Silvia Odio and Other Inconvenient Witnesses

[Greg Parker]

I'm only talking to you, mate. not the whole country.

It is beyond you to see a problem with this strange little event... once again at a time when the FBI knows an Oswald is in one place and is somehow leaving evidence in another...

It remains beyond you to apply the history of deception the FBI enjoyed at that time and understand that an anonymous call was just as likely an FBI asset as anything else.

That the membership of most right or left groups were heavily filled with FBI assets that their activities were more orchestrated than occurring naturally.

You think the FBI just turned it off for a while related to the evidence of Oswald in places he was not known to have been and every single one of them is benign.

Is it that you cannot fathom that level of corruption from your POV so it's not possible? Yes Greg, the FBI was that corrupt and that free to be so.

I actually think the root problem here is that you still believe the FBI conducted a real investigation and was an honorable group.

Greg... you need to let that go. The FBI were architects of the conspiracy's cover-up by being the conduit for the evidence.

Now I am not saying that the FBI was covering for the fact that LEE or someone playing Lee was up there watching JFK as Nagell had predicted... but it remains very possible.

I can't put my faith in the evidence of the FBI - it has proven to be misleading and wrong at every turn. That you chose to is your right I guess...

At least now I feel there is no need to engage with you any longer... your arguments are all FBI pixie dust strung together by hope and faith...

So ok Greg, the anonymous caller explains it all... nice work everybody... time for beer

"It is beyond you to see a problem with this strange little event... once again at a time when the FBI knows an Oswald is in one place and is somehow leaving evidence in another..."

Logic isn't your strong suit, is it David.

Begging the Question

An argument begs the question when it makes use of a premise that no one who didn't already accept the conclusion would believe. Simply put, an argument begs the question when it reasons in a circle or presupposes the truth of the very thing it's trying to prove.

[Vanessa Loney]

I'm only talking to you, mate. not the whole country.

It is beyond you to see a problem with this strange little event... once again at a time when the FBI knows an Oswald is in one place and is somehow leaving evidence in another...

It remains beyond you to apply the history of deception the FBI enjoyed at that time and understand that an anonymous call was just as likely an FBI asset as anything else.

That the membership of most right or left groups were heavily filled with FBI assets that their activities were more orchestrated than occurring naturally.

You think the FBI just turned it off for a while related to the evidence of Oswald in places he was not known to have been and every single one of them is benign.

Is it that you cannot fathom that level of corruption from your POV so it's not possible? Yes Greg, the FBI was that corrupt and that free to be so.

I actually think the root problem here is that you still believe the FBI conducted a real investigation and was an honorable group.

Greg... you need to let that go. The FBI were architects of the conspiracy's cover-up by being the conduit for the evidence.

Now I am not saying that the FBI was covering for the fact that LEE or someone playing Lee was up there watching JFK as Nagell had predicted... but it remains very possible.

I can't put my faith in the evidence of the FBI - it has proven to be misleading and wrong at every turn. That you chose to is your right I guess...

At least now I feel there is no need to engage with you any longer... your arguments are all FBI pixie dust strung together by hope and faith...

So ok Greg, the anonymous caller explains it all... nice work everybody... time for beer

If that's the case David stop making broad-brush insults about people from downunder.

Not that hard is it? Or are you just trying to provoke a reaction?

Is that your apology btw?

[Paul Trejo]

I urge interested parties to recall Paul Trejo's comment earlier in this thread, where he stated that the name "Lee" is basically unknown in Spanish, and that its closest approximation would be "Leon."

Thus, it seems perfectly logical for those wishing to implicate Lee Oswald to witnesses whose primary language is Spanish, to use the name "Leon" instead.

Utter rubbish.

It makes sense only for the REAL Lee Oswald to do that (if he knew that Lee was virtually unknown in Spanish and he gave a tinker's cuss about whether Sylvia had ever heard the name "Lee" before)

It makes little or no sense for someone IMPERSONATING him to do it. It just makes connecting him to Lee Oswald that much more difficult.

The fact is, does anyone actually do that - change their name when introducing themselves on the off chance that the person may not be familiar with the name you actually have?

What if Oswald's first name was like Tippit, just initials? That would throw those poor dumb Cubans into a tizz wouldn't it? Better make up a Spanish name so they don't get suspicious! What if his name had been Icabod or Rastus?

Nope. Let's face it. Those poor dumb Cubans just wouldn't be able to get their heads around anyone being name "Lee".

You are grasping at straws.

Well, Greg, although I agree with you on several points, e.g. the Double-Oswald over-reach of John Armstrong, I disagree on this point.

It is factual that Spanish speakers are particular about first names. "Lee" simply isn't a Spanish first name. It's a non-name in Spanish.

"Leon" is the closest "real" equivalent in Spanish. So, Spanish speakers are going to say "Leon" when a guy's name is "Lee". That's part of the culture -- it's all too common.

It isn't rubbish at all.

In my theory, it really *was* the REAL Lee Harvey Oswald at Silvia Odio's front door with "Leopoldo" and "Angelo". Lee Oswald was the only non-Spanish speaker in the group. Even though he could be a hard case now and then, in general he seems to have known his manners -- and would have conformed to the Spanish culture -- just to be polite.

So, yes, I can easily imagine Lee Harvey Oswald introducing himself as "Leon" when surrounded by Spanish speakers who are already calling him "Leon". It's not a stretch of any kind.

I think you misread Oswald's motivation, Greg -- it wasn't "on the off chance that the person may not be familiar with the name you actually have," but simple social manners and group conformity on the spur of the moment. It's just so common that it makes sense.

It has nothing whatever to do with "poor dumb Cubans," but of the pride of Spanish culture. "Lee" simply isn't a real name in Spanish, but "Leon" is. It's not because the name was "difficult" but because the name was unreal. In no way is this grasping at straws -- it's cultural reality.

Silvia Odio told the truth as far as possible without getting herself killed, seeing that the FBI was going to betray her, anyway.

IMHO, the most likely chance is that Loran Hall (who used the war name, "Lorenzo") and Larry Howard (who used the war name, "Alonzo") were the Cuban-American and Mexican-American at Silvia Odio's door with Lee Harvey Oswald on Wednesday 25 September 1963.

After the visit, Loran Hall telephoned Silvia Odio and terrified her. She told about the first occasion -- and I suspect there were more occasions.

If the FBI had done it's job and truly protected Silvia Odio as a witness, I believe that Loran Hall and Larry Howard would have been investigated more thoroughly, and arrested for perjury at the least.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

I urge interested parties to recall Paul Trejo's comment earlier in this thread, where he stated that the name "Lee" is basically unknown in Spanish, and that its closest approximation would be "Leon."

Thus, it seems perfectly logical for those wishing to implicate Lee Oswald to witnesses whose primary language is Spanish, to use the name "Leon" instead.

Utter rubbish.

It makes sense only for the REAL Lee Oswald to do that (if he knew that Lee was virtually unknown in Spanish and he gave a tinker's cuss about whether Sylvia had ever heard the name "Lee" before)

It makes little or no sense for someone IMPERSONATING him to do it. It just makes connecting him to Lee Oswald that much more difficult.

The fact is, does anyone actually do that - change their name when introducing themselves on the off chance that the person may not be familiar with the name you actually have?

What if Oswald's first name was like Tippit, just initials? That would throw those poor dumb Cubans into a tizz wouldn't it? Better make up a Spanish name so they don't get suspicious! What if his name had been Icabod or Rastus?

Nope. Let's face it. Those poor dumb Cubans just wouldn't be able to get their heads around anyone being name "Lee".

You are grasping at straws.

Well, Greg, although I agree with you on several points, e.g. the Double-Oswald over-reach of John Armstrong, I disagree on this point.

It is factual that Spanish speakers are particular about first names. "Lee" simply isn't a Spanish first name. It's a non-name in Spanish.

"Leon" is the closest "real" equivalent in Spanish. So, Spanish speakers are going to say "Leon" when a guy's name is "Lee". That's part of the culture -- it's all too common.

It isn't rubbish at all.

In my theory, it really *was* the REAL Lee Harvey Oswald at Silvia Odio's front door with "Leopoldo" and "Angelo". Lee Oswald was the only non-Spanish speaker in the group. Even though he could be a hard case now and then, in general he seems to have known his manners -- and would have conformed to the Spanish culture -- just to be polite.

So, yes, I can easily imagine Lee Harvey Oswald introducing himself as "Leon" when surrounded by Spanish speakers who are already calling him "Leon". It's not a stretch of any kind.

I think you misread Oswald's motivation, Greg -- it wasn't "on the off chance that the person may not be familiar with the name you actually have," but simple social manners and group conformity on the spur of the moment. It's just so common that it makes sense.

It has nothing whatever to do with "poor dumb Cubans," but of the pride of Spanish culture. "Lee" simply isn't a real name in Spanish, but "Leon" is. It's not because the name was "difficult" but because the name was unreal. In no way is this grasping at straws -- it's cultural reality.

Silvia Odio told the truth as far as possible without getting herself killed, seeing that the FBI was going to betray her, anyway.

IMHO, the most likely chance is that Loran Hall (who used the war name, "Lorenzo") and Larry Howard (who used the war name, "Alonzo") were the Cuban-American and Mexican-American at Silvia Odio's door with Lee Harvey Oswald on Wednesday 25 September 1963.

After the visit, Loran Hall telephoned Silvia Odio and terrified her. She told about the first occasion -- and I suspect there were more occasions.

If the FBI had done it's job and truly protected Silvia Odio as a witness, I believe that Loran Hall and Larry Howard would have been investigated more thoroughly, and arrested for perjury at the least.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, your theory is marginally better than what we have been getting from others. It is still fatally flawed by the fact that ( a ) you have to do a lot of assuming about how he would introduce himself ( b ) you have to ignore that you have him SO polite that he actually thinks to introduce himself as "Leon" while at the same time, being so IMpolite as to neglect to shave before going there and ( c ) he was actually holed up in Houston where he told his wife he would be.

[Vanessa Loney]

I have only been talking to GP here, not an entire country. IF GP is "down-under's" representation to the world... that's their problem, not mine.

That he trusts anonymous FBI reports as a source for his replies is par for the course Looney...

He believes the evidence is indicative of the crime and not the conspiracy... his results from that assumption will always be wrong.

This thread is about GP misrepresenting the evidence to forward a conclusion.. Odio most definitely was introduced to the man by name, twice per her testimony.

Who she repeats the name to is of no consequence

The details of the following day's phone calls have no bearing on the introduction at the door of LEON OSWALD

And he said, "We wanted you to meet this American. His name is Leon Oswald." He repeated it twice.

Mrs. ODIO. She said, "Sylvia, you know that man?" And I said, "Yes," and she said, "I know him." "He was the one that came to our door, and it couldn't be so, could it?"

Recognizing Oswald immediately and the FBI trying the bait and switch with a substitute trifecta and the burying of her evidence is also of no consequence to you or your conclusion that - how did you put it? "they NEVER used his surname Oswald..."

He may indeed have a career at the FBI yet - his misrepresentation of the evidence will surely push him straight to management

No David, you may have been debating with Greg but as part of an attempt to goad him you are making broad-brush insults against people from 'down under' which I'm sure you know are completely unacceptable.

Mods, really he should be banned for these comments about Australians. Would you have allowed it about any other nationality? If you're not going to uphold standards on racism on here then where does it stop?

As for the swipe directed at me David, all I can say is, is that really the best you can do?

You're not in grade school any more David - this is where the adults play. So you're really going to have to lift your game on the name calling. Put some brains and initiative into it.

But I have a feeling that whatever you come up with, it's going to hurt you a lot more than it's going to hurt me. (Because to tell you a secret David, I'm pretty much impervious to the games that go on over the internet. I've been insulted by experts on other sites who are professionals and it doesn't bother me a bit.)

And do you know why? Because I figure that sort of name calling says a heck of a lot more about you than it does about me.

So bring it on, David. Let's see what you've got.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, your theory is marginally better than what we have been getting from others. It is still fatally flawed by the fact that ( a ) you have to do a lot of assuming about how he would introduce himself ( b ) you have to ignore that you have him SO polite that he actually thinks to introduce himself as "Leon" while at the same time, being so Impolite as to neglect to shave before going there and ( c ) he was actually holed up in Houston where he told his wife he would be.

Well, Greg, it seems to me that the assumptions are yours.

(a) All these Spanish speakers are introducing him as Leon, and so he also calls himself Leon to fit in. There's no stretch there.

(b ) The fact that he had not shaved on his trip from New Orleans to Mexico City has nothing to do with being polite or impolite in conversation.

(c ) The Houston story is a far-fetched fable, anyway. Lee Harvey Oswald was living a secret-life from Marina Oswald, and he lied to her continually.

The likelihood, based on the evidence, is that Oswald applied for a Visa to Mexico City, and took no bus, but rode in an automobile to Mexico City as a passenger -- both entering and exiting.

The FBI and CIA scrambled all of the Lee Harvey Oswald data in Mexico City FOR VASTLY DIFFERENT REASONS.

(1) The CIA scrambled Oswald's Mexico City data because of the Simpich Mole Hunt. A CIA high-command Mole Hunt is murder on honest data.

(2) The FBI scrambled Oswald's Mexico City data because of Hoover's "Lone Nut" mandate. All the "bus ride" data is forged FBI material to force the "Lone Nut" theory. Nothing more or less than that. Whatever else Oswald did in Mexico City -- if it involved other people -- Hoover would hide that data.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited June 7, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Tom Neal]

As for the swipe directed at me David, all I can say is, is that really the best you can do?

You're not in grade school any more David - this is where the adults play. So you're really going to have to lift your game on the name calling. Put some brains and initiative into it.

But I have a feeling that whatever you come up with, it's going to hurt you a lot more than it's going to hurt me. (Because to tell you a secret David, I'm pretty much impervious to the games that go on over the internet. I've been insulted by experts on other sites who are professionals and it doesn't bother me a bit.)

And do you know why? Because I figure that sort of name calling says a heck of a lot more about you than it does about me.

So bring it on, David. Let's see what you've got.

Well said, Ms. Loney.

Give it up David Josephs, you have been soundly defeated. And she did it with class...

Edited June 7, 2015 by Tom Neal

[Greg Parker]

Paul, your theory is marginally better than what we have been getting from others. It is still fatally flawed by the fact that ( a ) you have to do a lot of assuming about how he would introduce himself ( b ) you have to ignore that you have him SO polite that he actually thinks to introduce himself as "Leon" while at the same time, being so Impolite as to neglect to shave before going there and ( c ) he was actually holed up in Houston where he told his wife he would be.

Well, Greg, it seems to me that the assumptions are yours.

Wrong. The guy was introduced as "Leon". So Leon it was. It is you and everyone else making assumptions that "Leon" = equals Lee Oswald or some half-assed stunt double.

(a) All these Spanish speakers are introducing him as Leon, and so he also calls himself Leon to fit in. There's no stretch there.

I'm guessing that anyone named "Leon" is also introduced as "Leon" and so I don't have to take leaps of logic and flights of fancy about it.

( The fact that he had not shaved on his trip from New Orleans to Mexico City has nothing to do with being polite or impolite in conversation.

© The Houston story is a far-fetched fable, anyway. Lee Harvey Oswald was living a secret-life from Marina Oswald, and he lied to her continually.

Just because you don't know something, doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is a very good witness who says Oswald was doing exactly what he told his wife he would be doing - looking for work.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11039&relPageId=8&search=holiman Mrs Holiman's memory was out by a month. He was there in late September.

The likelihood, based on the evidence, is that Oswald applied for a Visa to Mexico City, and took no bus, but rode in an automobile to Mexico City as a passenger -- both entering and exiting.

The MC evidence allows you to make up whatever you want. That's because what little there is, is total BS.

The FBI and CIA scrambled all of the Lee Harvey Oswald data in Mexico City FOR VASTLY DIFFERENT REASONS.

(1) The CIA scrambled Oswald's Mexico City data because of the Simpich Mole Hunt. A CIA high-command Mole Hunt is murder on honest data.

Bill may be right about a mole-hunt. But you don't need the real Oswald for that. Or for targeting certain embassy employees to double, which was the main game in town.

(2) The FBI scrambled Oswald's Mexico City data because of Hoover's "Lone Nut" mandate. All the "bus ride" data is forged FBI material to force the "Lone Nut" theory. Nothing more or less than that. Whatever else Oswald did in Mexico City -- if it involved other people -- Hoover would hide that data.

Rubbish. If they wanted to falsify bus data, they did an absolutely amateur hour job of it. The FBI had nothing to do with it. The bus data was handled by Mex authorities and they were in the pocket of the CIA.

The bus passengers were the ones who should have been investigated. The only honest one among them was the old con artist, Albert Osborne.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[David Josephs]

I have only been talking to GP here, not an entire country. IF GP is "down-under's" representation to the world... that's their problem, not mine.

That he trusts anonymous FBI reports as a source for his replies is par for the course Looney...

He believes the evidence is indicative of the crime and not the conspiracy... his results from that assumption will always be wrong.

This thread is about GP misrepresenting the evidence to forward a conclusion.. Odio most definitely was introduced to the man by name, twice per her testimony.

Who she repeats the name to is of no consequence

The details of the following day's phone calls have no bearing on the introduction at the door of LEON OSWALD

And he said, "We wanted you to meet this American. His name is Leon Oswald." He repeated it twice.

Mrs. ODIO. She said, "Sylvia, you know that man?" And I said, "Yes," and she said, "I know him." "He was the one that came to our door, and it couldn't be so, could it?"

Recognizing Oswald immediately and the FBI trying the bait and switch with a substitute trifecta and the burying of her evidence is also of no consequence to you or your conclusion that - how did you put it? "they NEVER used his surname Oswald..."

He may indeed have a career at the FBI yet - his misrepresentation of the evidence will surely push him straight to management

No David, you may have been debating with Greg but as part of an attempt to goad him you are making broad-brush insults against people from 'down under' which I'm sure you know are completely unacceptable.

Mods, really he should be banned for these comments about Australians. Would you have allowed it about any other nationality? If you're not going to uphold standards on racism on here then where does it stop?

As for the swipe directed at me David, all I can say is, is that really the best you can do?

You're not in grade school any more David - this is where the adults play. So you're really going to have to lift your game on the name calling. Put some brains and initiative into it.

But I have a feeling that whatever you come up with, it's going to hurt you a lot more than it's going to hurt me. (Because to tell you a secret David, I'm pretty much impervious to the games that go on over the internet. I've been insulted by experts on other sites who are professionals and it doesn't bother me a bit.)

And do you know why? Because I figure that sort of name calling says a heck of a lot more about you than it does about me.

So bring it on, David. Let's see what you've got.

Believe it or not, that's how I thought it was spelled when I replied... there was no intent at all... I apologize for having inadvertently offended you, Ms. Loney.

on the flip side, If you've spent any time at ROKC (as they have) and can come here with a straight face to talk about being adults -

If you have not been to that forum and read the childishness that goes on every day with grossly insulting racial slurs, demeaning nicknames and threats... you can't understand how toned down their rhetoric is here compared to there..... then again, having 5 people doing all the posting does narrow down the options.

The beef is not with you, it's with the crap evidence the FBI (and Parker) uses to make their case. According to GP's work, the FBI info is golden... yet when that same FBI offers info contrary to his conclusions - it's crap again.

From the very beginning Parker has claimed Odio was NEVER given Leon's last name. That's not what the evidence shows. His repeating it on multiple thread and posts does not change what she said or how wrong Parker remains on the subject.

So repeatedly misrepresenting the verbatim evidence is okay... only the US Government's investigation will agree with that... we here know better.

He was introduced as Leon Oswald and Sylvia immediately recognizes the man as the same... there is very little wiggle room on this Parker... so please stay with the doctors and next call calls for your arguments... your track record of pointing to the wrong time, wrong testimony and wrong evidence has become expected.

Ms. Loney - if you actually have an argument to put forth, do so and let it stand on its own... "bring it" as you say....

[Kenneth Drew]

David,

I've been over this before, but perhaps not with you. Steven Witt came along at a perfect moment, as the HSCA was concentrating on the more sensational aspects of critical research (for instance, the three tramps). The televised hearings with Witt were a circus. The most memorable moment came when the umbrella "accidentally" opened and Chairman Louis Stokes could joke about not pointing it at him, in a clear derisive reference to theories that had suggested the Umbrella Man had fired a dart-like weapon.

Witt's rationale for being in Dealey Plaza with an open umbrella was about as believable as any other element of the official story, I suppose. I doubt that many citizens of Dallas, or Americans in general, would have caught his obscure "protest" against Neville Chamberlain's politics a quarter century earlier. It's even less likely that JFK would have recognized an open umbrella as something connecting him to a long-dead British politician.

If you ever read The Continuing Inquiry you know that little monthly periodical covered Witt's story in depth. As the internet wasn't born yet, and the mainstream media wasn't about to do anything other than regurgitate the official story, TCI was about the only independent source of regular information about the assassination at that time. Witt's testimony didn't match the filmed actions of TUM. And there is no innocent explanation- with or without Neville Chamberlain- that explains TUM's casual attitude after the shooting, and we still don't know just who his dark-complexioned companion was.

The Umbrella Man stood out like a sore thumb that day, and I think it's pretty obvious he wasn't there to stage a political protest that even surviving members of Neville Chamberlan's family would fail to understand. I don't know about the dentist you refer to, but TUM and his companion should have been among the first witnesses questioned by the authorities. The fact that they weren't even identified is just another indictment of the "investigation" into this case.

"identifying the Umbrella Man would not further the story of the Lone Nut, which was, after all, the 'objective' of the WCR

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, your theory is marginally better than what we have been getting from others. It is still fatally flawed by the fact that ( a ) you have to do a lot of assuming about how he would introduce himself ( b ) you have to ignore that you have him SO polite that he actually thinks to introduce himself as "Leon" while at the same time, being so Impolite as to neglect to shave before going there and ( c ) he was actually holed up in Houston where he told his wife he would be.

Well, Greg, it seems to me that the assumptions are yours.

(a) All these Spanish speakers are introducing him as Leon, and so he also calls himself Leon to fit in. There's no stretch there.

(b ) The fact that he had not shaved on his trip from New Orleans to Mexico City has nothing to do with being polite or impolite in conversation.

(c ) The Houston story is a far-fetched fable, anyway. Lee Harvey Oswald was living a secret-life from Marina Oswald, and he lied to her continually.

The likelihood, based on the evidence, is that Oswald applied for a Visa to Mexico City, and took no bus, but rode in an automobile to Mexico City as a passenger -- both entering and exiting.

The FBI and CIA scrambled all of the Lee Harvey Oswald data in Mexico City FOR VASTLY DIFFERENT REASONS.

(1) The CIA scrambled Oswald's Mexico City data because of the Simpich Mole Hunt. A CIA high-command Mole Hunt is murder on honest data.

(2) The FBI scrambled Oswald's Mexico City data because of Hoover's "Lone Nut" mandate. All the "bus ride" data is forged FBI material to force the "Lone Nut" theory. Nothing more or less than that. Whatever else Oswald did in Mexico City -- if it involved other people -- Hoover would hide that data.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo.

(a) Wrong. The guy was introduced as "Leon". So Leon it was. It is you and everyone else making assumptions that "Leon" = equals Lee Oswald or some half-assed stunt double.

(b ) I'm guessing that anyone named "Leon" is also introduced as "Leon" and so I don't have to take leaps of logic and flights of fancy about it.

(c ) Just because you don't know something, doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is a very good witness who says Oswald was doing exactly what he told his wife he would be doing - looking for work.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11039&relPageId=8&search=holiman Mrs Holiman's memory was out by a month. He was there in late September.

The MC evidence allows you to make up whatever you want. That's because what little there is, is total BS.

(1) Bill may be right about a mole-hunt. But you don't need the real Oswald for that. Or for targeting certain embassy employees to double, which was the main game in town.

(2) Rubbish. If they wanted to falsify bus data, they did an absolutely amateur hour job of it. The FBI had nothing to do with it. The bus data was handled by Mex authorities and they were in the pocket of the CIA.

The bus passengers were the ones who should have been investigated. The only honest one among them was the old con artist, Albert Osborne.

(a) Greg, it's possible to be too literal -- a person can have nicknames in other cultures. It's not a rarity. Marita Lorenz called Lee Oswald, "Ozzie." People aren't so literal with first names. "Leon" remains a realistic possibility.

(b ) Besides, the key issue was that Lee Oswald was introduced to Silvia Odio as "Leon Oswald" and not just "Leon." But you simply reject her sworn testimony -- it doesn't fit your theory.

(c ) The witness who claimed Lee Harvey Oswald was in Houston seeking work demonstrates only a case of mistaken identity -- very common in late 1963 in the South. Yet one must reach for straws when one wishes to discount the entire Mexico City episode.

We know that Oswald lied not only to Marina, but also to Ruth Paine. Lee Harvey Oswald always gave her a phony story; that he would be seeking work in another State. It was a deliberate lie -- so easy to spot -- unless one's mind is made up and one wishes to deny the entire Mexico City episode -- and then it seems possible.

As for Mrs. Holman, (I) she gave the date as "late October" when the applicant came to her; (ii) she said the applicant never told her his name; (iii) she could not identify Lee Harvey Oswald from photographs the FBI showed her; (iv) she said the applicant was driver of his car; and (v) she said his pregnant wife was in the car, waiting.

There is no match there, Greg. Yet you "find" a match anyway, because you want to dismiss the whole Mexico City episode.

The only matching elements were that: (I) the applicant came from New Orleans; (II) the applicant's mother lived in Fort Worth; and (III) the applicant had grown up in Fort Worth. But that could identify LOTS of people. It's still too general, Greg, for a positive identification. Clearly one must be biased to conclude that Mrs. Holman really saw Lee Harvey Oswald at her Houston employment agency.

(1) You reject the entire MC episode, Greg, as "total BS," even though the Simpich Mole Hunt data amply showed that the CIA 201 File on Lee Harvey Oswald was the clear subject of that Mole Hunt.

(2) The CIA was still pushing rumors of a "Red" Oswald during the fake "bus data" fiasco. The FBI and Hoover demanded a "Lone Nut" Oswald. It was because of this lack of coordination that Hoover became impatient with the CIA, as seen in his memos to LBJ.

The Mexican Authorities were indeed influenced by the CIA, but also by the FBI. What was confusing was that their "masters" were demanding two different Fake Scenarios in the final weeks of November 1963 -- the CIA was demanding a "Red" Oswald, while the FBI was demanding a "Lone Nut" Oswald.

The Mexican Authorities fell all over each other trying to support both of their high-paying customers. Eventually Hoover and the FBI won out, but the Mexican Authorities were left with chaos of fake data in the wake.

I agree with you that the bus passengers should have been investigated -- for perjury -- but they were only doing what the FBI was begging them to do -- help forge a "Lone Nut" Oswald. As for Albert Osborne (aka John Bowen) he was a chronic xxxx, who first led the FBI on, and then turned on them. What a farce.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited June 7, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[David Josephs]

Ok then Greg...

how about we just illustrate the misrepresentation of evidence that has become your signature here

From earlier in this thread:

Odio was all over shop.

Mr. LIEBELER. After looking at this picture, are you more convinced, or less convinced, or do you still have about the same feeling that you had before you looked at it that the man who was in your apartment late in September was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. I have to be careful about that, because I have the same feeling that it was, but at the same time I have been looking at papers for months and months of pictures, and these help you to remember too much. I wish I could isolate the incident without remembering the other pictures. I have a feeling there are certain pictures that do not resemble him. It was not the Oswald that was standing in front of my door. He was kind of tired looking. He had a little smile, but he was sunken in in the face that day. More skinny, I would say.

--------------------

Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister hear this man introduced as Leon Oswald?

I included the "----" and the next section of your post to show that you did not include the very next 2 Q&As: wonder why???

(Your post)

Mr. LIEBELER. After looking at this picture, are you more convinced, or less convinced, or do you still have about the same feeling that you had before you looked at it that the man who was in your apartment late in September was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mrs. ODIO. I have to be careful about that, because I have the same feeling that it was, but at the same time I have been looking at papers for months and months of pictures, and these help you to remember too much. I wish I could isolate the incident without remembering the other pictures. I have a feeling there are certain pictures that do not resemble him. It was not the Oswald that was standing in front of my door. He was kind of tired looking. He had a little smile, but he was sunken in in the face that day. More skinny, I would say.

(the next line)

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, do you have any doubts in your mind after looking at these pictures that the man that was in your apartment was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mrs. ODIO. I don't have any doubts.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any doubt about it then?

Mrs. ODIO. I kept saying it can't be to myself; it just can't be. I mean it couldn't be, but when my sister walked into the hospital and she said, "Sylvia, have you seen the man?" And I said, "Yes." And she said, "That was the man that was at the door of my house." So I had no doubts then.

your next one?

would say.

--------------------

Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister hear this man introduced as Leon Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. She says she doesn't recall. She could not say that it is true. I mean, even though she said she thought I had mentioned the name very clearly, and I had mentioned the names of the three men.

Mr. LIEBELER. But she didn't remember it?

Mrs. ODIO. No;

So here was the next section of your reply trying to prove the surname OSWALD was never used..

But please don't post the sentences just prior to this statement or just after explaining that by the time Annie arrives at the door they are talking about him as "the/an American"... and that she too was sure who it was.

And he said, "We wanted you to meet this American. His name is Leon Oswald." He repeated it twice. Then my sister Annie by that time was standing near the door. She had come to see what was going on. And they introduced him as an American who was very much interested in the Cuban cause.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister hear this man introduced as Leon Oswald?
Mrs. ODIO. She says she doesn't recall. She could not say that it is true. I mean, even though she said she thought I had mentioned the name very clearly, and I had mentioned the names of the three men.
Mr. LIEBELER. But she didn't remember it?
Mrs. ODIO. No; she said I mentioned it, because I made a comment. This I don't recall. I said, "I am going to see Antonio Alentado," which is one of the leaders of the JURE here in Dallas. And I think I just casually said, "I am going to mention these names to him to see if he knows any of them." But I forgot about them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister see the men?
Mrs. ODIO. She saw the three of them.
Mr. LIEBELER. Have you discussed this with her since that time?
Mrs. ODIO. I just had to discuss it because it was bothering me. I just had to know.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did she think it was Oswald?
Mrs. ODIO. Well, her reaction to it when Oswald came on television, she almost passed out on me, just like I did the day at work when I learned about the assassination of the President. Her reaction was so obvious that it was him, I mean. And my reaction, we remember Oswald the day he came to my house because he had not shaved and he had a kind of a very, I don't know how to express it, but some little hairs like if you haven't shaved, but it is not a thick moustache, but some kind of shadow. That is something I noticed. And he was wearing--the other ones were wearing white dirty shirts, but he was wearing a long sleeved shirt.

You see Greg, you hide the info that does not suit your answers in hopes no one would look.

You continue to make absurd comments like: "Are you claiming that a man of the cloth lied to the authorities when he told them that she never heard the name Oswald used by the men?" when the evidence is right there... (all these quotes are from your posts on this thread)

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell Father McKann that the name Oswald was never used in your presence by any of these men?

Mrs. ODIO. Never was used except to introduce me, and the time when they left. They did not refer to him as Oswald.
Mr. LIEBELER. But they did in fact, introduce him as Leon Oswald?
Mrs. ODIO. And I shook hands with him.

On the follow-up day's phone call she repeatedly said they did not refer to him as Oswald... but that they only introduced him as such at the front door. Once again you must twist the woman's words to fit your square peg in the round hole. While making your point with cherry-picking right down the the sentence right before the contradiction to your conclusion.

Shabby amateurish work Parker...

Your points are so poorly supported by the evidence you have to resort to this?

But that's not lying or misrepresenting the evidence... it's NOT I'm saying.

that 's just you speculating about why she said what the evidence says she did in a manner which supports your view of things... without exposing all the pertinent facts... or that the gist of the sources of your supporting evidence mean the exact opposite of what you show in your posts...

That's what you do and what you've been doing since you've returned to attack anything not to your liking.

Half-truths you post as facts and build upon as if a solid foundation had been established and yet even the most cursory of looks shows them for the house of cards they are...

And you honestly believe you're fooling anyone...

ok... shhhhh! I'll keep your secret.

[Kenneth Drew]

Your theory seems to be, the more unlikely something is to have happened, the greater the chance it did happen.

You mean like someone's tonsils growing back?

As I have posted previous, at the time Oswald had his operation, he was under 8 and the norm was for partial removal only. The biggest risk to regrowth was to kids under 8 (when tonsils are more or less fully grown) and only partially removed. Nothing remotely unlikely about them growing back in his case.

Nice try.

Got anything on topic?

I have never researched 'tonsils growing back', but I'm almost the same age as LHO was and grew up in the era, and I have never, not once in my lifetime, have i heard of 'tonsils growing back'. Is this a rumor that the Warren Commission started or where did it originate? And also, I've never heard of 'partial removal'.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Jon G. Tidd]

Kenneth Drew,

I've done some simple research on tonsils by Googling "do tonsils grow back?" One of the hits was a piece by a physician, who writes that if a tonsil is not completely removed, it may grow back to some extent but not more than 40 percent. So the questions are: [1] Were Oswald's tonsils removed? [2] If they were, was the removal as to each tonsil partial or complete? [3] What is the probability that a partially removed tonsil that grew back would become infected?

The probability will come from medical studies. It will range from 0 to 1. Zero means never; 1 means absolute certainty. Any number between 0 and 1 gives the likelihood of occurrence. My understanding is that the probability is less than 0.25, but my understanding may be flawed.

[Jon G. Tidd]

I know the perps and their descendants are real happy tonight. They were clever, far cleverer than anyone here. No one here could have pulled off JFK's assassination, covered it up, and left a trail of confusing information.

Yeah, the perps and their descendants are having a good laugh tonight. Because tonight, researchers of the JFK assassination are at one another's throats. As if the TRUTH is a matter of debate rather than a matter of discovery.

Suggestion: Aim for why JFK was killed. That's the key question. If you know the reason, you're far smarter than I.