Jump to content
The Education Forum

Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released


David Boylan
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 314
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

43 minutes ago, David Boylan said:

David,

 

Thanks for this. One thing I would question in Whitten's summary is his analysis of why Oswald didn't know his address. (That's about 4/5ths of the way down in the pdf).

Assuming it was Oswald down there in Mexico, when LHO came back, he checked into the YMCA on October 3rd. He didn't have an address. Supposedly, he was at Bledsoe's house from the 7th to the 14th.

 

Steve Thomas

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

Thanks for sharing this.    The following is my opinion.

HAVE PEOPLE NEGLECTED TO READ BILL SIMPICH'S FREE eBOOK ON THE MARY FERRELL WEB SITE??

Oh, my gosh, people!   Come up to present time!

Bill Simpich -- a stellar member of this Forum -- supplied the ANSWER to the Fake Oswald given in that Fake Telephone Call from the Cuban Consulate to the Soviet Embassy while Lee Harvey Oswald was in Mexico City!

The name of the eBook is, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014).  The doggone work of genius is FREE, FREE, FREE for the taking! 

There's no EXCUSE to ignore it!

This CIA document that you shared, David, is from a CIA agent who was totally FOOLED by the Impersonator of Lee Harvey Oswald over the telephone.

But this only shows that Witten was a LOW-LEVEL FLUNKY in the CIA, because he failed to know the key fact -- that the CIA High Command had started a Top Secret MOLE HUNT inside the CIA, to find out WHO had Impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in those two telephone calls!

That was the single most wire-tapped phone on Planet Earth in the summer of 1963 !!

The CIA rule was that all calls from that telephone to the Soviet Embassy had to be transcribed and placed on the CIA MC HQ desk within 30 MINUTES (IIRC) !!

It was less than ONE HOUR that the CIA was completely certain that those telephone calls were NOT made by Lee Harvey Oswald.

This was proven in black and white by Bill Simpich, Esq. in 2014.   It's not even an open question anymore!

For anybody to ponder this bogus CIA report, by some low-level flunky who had no idea that Lee Harvey Oswald's CIA 201 File had been deliberately skewed because of the MOLE HUNT, and that alone explains why the WRONG PHOTOGRAPH was in his CIA 201 File -- that is unforgivable today.

READ BILL SIMPICH!  His eBook (2014) is 100% FREE for the taking?   What's stopping you?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read it too, and agree - Whitten was no flunky. Wasn't he replaced by Angleton shortly after he began working as the CIA/WC liaison?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Whitten note, as the new documents reveal that, after the assassination, neither informant in the Cuban embassy could recall Oswald being there?

Or, even more important, as the new documents reveal, the surveillance on the Russians revealed that they did not mention Oswald in the days after 11/22/63?  

Do either of those sound credible to anyone?

In a panic, the CIA then began to check on each plane coming into Mexico City.  Still no Oswald.

But they were stuck with these tapes which Goodpasture, and then Helms, said were of Oswald.  Except, it turned out they were not.  But yet this is what Helms told the FBI, when the FBI already knew they were not Oswald. 

That is about the time they turned over the inquiry to Echeverria, the good friend of Win Scott.  And boy did he come through for the Agency with a trail of BS concerning LHO coming down and leaving.  Even the FBI did not buy it, but they went along with it.

And Scott himself, in the new documents, is now exposed as also lying to create this BS story about why there were no photos of LHO at either embassy.  He told the WC reps that it was caused by low light level, not enough manpower, lack of funding.  Slawson kept a straight face through this line of hooey.  It later turned out this was all more BS since we learned the CIA had at lest two cameras on each embassy during all working hours, including Saturday. And LHO went in almost exclusively during the day.

Mexico City was a pile of paper mache, and Anne Goodpasture was in it up to her neck.  Which is why she lied her head off to the HSCA.

I agree though, the idea that Whitten was a low level flunky is pretty absurd. He actually was the liaison to the WC until Helms sacked him for Angleton.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2017 at 2:13 PM, David Boylan said:

Thanks Paul, I've read Simpich's excellent book. Also, Witten was not a low-level flunky.

David,

Respectfully, if Witten was not a low-level flunky in the CIA, then how could he be so ignorant that the CIA high-command had started a Top Secret MOLE HUNT inside the CIA to find the person who had IMPERSONATED Lee Harvey Oswald in those telephone calls that are so blatantly misrepresented in this CIA report that you shared with us?

Respectfully,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On November 9, 2017 at 2:38 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Does Whitten note, as the new documents reveal that, after the assassination, neither informant in the Cuban embassy could recall Oswald being there?

Or, even more important, as the new documents reveal, the surveillance on the Russians revealed that they did not mention Oswald in the days after 11/22/63?  

Do either of those sound credible to anyone?

In a panic, the CIA then began to check on each plane coming into Mexico City.  Still no Oswald.

But they were stuck with these tapes which Goodpasture, and then Helms, said were of Oswald.  Except, it turned out they were not.  But yet this is what Helms told the FBI, when the FBI already knew they were not Oswald. 

That is about the time they turned over the inquiry to Echeverria, the good friend of Win Scott.  And boy did he come through for the Agency with a trail of BS concerning LHO coming down and leaving.  Even the FBI did not buy it, but they went along with it.

And Scott himself, in the new documents, is now exposed as also lying to create this BS story about why there were no photos of LHO at either embassy.  He told the WC reps that it was caused by low light level, not enough manpower, lack of funding.  Slawson kept a straight face through this line of hooey.  It later turned out this was all more BS since we learned the CIA had at lest two cameras on each embassy during all working hours, including Saturday. And LHO went in almost exclusively during the day.

Mexico City was a pile of paper mache, and Anne Goodpasture was in it up to her neck.  Which is why she lied her head off to the HSCA.

I agree though, the idea that Whitten was a low level flunky is pretty absurd. He actually was the liaison to the WC until Helms sacked him for Angleton.

As soon as Oswald's name was announced, and his picture was on TV, Duran recognized him immediately, and her reaction--in effect, "OMG. . that's the guy who was here just 7 weeks ago!"--was front page news in Mexico City papers.  So I do not understand your post

Second: when Oswald showed up to get that transit visa, he had to bring a photo of himself, which he had taken at a local place. In addition, he had to sign forms.  The handwriting of Oswald's signature obviously matches that of LHO; more important, he was standing right in front of her, with a photograph he was required to have, and that photograph was pasted into the document. (I'm writing this from memory).  But with all of this data--and when that is conjoined with her immediate reaction identifying Oswald (the man arrested in Dallas) as the person she had dealt with, how can anyone maintain that it was not LHO at the Cuban Consulate--at least on that occasion?  I'm not arguing that LHO was never impersonated---Mexico City represents a complex problem. But based on the documents connected with the visa, the fact that he signed the application, the fact that the signature matches, the fact that he was standing right there in front of her, with a matching photograph, and her instant (well publicized reaction). . . how can it be maintained that, in that particular instance, the person who was there was not Lee H Oswald?

Is it the position of those who're pushing this idea that the person who Duran dealt with was a near-perfect look-alike to LHO? And that he was able to sign Oswald's name, on a document, so that the signature matched?  And that the picture he had taken was then switched? 

Please explain.

DSL

11/11/2017 5:55 a.m. PST

 

Edited by David Lifton
Would like to be notified of replies, and I forgot to check the box.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David:

I will just assume you are not fully informed about all of this.  Alright.

I am not going to argue facts in evidence for years, decades, generations. And I am surely not going to argue about the latest arguments with that so called photo ID that the FBI could never find within five miles of the place, or that as David Josephs has just noted the irregularity in the filing.

Please keep on working on your long awaited book. Thanks.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just makes no sense that if Oswald was there no photos were ever presented as evidence of that. Wouldn't CIA or FBI have loved to show a photo to back up their claim?

was it Duran or Ascue that were so off on their description of the visitor claiming to be Oswald?

Edited by Paul Brancato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

It just makes no sense that if Oswald was there no photos were ever presented as evidence of that. Wouldn't CIA or FBI have loved to show a photo to back up their claim?

was it Duran or Ascue that were so off on their description of the visitor claiming to be Oswald?

Paul B.,

Bill Simpich (2014) fully and completely explained why the CIA in 1963 and afterwards SUPPRESSED all photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City.

It has been more than a HALF-CENTURY -- and the likelihood, in my opinion, is that the original photographs are now missing in action.

Edwin Lopez said (under oath, on camera) that Lee Harvey Oswald was certainly in Mexico City in September 1963 -- "certainly" -- and yet he admits with equal certainty that he cannot place Oswald in the Embassy compound in Mexico City during those dates precisely because the CIA refused to release any Mexico City photographs of Oswald that the CIA has (or had). 

Nobody outside the CIA has those photographs.  Nobody.    Possibly even the CIA has lost them.

I agree that the FBI would love to show them.  But they remain the property of the CIA (or the CIA has lost them).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Paul B.,

Bill Simpich (2014) fully and completely explained why the CIA in 1963 and afterwards SUPPRESSED all photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City.

It has been more than a HALF-CENTURY -- and the likelihood, in my opinion, is that the original photographs are now missing in action.

Edwin Lopez said (under oath, on camera) that Lee Harvey Oswald was certainly in Mexico City in September 1963 -- "certainly" -- and yet he admits with equal certainty that he cannot place Oswald in the Embassy compound in Mexico City during those dates precisely because the CIA refused to release any Mexico City photographs of Oswald that the CIA has (or had). 

Nobody outside the CIA has those photographs.  Nobody.    Possibly even the CIA has lost them.

I agree that the FBI would love to show them.  But they remain the property of the CIA (or the CIA has lost them).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Let's see... what do we have here....

 

Paul Trejo said: "Pill Simpich (2014) fully and completely explained why the CIA in 1963 and afterwards SUPPRESSED all photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City"

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

Ill ask: what is your take, Paul Trejo, on Bill Simpich's take on that? How did he explain that?

Or, do you, as usual, expect the gentle reader to just accept your take on another researcher's take, on something. It's a rhetorical question. The answer is the latter; that is how you roll.

Edited by Michael Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duran said that the man she talked to was blond and short. (5' 3" I believe.) Azcue said the same. Azcue adamantly said that Oswald wasn't the man he had argued with at the consulate.

Duran said that the man she talked to was poorly dressed. Yet the photo supposedly taken that day shows Oswald in a vest and tie.

David Josephs has shown that Oswald didn't travel on the buses the FBI claimed he did.

There were no surveillance photos of Oswald. No audio recordings of Oswald.

Sylvia Odio places Oswald at her house at the same time.

There's almost no reason to believe Oswald was there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...