Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

[Paul Brancato]

23 minutes ago, Craig Carvalho said:

David,

When I joined my first forum I had already spent more than three decades researching this case. I thought, wow, this will be great. I'll have somewhere to share information with other like-minded people. I admit I was being naive. These forums all ultimately have their agendas. That's why I don't post here much, as you can see from my low post count. I was once told by a very well known researcher to avoid these types of settings, and for the most part I do. I guess I just can't help but getting a kick out of listening to the "experts" weigh in on this stuff now and again... LOL!

Edit to add:

Just so there are no hard feelings I will comment on one of your documents above... even though I have no credibility at this point... just kidding.

The one where Hoover is complaining about the CIA withholding French espionage activities in the U.S. ... guess who collaborated with both the OSS and French intelligence here in the U.S. during WWII... none other than Oswald's good friend George DeMorehnshildt, (pretty sure I got the spelling right on that). Coincidence?   

Craig - that's a complete non sequitor. What Hoover was talking about was French espionage activities in the US in 1963. What does that have to do with DeM? Do you have some info you'd like to share? Far more relevant, at least to me, is that the head of French Intelligence, SDECE, in the US in 1963 defected !!! to the US in Nov. of 1963 before the assassination, and then, curiously, right after Nov. 22, skedaddled to Mexico to visit a retired US Army Colonel named Brandstetter (book about him called Our Man in Acapulco) for an extended period, no explanation given as far as I know. Brandstetter was co-founder, with retired US Army Colonel Jack Crichton, of the 488th Army Reserve Intelligence Unit in Dallas. Presumably however, what Hoover was referring to was the presence of a Corsican assassin linked to the French OAS, the very group that tried to assassinate Charles DeGaulle and stage a coup d'etat in France in 1962.  

[David Josephs]

On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 3:33 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

The story the CIA fabricated of Oswald's business in Mexico city was designed to implicate Castro in the assassination of President Kennedy. Which would serve to justify an American attack on Cuba. (Not to say that this was the purpose for the assassination. Just a second bird to kill.)

The story created by the CIA was that Oswald was engaged in a Cuban plot to kill Kennedy, a plot that included Duran, Azcue, the black guy with red hair who paid Oswald $6500 for his part in the plot, and others. The Mexican police arrested Duran and Azcue and tried to force confessions out of them. (Naturally they couldn't confess given they hadn't conspired with Oswald. Let alone invited him to the infamous twist party.)

The reason the FBI didn't find evidence of Oswald traveling by bus or airplane to Mexico is because, according to the CIA's fabricated story, Oswald traveled by automobile.

This is my opinion based on all the evidence I have seen.
 

BTW I wouldn't trust anything written by KGB agents regarding this. Doing so can only create confusion.

 

By putting him a car, the CIA - knowing Oswald was known for not driving - created a situation where he HAD to have comrades....  Someone may actually have impersonated Oswald and traveled by car with others...  the only results from investigation is the BRILL mess...

When the Conspiracy turns to LONE NUT... any evidence of driving or him with others had to disappear...

Why again does HOOVER CYA for the CIA?

 

Edited February 12, 2018 by David Josephs

[Craig Carvalho]

Hello Paul,

'What Hoover was talking about was French espionage activities in the US in 1963.'

'Presumably however, what Hoover was referring to was the presence of a Corsican assassin linked to the French OAS, the very group that tried to assassinate Charles DeGaulle and stage a coup d'etat in France in 1962.'

There are many possibilities Paul. It could be a combination of more than one instance. As Hoover suggests in the memorandum there were more than the two mentioned.

I could elaborate, but seeing as how few here believe Oswald participated in JFK's assassination it would be futile to further implicate him in another.

I was merely pointing out a coincidence.

[Craig Carvalho]

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The story the CIA fabricated of Oswald's business in Mexico city was designed to implicate Castro in the assassination of President Kennedy. Which would serve to justify an American attack on Cuba. (Not to say that this was the purpose for the assassination. Just a second bird to kill.)

The story created by the CIA was that Oswald was engaged in a Cuban plot to kill Kennedy, a plot that included Duran, Azcue, the black guy with red hair who paid Oswald $6500 for his part in the plot, and others. The Mexican police arrested Duran and Azcue and tried to force confessions out of them. (Naturally they couldn't confess given they hadn't conspired with Oswald. Let alone invited him to the infamous twist party.)

The reason the FBI didn't find evidence of Oswald traveling by bus or airplane to Mexico is because, according to the CIA's fabricated story, Oswald traveled by automobile.

This is my opinion based on all the evidence I have seen.
 

BTW I wouldn't trust anything written by KGB agents regarding this. Doing so can only create confusion.

 

Sandy,

What you are referring to goes back to the JCS's proposed NORTHWOODS operation, which president Kennedy quickly dismissed. While I can understand the logic of your premise, my question to you would be this... why then did it fail to provide the intended result after Kennedy's assassination?  

[Brendan Boucher]

7 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Either there was no photo sent (hence the Oswald photo not being stapled to the paperwork) or it was created after the fact...

I just find it hard to envision a scenario where the Cuban Consulate in Mexico forwarded an application to Havana that did not contain a photograph.  And if they actually did, then it's even more bizarre that the US would be able to doctor the documents (actually photos of documents) without any protestation from Cuba.

 

We know that the application packet consisted of 6 pages/layers and that at least 3 variations of the application would be made in one sitting.  This is obvious when you compare the images provided to the Warren Commission and then to the HSCA by the Cuban government.    I don't have an issue with the absence of staples/staple holes in one of the photos either.  Different photographs were used for different copies of the application.  And I think you can actually see where a staple may have once been on CE 2564 anyway.

 

I have no problem accepting that US Government documents were tampered with regularly, but I have serious doubts that pictures of Oswald were somehow added after the photographs of original Cuban documents were obtained.  To me, this is THE main sticking point of the "Oswald never went to Mexico" version of events, because it is not inconceivable to me that he may have been transported surreptitiously without leaving a documented trace. 

 

If we allow for the idea that Oswald was never in Mexico, I would think that an impersonator using pictures of Oswald to apply is more likely than after the fact additions/alterations.

[Robin Finn]

This is from a CIA Latin American Task Force Report of Possible Cuban Complicity in the JFK Assassination that was done in the 1976-77 time frame. It claims that only one call was made to or from Duran on September 27? Where is the call to the Soviets to ask about LHO's visa???? No mention of the September 28 call.

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by Robin Finn
space

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Craig Carvalho said:

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The story the CIA fabricated of Oswald's business in Mexico city was designed to implicate Castro in the assassination of President Kennedy. Which would serve to justify an American attack on Cuba. (Not to say that this was the purpose for the assassination. Just a second bird to kill.)

 

Sandy,

What you are referring to goes back to the JCS's proposed NORTHWOODS operation, which president Kennedy quickly dismissed. While I can understand the logic of your premise, my question to you would be this... why then did it fail to provide the intended result after Kennedy's assassination?

 

Craig,

Because LBJ was afraid it would lead to WW3 and the use of nuclear weapons. Which is why he chose to cover it up instead.

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Craig Carvalho]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Craig,

Because LBJ was afraid it would lead to WW3 and the use of nuclear weapons. Which is why he chose to cover it up instead.

 

Sandy,

Do you believe that the CIA, or members of that organization, would risk all they had to assassinate a sitting U.S. president without assurances that the man who would take his place would follow through with their plan? If what you are saying is true, the CIA wound up worse off then they were when Kennedy defeated Nixon in 1960... no Cuba, and a treasonous conspiracy to commit assassination within their own ranks.

P.S. Makes Oswald's mode of transportation seem rather irrelevant when you step back and take a look at the big picture.  

Edited November 15, 2017 by Craig Carvalho
spelling + postscript

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Craig Carvalho said:

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Craig,

Because LBJ was afraid it would lead to WW3 and the use of nuclear weapons. Which is why he chose to cover it up instead.

 

Sandy,

Do you believe that the CIA, or members of that organization, would risk all they had to assassinate a sitting U.S. president without assurances that the man who would take his place would follow through with their plan? If what you are saying is true, the CIA wound up worse off then they were when Kennedy defeated Nixon in 1960... no Cuba, and a treasonous conspiracy to commit assassination within their own ranks.

P.S. Makes Oswald's mode of transportation seem rather irrelevant when you step back and take a look at the big picture. 

 

Craig,

As I said earlier, creating a pretext for a war with Cuba wasn't the primary goal of the assassins. It was a secondary goal that would have been icing on the cake had Johnson bitten.

The primary goal was to eliminate a treasonous president who was in the process of making peace with the enemies, Russia and Cuba.

 

[Michael Clark]

In my theory, the pretext of the Cuban invasion was to encourage the Anti Castro Cubans to do it. The planted evidence of Pro Cuban conspiracy was brushed away, after the fact. The pre-text for war against Cuba was only to be invoked if a conspiracy could not be denied and other domestic players were revealed as part of the Conspiracy. I agree with Sandy that the final impetus for killing JFK was what some regarded as treason for considering detente, but specifically he was killed because giving-up Guantanamo would have been part of that detente, unlesss another Batista-like strongman, bolstered by Mafia led criminal elements came to power once again. If a lone-nut could be blamed, Cuba could rot in isolation and we would keep Guantanamo.

The strength of my theory is that many of those things did in fact happen. A lone-nut was blamed, no invasion occurred, half century of isolating Cuba ensued, Guantanamo was retained, Mafia interests never got their off-shore havens back, and researchers are left wondering why the lone-nut was framed in the way that more resembled a conspiracy.

As poorly done as it was, and ultimately insufficient for historical purposes, evidence for conspiracy in Dealy Plaza was wiped-away. I am certain that another conspirator-patsy was killed, but the body was disappeared.

[Steve Thomas]

10 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Presumably however, what Hoover was referring to was the presence of a Corsican assassin linked to the French OAS, the very group that tried to assassinate Charles DeGaulle and stage a coup d'etat in France in 1962.  

Paul,

 

I think of far more important strategic importance, was the attempted theft of secrets concerned with the American nuclear program.

 

Steve Thomas.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

In my theory, the pretext of the Cuban invasion was to encourage the Anti Castro Cubans to do it. The planted evidence of Pro Cuban conspiracy was brushed away, after the fact. The pre-text for war against Cuba was only to be invoked if a conspiracy could not be denied and other domestic players were revealed as part of the Conspiracy. I agree with Sandy that the final impetus for killing JFK was what some regarded as treason for considering detente, but specifically he was killed because giving-up Guantanamo would have been part of that detente, unlesss another Batista-like strongman, bolstered by Mafia led criminal elements came to power once again. If a lone-nut could be blamed, Cuba could rot in isolation and we would keep Guantanamo.

The strength of my theory is that many of those things did in fact happen. A lone-nut was blamed, no invasion occurred, half century of isolating Cuba ensued, Guantanamo was retained, Mafia interests never got their off-shore havens back, and researchers are left wondering why the lone-nut was framed in the way that more resembled a conspiracy.

As poorly done as it was, and ultimately insufficient for historical purposes, evidence for conspiracy in Dealy Plaza was wiped-away. I am certain that another conspirator-patsy was killed, but the body was disappeared.

 

Michael,

In the theory I described, the reason the lone nut looked more like a conspiracy is because it was a conspiracy. The only reason it became a lone nut is because of Johnson's coverup of the conspiracy.

 

[Michael Walton]

The only thing that bothers me about the info I'm  seeing  here is it would  help readers a lot if researchers like Jim and David  J would show just a little  bit of humility.

Bill Simpich in SS does this very well. He presents his case very well but when he knows there's  a  weakness he admits as much.

Others here do not. The impression  I  get is they think their theory is 100% accurate when we know, like life, none are perfect.

And of course if anyone  presents a rebuttal  it tends to fall into insults. So it'd  be  very helpful  if folks would honestly  admit weak spots in their narrative. Otherwise  they look like they've swallowed  the Koolaid whole without a blink.

 

[David Lifton]

20 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

David - I'm not going to take sides in your dispute Jim. I don't know enough to engage in that. But I have another question for you regarding Paul Trejo. His theory of the assassination is that the Dallas Ultra right handled the assassination. Do you think, given your expertise in what you call the profane alteration of the body of JFK in order to falsify the autopsy record, that the people who ran that coverup were separate from the people who ran the assassination itself? How were the decisions to alter the body made, and by whom? 

Paul:

Thanks for your post.  I have told a number of people that one of those who post on the LEF has a prominent position in a symphony orchestra. 

I think a more detailed picture will emerge in my future writing, but here's the best I can do for now:

(1) The alteration of the body (as a means--that is, "the" means-- of falsifying the autopsy) was an integral part of the crime.  However, although elegant in conception (and I can't be more specific than that, at this time), it was bungled in execution. The result: there ended up being two conflicting medico-legal records of the President's body--one coming from the treating physicians at Parkland Hospital (in lay language, the "Parkland observations"); the other coming from the autopsy report (or, more generally speaking, the entire Bethesda autopsy protocol).

(2) As conceived, it was not just a "cover-up"; but rather, if executed as originally planned, I prefer to think of it as "camouflage"--that is, a series of acts which amounted to a strategic deception, which, if successfully executed (that is, according to the original plan) would have prevented history from ever knowing what had occurred. (I'm sorry that , at this juncture, I have to be somewhat cryptic and vague).  My beliefs will be spelled out quite explicitly, and with considerable clarity, in Final Charade.

(3) So now, back to your question: the persons involved in what you call "the coverup" (and what I would call the deception operation) were an integral part of the plot to murder the President, even though, by the very nature of the deception operation (whose objective was a fraudulent autopsy) their contribution would, of course, have to occur after the shooting.  Another way of stating this: this was a  "plot with a built-in coverup."

(4) If we were prosecutors, and all the relevant parties were alive, we would make no distinction between Speedy Gonzales and his clique of assassins who murdered the President, and Persons A, B, and C who were involved in a deception operation that would result in a false autopsy.  From the standpoint of a prosecutor--i.e., "legally"--they were all part of the (same) plot, and could all be tried for murder.

(5) "How were the decision to alter the body made, and by whom?"  The short answer: this was an integral part of the planning of the crime. . . not a "decision. . . made" later.  You'll read all about that in Final Charade, including certain "communication evidence" that resulted when the original plan went awry as a result of the unexpected shooting of Gov. Connally.  (Sorry, but I can't be more specific than that, at this time).

Hope this helps.

Since you're a musician, and musicians tend to be very smart, and I studied lots of math, and tend to be analytical, I think you are going to find my analysis very, er, interesting.

DSL

11/15/2016 - 4:25 a.m. PST

 

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by David Lifton

[Paul Brancato]

3 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Paul:

Thanks for your post.  I have told a number of people that one of those who post on the LEF has a prominent position in a symphony orchestra. 

I think a more detailed picture will emerge in my future writing, but here's the best I can do for now:

(1) The alteration of the body (as a means--that is, "the" means-- of falsifying the autopsy) was an integral part of the crime.  However, although elegant in conception (and I can't be more specific than that, at this time), it was bungled in execution. The result: there ended up being two conflicting medico-legal records of the President's body--one coming from the treating physicians at Parkland Hospital (in lay language, the "Parkland observations"); the other coming from the autopsy report (or, more generally speaking, the entire Bethesda autopsy protocol).

(2) As conceived, it was not just a "cover-up"; but rather, if executed as originally planned, I prefer to think of it as "camouflage"--that is, a series of acts which amounted to a strategic deception, which, if successfully executed (that is, according to the original plan) would have prevented history from ever knowing what had occurred. (I'm sorry that , at this juncture, I have to be somewhat cryptic and vague).  My beliefs will be spelled out quite explicitly, and with considerable clarity, in Final Charade.

(3) So now, back to your question: the persons involved in what you call "the coverup" (and what I would call the deception operation) were an integral part of the plot to murder the President, even though, by the very nature of the deception operation (whose objective was a fraudulent autopsy) their contribution would, of course, have to occur after the shooting.  Another way of stating this: this was a  "plot with a built-in coverup."

(4) If we were prosecutors, and all the relevant parties were alive, we would make no distinction between Speedy Gonzales and his clique of assassins who murdered the President, and Persons A, B, and C who were involved in a deception operation that would result in a false autopsy.  From the standpoint of a prosecutor--i.e., "legally"--they were all part of the (same) plot, and could all be tried for murder.

(5) "How were the decision to alter the body made, and by whom?"  The short answer: this was an integral part of the planning of the crime. . . not a "decision. . . made" later.  You'll read all about that in Final Charade, including certain "communication evidence" that resulted when the original plan went awry as a result of the unexpected shooting of Gov. Connally.  (Sorry, but I can't be more specific than that, at this time).

Hope this helps.

Since you're a musician, and musicians tend to be very smart, and I studied lots of math, and tend to be analytical, I think you are going to find my analysis very, er, interesting.

DSL

11/15/2016 - 4:25 a.m. PST

 

 

Thanks David - in my experience as a classical musician there are indeed many of us who are good at math.