas take two weeks to a month to process.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

not just the CIA lying about it during two investigations, you have the State Department lying about it,

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

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

not just the CIA lying about it during two investigations, you have the State Department lying about it,

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.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

“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.

Hearsay, which is what we are dealing with in regard to the testimony of Mr. Chayes, (and also with the testimony of the Helsinki travel agents) must be approached with caution. We do not know (or at least Ido not know) exactly what question Mr. Chayes was asked, and we don't know exactly what answer he gave.

normally at least 1 week would elapse between the time of a tourist’s application

We don't know exactly what he said, and therefore we can only guess at exactly what he meant. My guess is as good as yours.

Is it really so far-fetched to wonder if the US Embassy there likewise intervened on Oswald’s behalf?

I wondered about the same thing myself when I first began studying this case, but that was a long time ago.

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.

One thing Warren critics have always said, the two score of volumes are what DISPROVE what the commission "determined".

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

Carroll says he would be deeply in your debt if you were to share the details with the forum.

and Carroll seems to assert the Soviets are more credible than all who have studied this issue on behalf of the US government.

Funnily enough, I had never consciously considered the question before, so thanks for asking. It is an interesting question.

The Soviet government has never been accused of openness, and it took a long time for all their material on Lee Oswald to be released to the west. But when they finally were released, all it did was confirm that the Soviets had been completely truthful all along.

It is hard for me answer with broad generalities, but If I had to choose between the word of the officer who investigated this matter on behalf of the KGB, and the man who investigated on behalf of the CIA, I'd say I'll take the Russian's word any day.

[Greg Parker]

not just the CIA lying about it during two investigations, you have the State Department lying about it,

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

Ray,

what you are referring to is an article from The Rotarian published in 1961. The language used in it somewhat ambiguous. What is says is that you can "have your papers by mail in less than a week". Therefore, when it says prior to that, you don't have to "appear in person" to get a visa, I think it is actually referring to obtaining the paperwork needed to be lodged. Intourist by the way, had deals with travel agents, so no, I do not accept most people HAD to apply by mail.

The real problem is that I have since posted a passage from a Soviet Tourist guide book from the relevant year (1959) which states unambiguously that it took 2 weeks to a month to obtain a visa.

One of the co authors of that guide was Dean B Mahin. The following was written in 2001:

Dean B. Mahin, who has an undergraduate major in history, a graduate degree in international affairs, and forty years of service in United States international agencies...

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=MpnNxGn2hyJ31GzxppTZwb1nSMmPkPnd8PRRBj223Zk5pcvTyCVF!-1371090394!1380883283?docId=5002411861

The other author,Richard M Scammon was a long-time political analyst before his death in 2001

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_18_37/ai_75646067

Now ask yourself, what is the best source for information about obtaining a visa to the soviet union in 1959:

1. an unknown reporter for the Guardian

2. A 1961 copy of the Rotarian

3. A 1959 Soviet tourist guide book written by two academics specializing in politics and international affairs

I'll go easy on you, Ray and accept the $50.00 as a pineapple (an oz $50:00).

Edited June 29, 2010 by Greg Parker

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Intourist by the way, had deals with travel agents, so no, I do not accept most people HAD to apply by mail.

So you think most people applied in person?

The real problem is that I have since posted a passage from a Soviet Tourist guide book from the relevant year (1959) which states unambiguously that it took 2 weeks to a month to obtain a visa.

Was this published in January 1959 or December 1959? There is reason to think that it was sometime DURING 1959 that overseas consulates began issuing visas without reference to Moscow.

A 1959 Soviet tourist guide book written by two academics specializing in politics and international affairs

Do you have the ability to check the 1960 edition of the same book, which is referenced by Google books, but not searchable online?

[John Dolva]

There were a number of other americans at this time that moved to the USSR. Perhaps a look / comparison could help answer this?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

what you are referring to is an article from The Rotarian published in 1961. The language used in it somewhat ambiguous. What is says is that you can "have your papers by mail in less than a week". Therefore, when it says prior to that, you don't have to "appear in person" to get a visa, I think it is actually referring to obtaining the paperwork needed to be lodged.

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.

Edited July 1, 2010 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

what you are referring to is an article from The Rotarian published in 1961. The language used in it somewhat ambiguous. What is says is that you can "have your papers by mail in less than a week". Therefore, when it says prior to that, you don't have to "appear in person" to get a visa, I think it is actually referring to obtaining the paperwork needed to be lodged.

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?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I just sent this email to Peter Wronsky.

Greetings Mr. Wronsky:

You were honorably mentioned in dispatches this week, in a debate on the Education Forum.

The question under discussion is:

In 1959, when Lee Oswald obtained his Soviet tourist visa, was Helsinki the only overseas Consulate where a visa could be had in such a short time?

In other words, was Helsinki the ONLY overseas consulate with power to issue visas on its own say-so and without submitting the paperwork to Moscow?

The supposed uniqueness of Helsinki is now being asserted on the Education Forum by Robert Charles-Dunne, Greg Parker & Bill Simpich in these two discussion threads:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16095

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16104

If you manage to skim through all that you will see that, according to the Guardian newspaper in 1959:

Ten years ago if you asked the Soviet Embassy in London for a tourist visa they would not even bother to answer your letter. To-day they will give you one the same afternoon, with an effusive smile and a shower of pamphlets. ...

http://books.google.com/books?ei=f3ojTJL4C8P38Abip6G_BQ&ct=result&id=NWcrAQAAIAAJ&dq=khrushchev+1959+tourist+visa&q=+tourist+visa#search_anchor

There is also this, from the Rotarian Magazine in 1961, which suggests that it was possible to obtain a visa by mail in "less than a week." that would clearly imply that overseas consulates had the power to issue tourist visas without the need to send the applications to MOSCOW.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=20460

Robert Charles-Dunne maintains that the Guardian newspaper is not a reliable source and that the Rotarian article means only that you could get the APPLICATION PAPERS in less than a week, while the visa itself could take God knows how long.

Had the Rotarian wished to refer to securing a “visa” within a week, [Charles-Dunne argues] rather than the application papers needed to obtain one, it would presumably have employed a word like, for instance, “visa.”

I maintain that a more natural reading of the Rotarian article would go like this:

You don't need to visit the consulate in person to get a tourist visa,. Once you mail in the application, you can have your visa papers in less than a week.

Anyway, Mr. Wronsky, since you are considered something of an authority in this area, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on the proposition that Helsinki was the ONLY consulate where Lee Oswald could have gotten a Soviet tourist visa in 24 hours, because all other consulates were required to send visa applications to Moscow, and only Moscow could give approval.

Hope all is going well on your Doctoral thesis..

Yours Sincerely,

Raymond Carroll.

CC the Education Forum

[Greg Parker]

I just sent this email to Peter Wronsky.

Greetings Mr. Wronsky:

You were honorably mentioned in dispatches this week, in a debate on the Education Forum.

The question under discussion is:

In 1959, when Lee Oswald obtained his Soviet tourist visa, was Helsinki the only overseas Consulate where a visa could be had in such a short time?

In other words, was Helsinki the ONLY overseas consulate with power to issue visas on its own say-so and without submitting the paperwork to Moscow?

The supposed uniqueness of Helsinki is now being asserted on the Education Forum by Robert Charles-Dunne, Greg Parker & Bill Simpich in these two discussion threads:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16095

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16104

If you manage to skim through all that you will see that, according to the Guardian newspaper in 1959:

Ten years ago if you asked the Soviet Embassy in London for a tourist visa they would not even bother to answer your letter. To-day they will give you one the same afternoon, with an effusive smile and a shower of pamphlets. ...

http://books.google.com/books?ei=f3ojTJL4C8P38Abip6G_BQ&ct=result&id=NWcrAQAAIAAJ&dq=khrushchev+1959+tourist+visa&q=+tourist+visa#search_anchor

There is also this, from the Rotarian Magazine in 1961, which suggests that it was possible to obtain a visa by mail in "less than a week." that would clearly imply that overseas consulates had the power to issue tourist visas without the need to send the applications to MOSCOW.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=20460

Robert Charles-Dunne maintains that the Guardian newspaper is not a reliable source and that the Rotarian article means only that you could get the APPLICATION PAPERS in less than a week, while the visa itself could take God knows how long.

Had the Rotarian wished to refer to securing a “visa” within a week, [Charles-Dunne argues] rather than the application papers needed to obtain one, it would presumably have employed a word like, for instance, “visa.”

I maintain that a more natural reading of the Rotarian article would go like this:

You don't need to visit the consulate in person to get a tourist visa,. Once you mail in the application, you can have your visa papers in less than a week.

Anyway, Mr. Wronsky, since you are considered something of an authority in this area, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on the proposition that Helsinki was the ONLY consulate where Lee Oswald could have gotten a Soviet tourist visa in 24 hours, because all other consulates were required to send visa applications to Moscow, and only Moscow could give approval.

Hope all is going well on your Doctoral thesis..

Yours Sincerely,

Raymond Carroll.

CC the Education Forum

Whilst Peter Wronski's input is welcome, in the absence of any in-depth research on Soviet visa applications circa 1959 visible at his website, it may be a stretch to say he is anauthority on the subject.

On the other hand, the authors of the 1959 Soviet Tourist Guide Book could be so described -- and they said 2 weeks to a month.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

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.