For Chris Newton, Larry Hancock, Tracy Parnell, and other Critically-Minded Members

[Mathias Baumann]

I think there are some problems with the idea that Oswald did not go to Mexico at all.

First of all: Where was he at that time if not in Mexico? Is there any evidence at all that he might have been someplace other than Mexico?

2nd: John Newman shows in his book that the impostor who called the Soviet embassy only had a rough idea what the "real" (or not?) Oswald had done and said there. HIs analysis of the transcripts clearly shows that it is more likely that he (the impostor) was actually trying to find out what Oswald had been up to. Why would he do that if he himself had been impersonating Oswald all along? It doesn't make sense.

[Mathias Baumann]

Or, come to think of it, was the impostor maybe trying to deliberately muddy the water??

Edited May 28, 2017 by Mathias Baumann

[Tom Hume]

I’m going to attempt to explain the strange apparent mistake in the “Lee H Oswald” entry on the September 26th Flecha Roja Bus Line register below:

The last letter in “Oswald” should be a “D”, but it’s not. And it’s also ambiguous in that while it looks like a “J”, it could also be regarded as a “T”. “LEE H OSWALJ”, or, “LEE H OSWALT”.

This “J” or “T” option, I submit, was intentional, and I’ll get to those two letters in a moment. But first a little background.

There are many enigmas surrounding Lee Oswald’s relationship to, and possible involvement in, the assassination. And many, if not most, of these enigmas involve there being too many Lee Oswald’s. I’m not going to list them, you all know what they are, but Oswald’s supposed trip the Mexico City appears to involve a slew of Lee Oswald impersonations. This, I submit, was by design and the genesis  for this stunt, along with many other stunts, was an anagram of “Lee Harvey Oswald”:

“HAVE LO SLEW READY”

Our first optional spelling of Lee’s name on the bus register above is, “LEE H OSWALJ”. This anagrams to:

“LO, A JEH SLEW”

Since Oswald and Company (“ICO” = Igor, Case, Oswald) had a knack for packing several pertinent anagrams into one set of letters, I’m going to guess that the following anagram of “LEE H OSWALJ” is also both intended and true:

“JH’S LEE, AWOL”

Meaning, I think, he was neither on the bus or in Mexico City.

Next is an anagram of the second optional spelling of Lee’s name, “Lee H Oswalt”:

“THE LO, A SLEW”

Once again, I’m going to guess that the next two anagrams of “Lee H Oswalt” are both intended and true:

(1) “LHO/WES TALE”

(2) "WES, HE ALT LO"

As I’ve opined before, Wesley Frazier, an apparently competent “civilian”, was recruited into ICO largely because of the anagram possibilities inherent in his name, and because of where his sister lived. I’m going guess that Wesley Frazier took the bus ride posing as “Lee H Oswalt”.

Although Igor Vaganov was Lee’s primary double (and possibly on the bus as well), Wesley appears to have filled in as an LHO impersonator at the Irving Barber Shop, and as the LHO body-double in the BYPs. Here’s a couple BYP “Lee Harvey Oswald” anagrams:

“L HEAD OVERLAY WES”

“H OVER WESLEY LAD”

Here is another “SLEW” example brought up by David Josephs on another thread, “Lee Oswald” enigmatically appearing on a guest register at The Fox and Hound restaurant in Wisconsin on Sept 14, 1963.

Once again, as in “OSWALT/OSWALJ”, we need to study what the entry actually says, not what it is supposed to be. The “LEE OSWALD” looks just fine, but the date is both ambiguous and incomplete. There is only the month, “9”, and not the day. But is that really a “9”? Typewriters can make a “9” like that, but it’s unusual to put a curly tail on a penned number “9”. 

As in the “OSWALT/OSWALJ” bus entry discussed earlier, I submit that individually, both “9” and “g” are in play.

Let’s first assume that it is the number “9”, meaning September, and the person making the entry on The Fox and Hound register was merely lax in entering the full date. The key to the person’s intentional laxness is in an anagram of the full line entry, “9, LEE OSWALD, DALLAS TEXAS”, which anagrams to:

“LEE OSWALD’S LAX DATE: A L’S 9”

Continuing to regard the ambiguous symbol as a “9”, we can make this anagram of “9, LEE OSWALD, DALLAS TEXAS”:

“A O LAX DATE 9 LESS 3 AS WELL”

The number “3” came from simply translating a letter “D” using the letter/number key at the bottom of this page.

So in the expression, “A O LAX DATE 9 LESS THREE AS WELL”, we get the answer “6”, which can now be translated to the letter “g”. Our anagram answers have just pointed out the ambiguous nature of the entry on The Fox and Hound guest register.

“g Lee Oswald, Dallas Texas” can now be anagrammed. For example:

“EGAD! DALLAS TEXAS LO SLEW!”

Returning to the bus trip from Laredo, I’m going to guess that there was a heavy slew of LHO impersonators departing, all working for ICO, creating enigmatic anomalies designed to mess up Hoover’s framing of the real LHO. “LEE HARVEY OSWALD” anagrams to:

“LAREDO HEAVY SLEW”

There are hundreds of things like this in the ICO puzzle system, but that’s all for now.

Tom

PS: Sorry Mathias, I didn't mean to step on your two last posts - bad timing on my part.

Number/Letter translation device: (A=0)(B=1)(C=2)(D=3)(E=4)(F=5)(G=6)(H=7)(I=8)(J=9)(K=10)(L=11)(M=12)(N=13)(O=14)(P=15)(Q=16)(R=17)(S=18)(T=19)(U=20)(V=21)(W=22)(X=23)(Y=24)(Z=25) 

 

Edited May 31, 2017 by Tom Hume

[David Josephs]

9 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

 

I think there are some problems with the idea that Oswald did not go to Mexico at all.

First of all: Where was he at that time if not in Mexico?

 

Suggesting he was IN Mexico simply because there may or may not be evidence of where he was instead... which there is... is in reality not a valid argument.

To prove her was there, you must do just that...  If he did go to Mexico City and back to Dallas, the evidence supporting such a trip is extremely poor at best with a dubious past, in reality, most was fabricated to support such a conclusion...   But we must really go back to early Oct 1963, and figure what the CIA and FBI was doing related to Oswald, who saw him, and where... and which is the most reliable authentic evidence...

[Sandy Larsen]

[deleted]

Edited May 29, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

On 5/26/2017 at 6:15 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

I'd like to read the transcripts of the phone calls. Does anybody know where I can find them?

 

On 5/26/2017 at 6:29 AM, Larry Hancock said:

Sandy, Bill Simpich is probably your most reliable source on what still exists and where to find it....I'm not sure that actual transcripts of all of them were ever entered into the record or releases.

 

On 5/26/2017 at 10:38 AM, David Josephs said:

Here Sandy https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=61264  Some transcripts are in this file and here are some others...

 

Thanks guys for the links and docs.

I thought there'd be cleaned up transcripts of the phone calls by now. Apparently not. Maybe I'll create them.

 

[B. A. Copeland]

I am glad I found this topic! I have a question thats been nagging me for some time concerning MC. Have ANY of the Russians at the consulate, have ANY of them EVER been shown LHO's photo and confirmed that he was the guy there acting as he did?? Kostikov, et al.?

[Eddy Bainbridge]

I find it very tempting to postulate theories based on the evidence, but as Larry Hancock has explained, disseminating facts from the evidence is taking some time! Is it possible to look at the MC story in a different way? The first JFK assassination theory, emanating from the DRE I believe, supports the 'Oswald with Communist accomplices theory'. The mainstream media did not get hooked by that and quickly the 'lone gunman' theory gained traction. It is an assumption , based on some good evidence that this media redirection may have been controlled, not by emerging facts, but by a cover-up. Is there a tiny window in time, after the assassination, where MC evidence gave a different picture? Can the evidence be assessed as to the timing of its being revealed, as opposed to its evidentialy provenance. I suspect David Josephs would have an interesting opinion on this.

[Larry Hancock]

I'm sure that David and others can respond with more specifics but generally speaking for the first several days following the assassination key staff in Mexico City including the CIA Station Chief, the Ambassador, and officers such as Phillips were expressing strong concerns that there had been Cuban/Russian involvement including involvement with Oswald.  That story line was accompanied by a constant flow of purported sources who claimed to have seen Oswald in suspicious contacts with Cubans. That sent the FBI off on a follow on series of investigations which largely deconstructed those sources.  We also have both Hoover and Johnson's phone calls about Mexico City and information coming into special meetings in the White House over the weekend. Rightly or wrongly the early "window" in MC sees a strong push promoting conspiracy coming out of MC - one so strong it elicited direct push back (much like Hoover had pushed back against the DPD). 

How much of that MC story was simply a mistake or had more sinister undertones - or both - can be debated. But whether Oswald was physically in MC or not, enough had happened there, been documented and reported, that it resulted in a picture of conspiracy being presented to Washington by principals there.

[Mathias Baumann]

@ Larry Hancock:

Severaly CIA staff have said that they saw photos of Oswald in Mexico City and that Win Scott hid them in his private safe (until James Angleton took them). I've always thought that the CIA had been trying to hide the fact that Oswald went to Mexico in the company of others (the same people he went to Silvia Odio with?)

Now having re-read the relevant parts on Mexico City in Gaeton Fonzi's and Jefferson Morley's book I'm not so sure anymore. A number of witnesses claim the Oswald they saw was much older and blond.

However, why would CIA agents claim to have seen photos of Oswald when CIA headquarters has always maintained there are no photos? Why would they do that? That doesn't make sense, does it?

And again my question from above: Why did the impostor calling the Soviet embassy know so little about what Oswald had done there? Doesn't that mean the person who visited the embassy and the man one the phone can't have been one and the same?

[David Josephs]

3 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I find it very tempting to postulate theories based on the evidence, but as Larry Hancock has explained, disseminating facts from the evidence is taking some time! Is it possible to look at the MC story in a different way? The first JFK assassination theory, emanating from the DRE I believe, supports the 'Oswald with Communist accomplices theory'. The mainstream media did not get hooked by that and quickly the 'lone gunman' theory gained traction. It is an assumption , based on some good evidence that this media redirection may have been controlled, not by emerging facts, but by a cover-up. Is there a tiny window in time, after the assassination, where MC evidence gave a different picture? Can the evidence be assessed as to the timing of its being revealed, as opposed to its evidentialy provenance. I suspect David Josephs would have an interesting opinion on this.

Timing - indeed.  Who knew what, when.

Yet without a clear understanding and acceptance of PD Scott's Phase I & II of the operation, the explanation might feel insufficient.

Under Phillips, Goodpasture and the HQ Soviet desk staffer Barbara Murphy Manell (LADILLINGER) construct a situation placing Oswald in MC when very strong evidence suggests he was en route to Dallas, in Dallas seeing Odio and finally in Dallas at the YMCA.

At no time does the evidence provided confirm Oswald - THE LONE NUT - was ever in Mexico City.  What this Mexican evidence does start out doing is place Oswald with others traveling by AUTO...  but no AUTO drops him at the hotel - which is only a short walk from the bus terminals.

What the evidence does do, immediately after the assassination, is get "borrowed" by those claimed to be Mexican presidential staffers.

On Nov 25th - just prior to Alvarado coming forward we get the following from the FBI

Four bus lines checked, no info related to Oswald/Hidell...  This is in addition to the FBI's 20+ informants looking for traces of Oswald all thru Nov with no luck...

Yet now fast forward to March 12 1964 and the story begins to change:  The Bosch changed Frontera baggage manifest is now considered "clear" evidence of Oswald leaving Mexico City at 1pm on Frontera...  

Fast forward now only 3 days to March 15, 1964 and we get a glimpse into the problem solving efforts of the FBI.  When they figure out that Oswald can't possibly make an appointment in Dallas on Oct 3 at 4:30pm if he leaves when the FBI first says he does...  he can't get to the TEC on time - an appointment we know he kept.

 

From 10/18 thru Dec the FBI is following up on the Oswald 10/10 CIA Cable...  This 11/22 note is one of the earliest acknowledgments that the FBI cannot confirm the info the CIA conveyed back in October.  In fact, the opposite is true - there are no signs of Oswald having actually been to MC at all only 2nd and 3rd hand photo copies of evidence supposedly pointing to Oswald.

Nagell's story about the 17th/18th jives with Alvarado's original claim that Oswald was seen doing these things Sept 17/18.. and despite quite a bit of leverage, sticks to his story.

Rule #1 - never believe anything coming from the government until it has been officially denied:  

Alvarado was pressured into coming forward on his own to tell the Mexican government about his "Oswald" incident on Sept 17th.  If Dickie Helms tells you all if now fine...
who are we to disagree?   

Anything from Mexico which suggested Oswald was involved with anyone coming, staying or going... had to be squashed.

To me, this Hoover statement speaks volumes...  Despite it being the wrong photo and not Oswald's voice - IOW no evidence at all (tape and photo are not Oswald), Hoover talks of a "SECOND PERSON" down there instead of a single person playing Oswald's part...

This is what convinces me that Oswald and the FBI are connected and that Oswald was at Odio's door when the FBI fraudulently puts him on buses.  There was not "2nd" person... there was only ever the charade of the evidence creating a conspiracy - removed for evidence which did not.

[Sandy Larsen]

Places to check for Mexico City phone-call transcripts:
 

On 5/26/2017 at 6:15 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

I'd like to read the transcripts of the phone calls. Does anybody know where I can find them?

This Mary Ferrell page says that the transcripts were declassified in the 1990s. But for some reason in includes links to only two of them. (What's up with that??)

 

 

On 5/26/2017 at 6:29 AM, Larry Hancock said:

Sandy, Bill Simpich is probably your most reliable source on what still exists and where to find it....I'm not sure that actual transcripts of all of them were ever entered into the record or releases. There were several calls in question.  I'm assuming  you have Bill's book. Its also important to research the two translators, the Tarasoffs and their remarks. I'm not going to try and characterize all the details from memory since I know I would make a mistake or two ..or more.. 

 

On 5/26/2017 at 10:38 AM, David Josephs said:

 

Here Sandy https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=61264  Some transcripts are in this file and here are some others...

The visa photos

If this application was indeed a typed original and carbon, there is no way to line up the carbon with the original which works...

One side or the other, the top or the bottom cannot be sized correctly.  Plus the signatures don't match at all

 

 

 

 

The following link has multiple phone transcripts:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=26314#relPageId=2&tab=page

 

Edited June 2, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Tom Hume]

David, I believe you were the one that first posted the side by side visa photos of Oswald. I don’t think they are different versions of the same photo, but two slightly different photos. Could you give us some background info on these two pictures? Thanks.

Tom

[David Josephs]

41 minutes ago, Tom Hume said:

David, I believe you were the one that first posted the side by side visa photos of Oswald. I don’t think they are different versions of the same photo, but two slightly different photos. Could you give us some background info on these two pictures? Thanks.

Tom

Well according to the available story, When "Oswald" arrives on the 27th to get his Visa to go to Odessa (according to most) he did not have any photos with him so Duran send him away to get some.

CORNWELL - So, from all the circumstances, did it appear to your that he just went somewhere locally and had the pictures made?
TIRADO - Yeah. I think that I already explained (to) him where he could take the photographs.
CORNWELL - You told him some locations in town where he could go? Were there some right in the neighborhood of the Consulate there?
TIRADO - That I don't remember.

If I remember correctly they searched high and low for a place where those photos could have been taken anywhere near the Cuban compound... the FBI evidence says they could not find one.   "...passport photographs which he may have obtained in the US"..  Below that is the exhibit referred to in the WCR which explains the passport photo

If the sole purpose for this visit was to leave an impression...  The "Oswald" impostor did so by making strange requests, mentioning strange affiliations, returning a number of times that day before arguing with Azcue.

Furthermore, since MC was one capital of spycraft, you'd think getting passport photos or "ID photos" would be an easy thing...  plus having these photos taken close by would ADD to the story...  so IDK why they didn't "create" a place and have them verify it.

[Larry Hancock]

David, I apologize, should know this...do we not have a copy of the photo which was actually submitted along with Oswald's application, did the Cubans misplace it, not keep it, fail to hand it over, etc.

If we do and it turned out to be the Oswald in a sweater and time image I remember then I become increasingly suspicious.  Its possible that an impersonator might have tried to make an impression without having a photo but if pressed come back with an old Oswald photo just to get it in the record.  Probably nobody would look that closely and of course after the fact, it would be Oswald.

-- very interesting,  Larry