The St. Ruthie and St. Michael "We both know" call

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Otherwise, Edwin Lopez asserts -- straight up -- that Lee Harvey Oswald was certainly in Mexico City.

I recall Ed Lopez saying it was his opinion that Oswald wasn't in Mexico City. But I'll watch it again.

(Nope... see my EDIT below.)
 

 

EDIT: My mistake. Lopez concluded Oswald didn't go to the consulates, but he did believe Oswald was in Mexico City.

 

Edited August 5, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Chris Newton]

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I recall Ed Lopez saying it was his opinion that Oswald wasn't in Mexico City. But I'll watch it again.

Sandy, Thanks for the link. I'm sure that the lazy researcher will appreciate that Ed Lopez makes his point in the first minute and a half but I recommend investing the full 9 minutes because there is a lot of good stuff packed in that short time frame.

[Sandy Larsen]

2 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I recall Ed Lopez saying it was his opinion that Oswald wasn't in Mexico City. But I'll watch it again.

Sandy, Thanks for the link. I'm sure that the lazy researcher will appreciate that Ed Lopez makes his point in the first minute and a half but I recommend investing the full 9 minutes because there is a lot of good stuff packed in that short time frame.

 

Yes, Ed Lopez does say near the end that he believed Oswald was in MC. Just not at the embassies. That was the source of my contusion.

 

Edited August 5, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Chris Newton]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yes, Ed Lopez does say near the end that he believed Oswald was in MC. Just not at the embassies. That was the source of my contusion.

In theory, an impersonation would have more impact if the target (of the impersonation), could be placed in the same vicinity during the same time frame.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 minute ago, Chris Newton said:

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yes, Ed Lopez does say near the end that he believed Oswald was in MC. Just not at the embassies. That was the source of my contusion.

In theory, an impersonation would have more impact if the target (of the impersonation), could be placed in the same vicinity during the same time frame.

Makes sense.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Paul:

In my original quote, I said that is what Eddie told me. I interviewed him in person at his house and also on the phone.   What he says on a TV show is something else.  Different circumstances.  Have you ever interviewed Eddie?  Please let me know so I can ask him about it. 

Paul never gets tired of distorting things,  as people around here are getting used to.

As per the apology,  you did not provide a source for it.  Please do so.

Edited August 5, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

EDIT: My mistake. Lopez concluded Oswald didn't go to the consulates, but he did believe Oswald was in Mexico City.

Sandy,

Thanks for posting that BBC Oswald Trial footage of Edwin "Eddie" Lopez.    

And the reason that Edwin Lopez concluded that Oswald didn't go to the Mexico City Consulates was only because Lopez had no photographic evidence to prove that Oswald was there.

But we know from Bill Simpich (2014) that the CIA confiscated all photo evidence about Lee Harvey Oswald at the Mexico City Consulates in 9/1963, because of their CIA Mole Hunt to catch the CIA Mole who impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald toward the end of Oswald's visit there.

That's why there's no photographic evidence of Oswald at these consulates.  That's also why there is that famous bogus photo of this large Russian Dude in Oswald's CIA file.  That was also part of the "Simpich Mole Hunt."

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 6, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

In my original quote, I said that is what Eddie told me. I interviewed him in person at his house and also on the phone.   What he says on a TV show is something else.  Different circumstances.  Have you ever interviewed Eddie?  Please let me know so I can ask him about it. 

Paul never gets tired of distorting things,  as people around here are getting used to.

James,

Based on this video-taped, 1986 BBC Trial sworn testimony given by "Eddie" Lopez which everybody can see today, the only conclusion the impartial reader can draw is that you must have misunderstood what "Eddie" told you in your personal interviews with him.  What other conclusion can we draw?  It's your word against Edwin Lopez. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 6, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

No comment Paul.  Keep on ignoring what I said.

 

Still await the apology by the SS to Ruth.

BTW, did they also apologize to Marina for telling her that she needed to stay away from Ruth since Ruth was CIA?  (Marina's grand jury testimony of 2/28/68 pgs 69-70)

Edited August 6, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

No comment Paul.  Keep on ignoring what I said.

Still await the apology by the SS to Ruth.

BTW, did they also apologize to Marina for telling her that she needed to stay away from Ruth since Ruth was CIA?  (Marina's grand jury testimony of 2/28/68 pgs 69-70)

James,

As for the Secret Service assistant ATSAIC Leon Gopadze accusing Ruth Paine of forging Lee Oswald's "Walker letter", the WC laughed that out of court.  The shame-faced Secret Service had to eat their words.  That was an implicit apology, and anybody can see that.

As for the Secret Service advising Marina Oswald to avoid Ruth Paine, according to the WC testimony of Robert Oswald, he and he alone was the one who ordered Marina Oswald --- as the patriarch of the Oswald family -- to avoid Ruth Paine under any and all circumstances.  This was during the first two days after the JFK murder.

Robert despised Michael Paine with words unspeakable.   In fact, Robert Oswald was asked several times why he hated Michael Paine so much, and he never answered the question in his entire life.  (IMHO, it was really because the Paines were "rich" and the Oswalds were "poor" and Lee Oswald bypassed his own relatives in the care of his own family.)

The Secret Service was more than willing to support Robert Oswald in this order, because the Secret Service needed to minimize all contact with Marina Oswald, in order to figure out what was going on -- knowing they screwed up big since JFK was killed on their watch.

No doubt the Secret Service made up all sorts of excuses to support their desires -- to dumb little Marina.  

All Marina Oswald knew was that she might be deported, and she was terrified.  She obeyed the orders of Robert Oswald to avoid Ruth Paine -- for the rest of her life (with the exception of one hour some years later, IIRC).

Ruth Paine never understood why Marina Oswald avoided her for the rest of her life.  Ruth Paine always liked Marina Oswald -- and still has fond memories of Marina Oswald to this very day.

The historical truth remains --- Ruth Paine was personally behind the successful childbirth of Audrey Oswald at Parkland Memorial Hospital in October, 1963.   Marina Oswald was eight months pregnant, with no money, no health insurance, and Lee was out of work in late September 1963, when Ruth Paine took Marina and baby June from New Orleans to Texas -- and registered Marina at Parkland.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 7, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Chris Newton]

On 8/5/2017 at 1:57 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Makes sense.

On the other hand, I think Oswald was "doubled" by multiple persons in different places - in locations that Oswald never visited. Take, for instance, the multiple visits to the gun ranges in the Dallas area that can only happen if other people are being untruthful (trejo bomb incoming). Maybe that's one of the pitfall's of choosing a alternative narrative? The narrative you choose might have an unfortunate timeline. Did Oswald and a big well dressed Latino visit McKeown and his friend outside Houston and talk about guns? Did LHO visit the Odios? Who was the Ozzy that Marita Lorenz disliked in Florida? Did Oswald test drive a used car?

If Oswald was in Mexico City and he visited the two embassies multiple times... then it would be possible that Oswald and an Oswald imposter, both visited each embassy?

Edited August 7, 2017 by Chris Newton
grammar nazis

[James DiEugenio]

Chris, Sandy:

Please, let us not lose sight of normality.  Which is always a tendency in this case.  For the simple reason that  this case is so full of anomalies.

The standard should simply be this:  the Warren Commission says that Oswald left New Orleans on September 25th.  He then took a bus to Houston, and picked up a bus to Laredo.,  He crossed over into Nuevo Laredo on the afternoon of the 26th. He then caught a Red Arrow bus to Mexico City.

He  arrived in Mexico City and checked into the Hotel Del Comercio.  He then made a total of five separate visitations to the Cuban and Soviet Consulates.

On September 30th he bought exchange orders for a Transportes del Norte bus back to Texas.  The next day, he checked out and went on this bus line from Mexico City to Laredo.  He then went by Greyhound from  Laredo to Dallas.

Now, if such was the case, there should be an ample, solid paper record of that whole journey.  From the start to the end.  That would be the normal world.

There is not anything like that.  As David Josephs and John Armstrong will tell you, the FBI could come up with next to nothing for the trips down and back.  Marina, who reversed her story on this issue, tried to help out with some bananas for the trip back.  (I kid you not, check out p. 736 of the WR for a laugh .)  As recent research has revealed, the two Australian girls the WC relied upon so much for the trip down, were either wrong or suborned.  To put it mildly, John H Bowen (false name) is not a reliable witness. The record in Mexico City is full of holes so wide that it resembles an ages old Swiss Cheese.  And the trip back is nothing but a sieve. It should not be anything like that if Oswald took the journey described.

When you analyze this in depth and at length, and you measure it agains the so called passport photo--which no photo shop in a five mile radius recalled taking of LHO--then in my opinion, and the opinions of others, whether or not Oswald went to MC is a very open question.

This is why Ruth Paine tried so hard to furnish the WC with anything and all that would put him there, including postcards.  Which the idiot Bob Baer used on Tracking Oswald. And when the WC still had doubts about him there, good ole PJM came up with bus tickets--in August mind you!  Wesley Liebeler went nuts when he heard about this.

If it turns out that good ole Ruthie created the Embassy Letter,  you will finally see how important and preplanned the Mexico City charade was to the plot.

 

Edited August 7, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Chris Newton said:

If Oswald was in Mexico City and he visited the two embassies multiple times... then it would be possible that Oswald and an Oswald imposter, both visited each embassy?

 

41 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

As David Josephs and John Armstrong will tell you, the FBI could come up with next to nothing for the trip down and back.

Chris,

It seems possible (though I tend not to believe it) that Oswald was in Mexico City. As Jim points out, he could not have gone there in a traceable manner (by bus or airplane), because had he done so the FBI would have located and used that evidence. Instead the FBI had to resort to fabricating evidence.

The only reasons I can think of for the FBI concocting their "travel by bus" story and evidence are 1) they were unable to find any evidence of Oswald traveling to and from MC; or 2) they did find evidence of Oswald traveling, but the evidence showed Oswald traveling with suspicious others; and had the FBI reported this evidence, it may have pointed to a conspiracy. So instead the FBI fabricated the "Lone Nut" version of the travel story.

IMO, if Oswald did go to MC, he must have gone by automobile with at least one suspicious character. And the FBI chose to cover the trip up.

Now, if Oswald actually visited the embassies, it seems to me that the Oswald impersonator would have timed his calls so that surveillance photos of the real Oswald would have been connected to the calls. But I guess that decision would have depended on the goal of the impersonator as well as whether or not he was aware that the U.S. was routinely taking surveillance photos.

Having said that . . .

The way I see it, whether or not Oswald actually went to Mexico City is probably irrelevant to figuring out the purpose of the MC shenanigans. My focus is in what the goal of the impostor was.

 

[Chris Newton]

19 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The way I see it, whether or not Oswald actually went to Mexico City is probably irrelevant to figuring out the purpose of the MC shenanigans. My focus is in what the goal of the impostor was.

It's got to be relevant. I don't know if he was or wasn't in Mexico or Mexico City. Even establishing a border crossing doesn't mean a trip to MC. In fact, if one wanted to make anything "go away" in Mexico, that person (or entity) simply pays "la mordida" and poof - it never happened. I'm not trying to be funny, I paid my way out of an expired Mexican Visa ($20) in 1979.

[Sandy Larsen]

34 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The way I see it, whether or not Oswald actually went to Mexico City is probably irrelevant to figuring out the purpose of the MC shenanigans. My focus is in what the goal of the impostor was.

It's got to be relevant.

 

The fact that there was a person impersonating Oswald in telephone calls should tell us that that it was being done behind Oswald's back, IMO. And if that's the case, one has to ask, what would be the point of even having Oswald there.

I guess that actually having Oswald there would have been useful in creating evidence that he was indeed there. It would also prevent Oswald from being spotted elsewhere -- like back in New Orleans -- when he was supposed to be in Mexico.

 

34 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

I don't know if he was or wasn't in Mexico or Mexico City. Even establishing a border crossing doesn't mean a trip to MC.

In fact, if one wanted to make anything "go away" in Mexico, that person (or entity) simply pays "la mordida" and poof - it never happened. I'm not trying to be funny, I paid my way out of an expired Mexican Visa ($20) in 1979.

 

Well if Oswald did that, it would have been against the wishes of those trying to build an Oswald story in MC. Of course that doesn't mean that Oswald didn't do that.