Jump to content
The Education Forum

Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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.

Sandy,

By the time that Sylvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue claimed that they saw a "short, blond" Oswald, Sylvia Duran had already been severely beaten by the Mexico City Police.   The Mexico City scandal rags had published WEEKS of rubbish about sex orgies between Sylvia Duran and Lee Harvey Oswald.

Death threats against Sylvia Duran were incessant.  Threats against the Cuban Embassy increased.  Duran and Azcue just wanted it all to STOP.

Yet both Sylvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue had both seen the New Orleans resumé of Oswald's Fake FPCC claims, complete with New Orleans newspaper clippings and his PHOTOGRAPH in triplicate.  They saw the person in the chair, and the person in the photograph.  There was no mistake.

Now -- it is also possible that the word "blonde" means something different in Mexico where most people have black and brown hair -- and only a few people have light-colored hair.  Here in the USA we have perhaps half of our people with blonde hair, so we reserve that word for "very blonde" people.  That might not apply in Mexico.   Oswald had lighter hair than average in Mexico.

As for the height -- that was inaccurate -- but deliberately inaccurate, I believe -- because Sylvia Duran was TERRORIZED.  She did not want another beating.  She just wanted to distance herself from Lee Harvey Oswald once and for all.

That's the likely explanation.   She saw his photograph.  She knew it was Oswald.  She admitted it earlier -- but the beatings were simply intolerable.  Too much.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 314
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

By the time that Sylvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue claimed that they saw a "short, blond" Oswald, Sylvia Duran had already been severely beaten by the Mexico City Police.   The Mexico City scandal rags had published WEEKS of rubbish about sex orgies between Sylvia Duran and Lee Harvey Oswald.

Death threats against Sylvia Duran were incessant.  Threats against the Cuban Embassy increased.  Duran and Azcue just wanted it all to STOP.

Yet both Sylvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue had both seen the New Orleans resumé of Oswald's Fake FPCC claims, complete with newspaper clippings and his PHOTOGRAPH in triplicate.  They saw the person in the chair, and the person in the photograph.

Now -- it is also possible -- perhaps likely -- that the word "blonde" means something different in Mexico where most people have black and brown hair -- and only a few people have light-colored hair.  Here in the USA we have perhaps half of our people with blonde hair, so we reserve that word for "very blonde" people.  That might not apply in Mexico.   Oswald had lighter hair than average in Mexico.

As for the height -- that was inaccurate -- but deliberately inaccurate, I believe -- because Sylvia Duran was TERRORIZED.  She did not want another beating.  She just wanted to distance herself from Lee Harvey Oswald once and for all.

That's the likely explanation.   She saw his photograph.  She knew it was Oswald.  She admitted it earlier -- but the beatings were simply intolerable.  Too much.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul Trejo, can you support anything you are saying with evidence, or documentation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would the awful double interrogation of Durant result in her giving a description unlike Oswald? Why would the CIA keep photos of the real Oswald hidden? These are not questions that Simpich answered. I'm not sure why Paul Trejo thinks he did. It makes no sense. The whole idea was to incriminate Oswald, to prove he was in MC trying to get into Cuba, meeting with KGB. CIA could not prove he was ever there, but they did what they could to convince everyone that he was, even though they couldn't provide a photo. If they had one, or a voice recording provably of Oswald, they would have proudly displayed it. He was impersonated because he wasn't there, or at the very least wasn't doing what CIA wanted us to believe. 

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.

 

Re the statement that appears at the beginning of your post: "

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

My question to you:

Tell me Jim: Does your statement deal with the inconvenient truth that on November 22, 1963, Duran--upon learning the name of the suspect arrested in Dallas, and seeing his picture on TV--made the spontaneous exclamation, to the effect that "OMG: that's the guy who was in here 7 weeks ago!";  with her account being page one news in Mexico City?

Or maybe you are unaware of that?; i.e., unaware of her original reaction?

Please cite specifically what "new documents" you are referring to, and when they were written, which seem to be the basis for your claim: A week later?  A month?  4 months? 

DSL

11/12/2-17 - 12:35 a.m. PST

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oswald described as a 35 year old man, 6ft receding hairline......sure

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10125-10246.pdf

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10125-10361.pdf

 

SUB: THE PHOTO OF AN UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL IN THE WARREN COMMISSION REPORT: A FACTUAL CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10126-10381.pdf

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10126-10379.pdf

 

Edited by Bart Kamp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect DSL, Duran recommended the photo shop for theses visa pictures... Something her job would require.  Yet she cannot say which of the few locations these photos could be taken it was... She doesn't know where she sent this man?

Two, she staples 1 photo to original and the carbon... Yet there are no staples in the carbon version...  Furthermore, there is literally nothing that corroborates those were the photos originally used.

The FBI created fake evidence to support the CIAs story... Why? Cause Oswald was doing FBI work with 2 men at Odios and then around Dallas during that period.

Does it not seem strange to you that there are no FBI reports on Oswald between the end of Sept until Nov 1st when they finally report he is at the Pained.  

Have you seen the FBI reports looking for traces of Oswald in MX starting Nov 4 up thru Nov 23rd?

Finally, the FBI asset at Gobernacion who no one has ever written about until I did admits on the 8th that they too have no proof he was there.

It is this asset who provides the FBI with ever item of MX evidence... He touches the hotel registry, visas, tickets, manifest, FM11....etc.

The man Ruby shot was not in MX.  He was in Dallas and the Odios, who are not Cuban intelligence or CIA or DFS are much more reliable a witness than the den of liars in MX...

?591893a91d594_63-11-04FBIMexifile105-3702NARA124-10230-10426-Thoroughcheck11-4-63thru11-23OswaldnotseenorknowninMExico.thumb.jpg.526a436747ab9585aceb9e2cfb6b44e1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2017 at 10:35 AM, David Boylan said:

I find it still amusing that every report about Oswald is based on the Oct 1 call which has already be proven NOT to be Oswald...

It's a non starter.... Like Hoover saying it's not his face or voice so there must be ANOTHER man down there....   Not that Oswald is not the man we're talking about.

The FBI had no other choice but to back the CIA story... In January we learn the truth about Mexico from the horse's mouth...   

Oswald was as much in MX as he was in that window shooting at JFK

5918942e413ce_64-01-15HooverwrittennotesabouttheCIAlieaboutOswaldinMexico.jpg.2a435a2e899fe4d4f5a67868fe0e6f0f.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/11/2017 at 8:57 AM, David Lifton said:

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.

David Lifton,

I'm going to go out on a limb here.  But could it be that it's much easier to fudge or make up a story for Duran vs. all of the other evidence that exists that LHO was not down there?  I mean look above at what Josephs has.

What I'm trying to say is - and to use another example - that guy who claimed that he saw the 6th floor shooter and tried to give a description when we all know it would have been impossible to do so.  So in this case, the MC police had beaten this poor girl down there (Duran). And then - presto! - we have her "OMG it's him!" statement.

Then on the other side of the coin, we have Hoover saying what he did on the above memo; we have NO photo evidence at all of the real LHO down there;  we DO have photos proving that they're desperate to show it was him yet they release laughingly bad photos of completely different people; we have State Secret's info on the Duran and LHO events showing it was fake; and of course one of the most-watched government buildings on Earth at the time, yet no proof at all of LHO; and on and on.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

I find it still amusing that every report about Oswald is based on the Oct 1 call which has already be proven NOT to be Oswald...

It's a non starter.... Like Hoover saying it's not his face or voice so there must be ANOTHER man down there....   Not that Oswald is not the man we're talking about.

The FBI had no other choice but to back the CIA story... In January we learn the truth about Mexico from the horse's mouth...   

Oswald was as much in MX as he was in that window shooting at JFK

5918942e413ce_64-01-15HooverwrittennotesabouttheCIAlieaboutOswaldinMexico.jpg.2a435a2e899fe4d4f5a67868fe0e6f0f.jpg

David - where is the Hoover quote about French espionage from? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks - I couldn't make it our and never read it before. But I've been posting here for months on the French connection. I'm more convinced than ever that Corsican assassins were hired through QJWIN. Ok, off subject I know. But I've also stated that I think MC is the biggest of rabbit holes, the perhaps deepest level being Angleton's 'mole hunt', which I think was planted by him.

Edited by Paul Brancato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The part about the CIA watching everyone as they too we're watched is accepted.  1963 Mexico city is spy central.  Doubles, triples .... That's where Bill Simpich has few equals...

I ask myself 1st and foremost... Why does Hoover cover for the CIA? Professional courtesy?  Ha.

2nd Q.   Why wasn't Alvarado stopped before he told his story? He only comes forward days afterward with the 17th as the date...   He claims torture was threatened if he did not change to the 28th....   But still held to the 17th.    All a show?  Why would Phillips allow an asset to come forward with a conspiracy story well after the Lone Nut story, unless he too was doubled....

Last and the reason for my work.... Why wasn't this a simple trip to mexico then to Dallas?  How is it that they found evidence of the names for every other person on the bus, at the border, at checkpoints, worked at a bus station, etc... Yet the evidence for Oswald is contradictory, altered, accepted then dropped, changed again... And still no concrete evidence he made any portion of the trip.

And then read Odio's July '64 testimony and the 2 pages in the wcr about her...

Bottom line?  CIA knew where Oswald really was so they could use him... They were indeed very keen on Mr. O as he tattled on their Cubans....

 

Edited by David Josephs
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...