Paul Trejo Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) This diary asks whether Oswald was an intelligence agent. Intelligence agents become agents by being recruited by an intelligence service. They are recruited because they are able and willing to provide certain information. Question: What valuable information did Oswald possess that some intelligence service wanted? Well, Jon, we know that James Garrison also remarked on the fact that OSWALD had in his possessions when he died, a spy camera. It has already been widely speculated that Lee Harvey OSWALD was a spy for the FBI because he had an FBI number. Since OSWALD also hung around right-wingers in New Orleans, some proposed that OSWALD was working for the FBI by spying on Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin and Fred Crisman. Perhaps -- but IMHO it's less likely because Guy Banister was already very close to the FBI himself. Others have proposed that OSWALD was spying on Cuban Exiles, and how they got illegal arms shipments to carry on surprise attacks on Cuba -- in violation of JFK's enforcement of the Neutrality Act. I sort of doubt this, too. Remember that when OSWALD first returned to Ft. Worth from the USSR, he was met by a number of FBI agents, including James Hosty. The FBI soon lost interest in OSWALD after those first interviews -- and possibly it was because OSWALD agreed to cooperate with the FBI at that time -- receiving a spy camera and an FBI number. That, and (if we can believe Wesley Swearingen) $200 a month. Yet OSWALD for some reason was also being watched by the CIA through George De Mohrenschildt. George, for his part, was a meddler and smart aleck, and along with his young liberal friends in Dallas (e.g. Volkar Schmidt and Michael Paine) drove OSWALD into a blind hatred of Ex-General Edwin Walker. So, OSWALD collected money from the FBI in Dallas -- but he spent most of his time hanging with George De Mohrenschildt, and putting on airs as a "Hunter of Fascists, Ha-ha". I think OSWALD was a low-level, informal Informant for the FBI (as Swearingen also alluded) but was utterly useless at this job. I believe he supplied the FBI with just about nothing important in Dallas. Yet after his stupid, bungling, unsuccessful gambit of killing Edwin Walker at his Dallas home, OSWALD ran like a scared rabbit to his own home town, New Orleans, where he linked up again with his old Cadet instructor, David Ferrie -- whom he evidently trusted (to his tragic end). Guy Banister could easily lay claim to being an FBI Agent -- even though he was retired as an Agent. The men that Guy associated with in NOLA were all phony "CIA Agents" -- except Clay Shaw, who wasn't really a CIA officer, but was a CIA informant of some kind during WWII and the early Cold War. Yet the rest of the crew: Ferrie, Martin, Crisman, Beckham, were all phony baloney CIA "agents", on the order of Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Gerry Patrick Hemming and Frank Sturgis.. Yes, all these were part of the NOLA ground-crew of the JFK murder. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited March 9, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) Paul, I appreciate the passion you put into your work and convictions. If we agree that we are dealing with a 1000 piece puzzle where only 100 pieces are available and there is no picture on the box, and no color on the pieces... then anyone with a theory and the evidence to support it could be closer than anyone knows. We know more about what it wasn't than what it was... the evidence for what it was, is imo, gone and only the shadow it may have cast here and there will ever be seen. Attempting to put things into context has been the most difficult hurdle due to our vantage points and states of mind and the difficulty of understanding CI planning... DJ I'd use a different metaphor, David -- I'd say the JFK murder is like a problem in long addition. The Evidence provides the numbers, and there are a dozen long numbers -- however, one of them is missing. This is the number that Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren removed from the table in 1964 when he said that the Full Truth about the JFK murder would be revealed by the US Government in 75 years, for purposes of National Security. That would be 2039, going by Warren's date. However, in October 1992, US President George Herbert Walker Bush signed the JFK Records Act, which changed that date. Probably this was in celebration of the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the USSR in 1990. According to President Bush, the new date would be only 25 years from the day he signed the JFK Records Act, namely, 26 October 2017. That is when the missing number will be revealed. Until that time, we have only 11 of the 12 long numbers we need for this addition. We all guess. That number could be anything -- there are countless possibilities. We don't know for sure what the JFK Records Act will reveal in October 2017, but we are less than three years away from that moment. Some of us don't wish to wait, and wish to spend many months trying to guess what the result will be. It's something like a football pool. We might even consider a pool for the outcome of the JFK Records Act result of 2017. But who would manage such a mammoth pool? Millions of Americans -- perhaps the majority -- are sick and tired of hearing about the "Lone Nut" nonsense of Lee Harvey OSWALD. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited March 9, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Tommy... There are 1050 pages in the book, A CD full of docs and images and 1100 folders at Baylor which took me 2 years and virtual constant discussion with John to understand the depth and breadth of the information. We did not agree on every detail... but we knew WTF we were talking about and refused to use boiler plate FBI reports as gospel. Making fun of the man and his work is beneath you. If you disagree with something, show your work. btw - We are not arguing. Mr. Tidd is a welcome presence here adding objectivity and common sense with intellect and curiosity. there is respect and discussion finally happening here again.. I think it's great DJ David, I second all this. --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 An "agent" in which sense of the word Jon. we both know that working on someone's behalf can be considered "agency"... If he was recruited to help ID Castro sympathizers in New Orleans while working at a CIA/FBI related front by holding meetings and gathering names, that's one form of agency. When he slips and says he's under the protection of the US when in Russia does it matter if it was CIA, ONI, MID, etc.... he did gather intel on Minsk. There was a project in place for fake defectors to do just that... In the late 50's early 60's the intel services especially the FBI were using ordinary citizens to report on the goings on of suspected groups. Their patriotic duty. Clay Shaw may not have been CIA payroll but part of his expectations were to deliver info and convey info. an ASSET rather than an AGENT... i seem to be saying... DJ David, it was on another thread, but David Andrews dealt with the linguistics of this problem in detail. He wisely recommended that we use the term "CIA Officer" to refer to regularly hired, full-time CIA officers like Howard Hunt, David Morales, David A. Phillips, James Jesus Angleton, William Harvey, Allen Dulles, and so on. For any others we should say CIA "asset" as you did above -- and minimize using the term "Agent" because of its built-in ambiguity. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Greg Parker: You write @ post #553: "Jon, later the year, I will be publishing who recruited him, how it was done, under what program it came under, what his mission was to the Soviet Union, how it was supported, why it ended, and more names of those involved in the background." I'll be interested in your writing. I never recruited an agent. The agent net with which I worked in Viet Nam was handed off to me. I worked with two levels of agents who had been recruited by U.S. Special Forces. Truth is, Greg: I believe you are given to speculation. Which is OK. Speculation is just speculation. Jon, if you mean I don't a smoking gun document outlining a contract between Oswald and any group or agency, you are correct. In that regard, there is speculation involved - but nowhere near as much as you seem to suspect. I have it covered from 50 different angles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) The Evidence bears this shadow, but only faintly. The Conspiracy reeks within the Evidence. I can't reconcile why Galloway and Burkley would cover for Walker, or how the CIA or FBI would not be aware of his activities in pursuit of this end nor have I done the work necessary to come to an educated opinion. Even a Walker does not attempt to pull it off without knowing his back was covered... If you can clarify the Walker-Bethesda/Galloway connection for the autopsy's cover-up it would be appreciated DJ Well, David, I haven't yet finished reading your work, The Evidence is the Conspiracy (2014). You have more than 200 pages of fairly terse writing there, along with dozens of documentary artifacts. It will take some time. Still, IMHO, from your post you seem to suspect that the Cover-up Team was covering up for WALKER, while IMHO the Cover-Up Team was foiling WALKER's coup to divert USA Military Forces into Cuba. In the same way, David, you seem to presume that it was the Kill Team (WALKER) that controlled the Bethesda cover-up. That's where you're mistaken, IMHO. The Bethesda cover-up was completely under the control of the Cover-Up Team -- namely, LBJ, Hoover, Warren, Dulles (and of course every ambitious FBI Agent in America). The Cover-up Team was foiling WALKER. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited March 9, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) If Oswald was being used as an agent by some intelligence agency, his actions to an outside observer would not appear to be unusual for him. His actions would be in keeping with the pattern he had established. That way, nothing would easily catch the eye of a counter-intelligence operative.[/size] Agreed, Jon What catches my eye -- I was trained as an army counter-intel officer during the Viet Nam war -- is his fluency in Russian. How did a poor, relatively uneducated kid who moved around, acquire such fluency? The fluency needs explaining.[/size] Asperger's explains it I know, because I was trained in a language at the Defense Language Institute (DLI), that he didn't teach himself to speak and read Russian. You don't learn a language, especially a Level 5 (on a scale of 5) language like Russian, that way. It's impossible, unless you're a baby learning from your parents (or others) how to talk. In that situation, the learning is effortless. As an adult, one becomes a fluent speaker in another language only by listening and speaking to a speaker of that language. It may well be impossible for a person with a normally wired brain... but imo, we are not talking about someone with a normally wired brain... we are talking about someone closer to Raymond Babbitt than to little brother Charlie... <snip> OK, Greg, clearly OSWALD was being trained for Military Intelligence, but remember that he was very young; he wasn’t hired full-time yet – that’s the big difference. IMHO, if we merge Oswald’s high IQ (about 120, I reckon) with his troubled childhood, we could get a young CIA prospect who kept disappointing the recruiters because he was too independent. I suspect that Oswald broke his contract with the ONI when he returned to the USA with Marina. I suspect that this was why the Navy lowered his discharge status. OSWALD was quite intelligent – but he had authority issues – and this was why he was never hired full-time by the CIA (or other US Intelligence Agency). IMHO, a continuing drive within OSWALD to obtain full-time employment with the CIA was precisely what drove him into the hands of Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman and Thomas Beckham. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited March 9, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) There seems to be a widespread assumption that the people who handled Oswald were the same people who killed Kennedy. Given the degree of compartmentalization in intelligence operations it makes more sense to me that there were two operations controlled from on high -- one operation was to sheep-dip Oswald as an agent of Fidel and then kill him shortly after Kennedy; the other was to assassinate JFK in Dealey Plaza. What did the killers of Kennedy -- the men who pulled the triggers and their immediate superiors -- "need to know" about Oswald? What did Oswald's manipulators "need to know" about the assassination beyond time and place? Is a study of Oswald and his movements and associates a study of the JFK assassination -- or more properly regarded as a study of the cover-up? Several good questions all at once. (1) I agree with you, Cliff, that the LHO sheep-dip team in NOLA was entirely separate in planning and execution from the JFK kill-team in Dallas. They had to be separate operations entirely. I also agree with you that both of those activities seem to belong to one overall project of Killing JFK. Therefore, I would give the Dallas JFK Kill Team the higher rank in this scenario, and I would claim that the leader of the Dallas Kill Team (e.g. Edwin Walker) gave high-level, secret orders to the NOLA offices of Guy Banister, his political comrade on the right, to sheep-dip OSWALD in NOLA starting in April 1963 all the way through September 1963. The people who handled OSWALD in NOLA were not the same people who shot JFK in Dallas. They were different Teams. But there was a third team that clashed violently with both of those WALKER TEAMS, namely, Earl Warren's COVER-UP TEAM, which insisted that OSWALD was no Communist Agent, after all, but a "Lone Nut" with no more threat to the USA. Anywhere. So, please let's not stop with a distinction of Two Teams -- the NOLA Team and the Dallas Team in the JFK murder -- but go ahead to Three Teams, recognizing the important Opposite Team, the LBJ, Hoover, Warren, Dulles COVER-UP TEAM. (2) What the trigger men "needed to know" about their act of Treason...I doubt that the trigger men were ignorant of their act. Rather, the JFK murder was politically motivated -- not for cash, but for power. So the trigger men were loyal patriots among extreme rightists in American politics -- zealots. The trigger men had read from the shelves of the John Birch Society, the White Citizens Councils, the Minutemen and even the KKK. They knew what they were doing, and they possibly even volunteered without pay. They might have held a private pool to wager on the chosen shooters. (3) What the NOLA sheep-dippers "needed to know" about OSWALD depends on whether Jim Garrison was correct. If NOLA was indeed a base for the JFK murder, then Jim Garrison was correct. Yet there's an alternative. Beyond Jim Garrison, CIA Officer David Atlee Phillips left a clue, some believe, in his unpublished bio-fiction, The Amlash Legacy (1988), where he takes responsibility for the OSWALD sheep-dipping in NOLA and even for the Mexico City episode -- however only in a plot against Fidel Castro, not against JFK. Somebody *else( stole OSWALD from his mission into the JFK murder mission, claimed Phillips. So, even though this could cancel the whole Jim Garrison, Joan Mellen and Oliver Stone case about a NOLA base for the JFK murder, I think we must seriously consider this possibility. (4) Yet my favorite question of yours among the lot, Cliff, was about whether a study of Oswald, his movements and associates, belongs to the study of the JFK assassination team or the study of the cover-up team. Because, if David Atlee Phillips turns out to be right, then Jim Garrison was entirely wrong, and the NOLA base wasn't part of the JFK murder at all. Instead, the NOLA base, and the OSWALD sheep-dip episode were entirely what Phillips described as The Amlash Legacy. If this is the case, then only the Dallas Team knew anything about the JFK assassination before it happened. Not only OSWALD, but also Garrison, Shaw, Ferrie, Martin, Crisman and Beckham were surprised by the JFK murder. If Phillips is telling the truth, then Edwin WALKER alone was wise enough, connected enough, highly regarded enough among the extreme rightists, and 'stole' OSWALD away from Phillips and his NOLA Team. Such a radical breaking with Garrison-Mellen-Stone would mark another paradigm shift in the literature of JFK research. Very interesting. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited March 9, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) If Oswald was being used as an agent by some intelligence agency, his actions to an outside observer would not appear to be unusual for him. His actions would be in keeping with the pattern he had established. That way, nothing would easily catch the eye of a counter-intelligence operative. Agreed, Jon What catches my eye -- I was trained as an army counter-intel officer during the Viet Nam war -- is his fluency in Russian. How did a poor, relatively uneducated kid who moved around, acquire such fluency? The fluency needs explaining. Asperger's explains it I know, because I was trained in a language at the Defense Language Institute (DLI), that he didn't teach himself to speak and read Russian. You don't learn a language, especially a Level 5 (on a scale of 5) language like Russian, that way. It's impossible, unless you're a baby learning from your parents (or others) how to talk. In that situation, the learning is effortless. As an adult, one becomes a fluent speaker in another language only by listening and speaking to a speaker of that language. It may well be impossible for a person with a normally wired brain... but imo, we are not talking about someone with a normally wired brain... we are talking about someone closer to Raymond Babbitt than to little brother Charlie... <snip> OK, Greg, clearly OSWALD was being trained for Military Intelligence, Not as far as I can see. Trained BY whilst in the military sounds better,,, but remember that he was very young; he wasn’t hired full-time yet – that’s the big difference. Jon would know better than I do, but I'm not aware that any intel agency had part-time vacancies for agents (or officers). IMHO, if we merge Oswald’s high IQ (about 120, I reckon) with his troubled childhood, we could get a young CIA prospect who kept disappointing the recruiters because he was too independent. I suspect that Oswald broke his contract with the ONI when he returned to the USA with Marina. I suspect that this was why the Navy lowered his discharge status. OSWALD was quite intelligent – but he had authority issues – and this was why he was never hired full-time by the CIA (or other US Intelligence Agency). IMHO, this continuing drive within OSWALD to obtain full-time employment with the CIA was precisely what drove him into the hands of Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman and Thomas Beckham. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited March 9, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) There seems to be a widespread assumption that the people who handled Oswald were the same people who killed Kennedy. <snip> Is a study of Oswald and his movements and associates a study of the JFK assassination -- or more properly regarded as a study of the cover-up? Well, Cliff, your provocative questoin might be answered with the possibility that the whole study of OSWALD really belongs neither to the JFK Kill Team nor the JFK Cover-up Team -- but to a completely separate Team -- the Kill Fidel Team. In this case, WALKER's paramilitary expertise is illustrated further in his "stealing" of OSWALD from the Kill-Fidel team, which was led by D.A. Phillips through NOLA's Guy Banister & Co. (e.g. per Phillips' Amlash Legacy). This is an entirely new avenue that I've never seen explored before. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited March 9, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) I suspect that Oswald broke his contract with the ONI when he returned to the USA with Marina. I suspect that this was why the Navy lowered his discharge status.// Regards,--Paul Trejo ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ September 13, 1960: LHO is given an "undesirable discharge" from the Marine Corps. March 17, 1961: LHO attends a trade dance where he meets Marina Prusakova. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I "suspect" you should study the timeline. REGARDS GAAL Edited March 9, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) There seems to be a widespread assumption that the people who handled Oswald were the same people who killed Kennedy.<snip>Is a study of Oswald and his movements and associates a study of the JFK assassination -- or more properly regarded as a study of the cover-up? Well, Cliff, your provocative questoin might be answered with the possibility that the whole study of OSWALD really belongs neither to the JFK Kill Team nor the JFK Cover-up Team -- but to a completely separate Team -- the Kill Fidel Team. As I see it there were two competing cover-ups -- Oswald the Red Agent and Oswald the Lone Nut. Oswald the Lone Nut was dictated to Johnson by McGeorge Bundy from the White House Situation Room (or so Bundy has allegedly admitted and journalist Theodore White corroborated). Looks to me like the Oswald the Red Agent was promoted by his handlers and their associates. Looks to me like the killers of Kennedy were under the direct control of the Skull & Bones capo di tutti capi W. Averell Harriman via Paul Helliwell and the Staff Support Group within US Army Special Operations Division at Ft. Detrick, MD, a military-front CIA group. I can't say this as a fact -- can't say it. We'll never know beyond a reasonable doubt who killed Kennedy. I find the preponderance of evidence points toward New Haven. In this case, WALKER's paramilitary expertise is illustrated further in his "stealing" of OSWALD from the Kill-Fidel team, which was led by D.A. Phillips through NOLA's Guy Banister & Co. (e.g. per Phillips' Amlash Legacy. This is an entirely new avenue that I've never seen explored before. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited March 9, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) Does Col. William Corson's view on the murder of the Ngo Bros. in So Vietnam offer us a template for the murder of JFK three weeks later? Joseph Trento, “The Secret History of the CIA”, pgs 334-5 <quote on> Who changed the coup into the murder of Diem, Nhu and a Catholic priest accompanying them? To this day, nothing has been found in government archives tying the killings to either John or Robert Kennedy. So how did the tools and talents developed by Bill Harvey for ZR/RIFLE and Operation MONGOOSE get exported to Vietnam? Kennedy immediately ordered (William R.) Corson to find out what had happened and who was responsible. The answer he came up with: “On instructions from Averell Harriman…. The orders that ended in the deaths of Diem and his brother originated with Harriman and were carried out by Henry Cabot Lodge’s own military assistant.” Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York, W. Averell Harriman was in the middle of a long public career. In 1960, President-elect Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large, to operate “with the full confidence of the president and an intimate knowledge of all aspects of United States policy.” By 1963, according to Corson, Harriman was running “Vietnam without consulting the president or the attorney general.” The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security team was loyal. As Corson put it, “Kenny O’Donnell (JFK’s appointments secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor, was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman and not the president. He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a young man on the White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with Harriman.” At the heart of the murders was the sudden and strange recall of Saigon Station Chief Jocko Richardson and his replacement by a no-name team barely known to history. The key member was a Special Operations Army officer, John Michael Dunn, who took his orders, not from the normal CIA hierarchy but from Harriman and Forrestal. According to Corson, “John Michael Dunn was known to be in touch with the coup plotters,” although Dunn’s role has never been made public. Corson believes that Richardson was removed so that Dunn, assigned to Ambassador Lodge for “special operations,” could act without hindrance.<quote off> Dunn was an operative from US Army Special Operations Division who didn't operate within military or CIA hierarchies. Looks to me like the team assigned to sheep-dip and kill Oswald had CIA written all over them, and were perhaps groomed as back-up patsies. The team assigned to kill Kennedy walked between the rain-drops and likely had nothing at all to do with Lee Harvey Oswald. Edited March 9, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I think Oswald's change of discharge status was to help "sell" to the Soviets that Ozzie was "not an agent" of the US government. I also think that Ozzie was upset because his honorable discharge wasn't restored upon his return to the US, as if someone had reneged on an agreement [verbal or otherwise]. I think he felt he was "caught between a rock and a hard place," and if he revealed any connection between himself and any intelligence gathering [or false intelligence spreading] operation, he'd never get his discharge upgraded. Of course, this would them make him susceptible to overtures by others involved in different schemes, if they mentioned the magic words "restore your honorable discharge." By "others," I mean folks who may have had knowledge of Oswald's circumstances, but who may not have been involved in legitimate intelligence operations. It's the same scenario used by police to "coerce" informants to work for them, the carrot at the end of the stick. So my conclusion at this point is that he MAY have been taking direction from someone in intelligence, at least as far as his entry into the USSR went. And afterwards he may have been taking direction from someone he THOUGHT was connected to intelligence [CIA, FBI, ONI, Army Intel, whatever]after his return from the USSR. But his actions appear to have been directed by SOME "unseen hand," and the leverage of the phrase "If you want that honorable discharge back..." should not be underestimated, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) While I think Bill [simpich] has done an amazing job...there are other explanations which fit the evidence.. All depends on your perspective which is why it's so hard to agree on a single explanation. I think we greatly underestimated what the FBI really knew about mexico OK, David Josephs, I finally finished reading your online, 200 page post, The Evidence is the Conspiracy (2014). In my humble opinion, I believe that you are behind the times with your intensive focus on an alleged OSWALD Bus Trip to Mexico that never happened. The WC "Bus Trip to Mexico" is entirely explained, IMHO, as an appendix to the "Lone Nut" theory. It is a support to the "Magic Bullet" theory. It is just as weak. In my view, the WC had decided to accept J. Edgar Hoover's strategy of 11/22/1963, namely, that OSWALD was a "Lone Nut." To that end, the FBI manipulated all JFK case evidence that contradicted a "Lone Shooter" scenario. So, admitting that OSWALD arrived in Mexico City by AUTO (not by bus) would be the same as admitting that OSWALD had accomplices. Just as Hoover had to tell the WC that Silvia Odio was "a mental case," in order to prevent her good testimony from contradicting his "Lone Nut" theory -- in the same way, the WC had to conclude that the "OSWALD auto ride" to Mexico City was "negligible" -- because in both cases, it would have proved that OSWALD had "accomplices who are still at large." It seems to me (and to Gaeton Fonzi and others) that Silvia Odio told the truth, and that OSWALD had accomplices in an Automobile on 26 September 1963 in Dallas. This automobile that Silvia Odio saw parked outside her apartment in Dallas would have been the SAME Automobile that the Mexico border patrol would have seen OSWALD riding on 27 September 1963. This scenario also agrees with Harry Dean's eye-witness account of loading Loran Hall's trailer with battle supplies collected from Southern California JBS members, and learning of Guy Gabaldon's instructions to Hall and Howard to drive OSWALD from New Orleans to Mexico City -- all in the context of a JFK murder plot by Ex-General Edwin Walker. IMHO, David, the correct solution to OSWALD's alleged Mexico bus trip is to realize it was all bogus -- a fabrication constructed out of rumors by the WC, with a patriotic purpose -- to enforce the "Lone Nut" theory of OSWALD, and so deny the TRUTH that OSWALD arrived in Mexico City by Automobile. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited March 9, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now