Jump to content
The Education Forum

Warren Commission decides NOT to show DURAN Oswald's app she processed


Recommended Posts

As I continue to illuminate the Mexico Trip for the charade it was... documents continue to appear which support this conclusion.

One such document which should raise some eyebrows is this....

For some reason the WC decided against showing one of the people Oswald supposedly interacted with and brought back photos based on her recommendation.

5a610ba79aed1_CIAdecisionNOTtoshowDurantheOswaldvisaapplication.thumb.png.9c0b03cd0fe0d31d87fd9ef9b8ab2611.png

What possible reason could the WC offer for not confirming with DURAN, Oswald's physical appearance ?.

The only one I can come up with is that the photo on the application would have had her confirm that person was not there....

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 ge could go? Were there some right in the neighborhood of the Consulate there?
TIRADO - That I don't remember.
CORNWELL - All right. But at any rate you knew of some place at the time, mentioned one or two places to him?
TIRADO - Yes.
CORNWELL - Correct?... Did you look at the photos when he brought them back, careful about to be sure that it was the same man who was standing in front of you?
TIRADO - Yes.

 

LOPEZ - Would you say he was taller than Gary?
TIRADO - No, I think just the same. He was about my size.
LOPEZ - About your height?
TIRADO - Yeah.
LOPEZ - Okay. And what's your height?
TIRADO - 160. I think 160 or 162. 
(DJ: 162cm = 5' 3.75")
LOPEZ - Was he skinny?
TIRADO - Yes. Skinny.
LOPEZ - Could you estimate how much he weighed?
TIRADO - About your weight, more or less.
LOPEZ - About my weight. We already went over...
TIRADO - He has stronger shoulders, perhaps, than yours.
LOPEZ - Just for the record, my weight is 199 pounds. You told us before he had a suit on.
TIRADO - That I don't remember very well. I think he was wearing a jacket but what I can remember is that he was not wearing nice clothers, expensive clothing. He was cheap, perhaps.

 

Now this is the woman who gave this man 1 or 2 photographer studios to get the photos for the application, yet cannot tell us which... Again, a way to insure no negatives are found... the investigation produced no one who could show Oswald took photos there....  Seems to me he's dressed pretty nicely in this image with a nice white shirt and tie....

5a610f1b3f20a_Photo_hsca_ex_194CubanConsualteVisaapplicationphotoandCE2788-VERYHIGHQUALimageofsamephoto.thumb.jpg.911409da1b9cd7effbe047de96b2e7d8.jpg

And now the rub....  Duran - who was also telephonic-ally impersonated as well as imprisoned, questioned and dealt with a bit harshly claims it was the man despite the descriptions not matching...

CORNWELL - Do you think for sure that the man who was on television was the man who came to the Consulate?
TIRADO - Yes.
CORNWELL - The man who was killed by Jack Ruby?
TIRADO - Yes.
CORNWELL - Did you see him being killed by Ruby on television?
TIRADO - Yes, yes.
CORNWELL - Was there anything about him that looked different to you?
TIRADO - No. It was black and white. So I couldn't see the color. But he looks like the one that I met.

 

Azcue on the other hand is not so sure... yet in AZCUE's case he is shown the Visa photos and concludes it was not him...  Maybe the WC did not want to confirm this by showing the same thing to Duran. 

Mr. CORNWELL. Do those pictures of that individual appear to you to be the same individual who visited the consulate in Mexico City on the occasions you have previously described to us? 
Senor AZCUE. Truly, this photograph is one that I saw for the first time when the honorable U.S. committee members came to Cuba in April of this year, and I was surprised that I believe that it was not the same person. Fifteen years had gone by so it is very difficult for me to be in a position to guarantee it in a categorical form. But my belief is that this gentleman was not, is not, the person or the individual who went to the consulate. 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Eddie Lopez  told me how upset he was sitting through Cornwell's interrogation of Duran.

He actually termed it "xxxxty".  Which I agree it was.

I mean there were so many avenues you could have gone down with her.

And as the new documents now reflect, and as I have talked about on radio and TV, the two CIA informants in the Cuban embassy also told the Agency that they never saw Oswald there.  To me, that tilts the weight of the evidence that it was not him who visited.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Eddie Lopez  told me how upset he was sitting through Cornwell's interrogation of Duran.

He actually termed it "xxxxty".  Which I agree it was.

I mean there were so many avenues you could have gone down with her.

And as the new documents now reflect, and as I have talked about on radio and TV, the two CIA informants in the Cuban embassy also told the Agency that they never saw Oswald there.  To me, that tilts the weight of the evidence that it was not him who visited.

 

James,

Fascinating stuff.

What were the names of those two informants?  I mean, do you remember?

Are you at liberty to tell us?

--  Tommy  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Can I ask why you would like to know their names?

I have their codenames and their report.  Their real names were kept secret for a very long time.

One of the real names got out in the nineties and the CIA got very upset about it.

 

Jim were they still active? I mean would it hurt to have their real names today? (no sarcasm intended)!). Simpich argues this to an extent today, concerning the Wiretap monitors (and whom I believe were *possibly* AMOTs if not also playing a role in those LHO impersonation phone calls) in Mexico City. He basically argues that we should know their identities or have access to their identities today. Knowing names helps to clarify the CIA's historical record. Example? Helps alot that we know who Stanley Zamka is or Bishop. Provides great context which I am sure you know all too well due to your expertise of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Can I ask why you would like to know their names?

I have their codenames and their report.  Their real names were kept secret for a very long time.

One of the real names got out in the nineties and the CIA got very upset about it.

 

James,

Why do I want to know?

LOL

Well, I'd like to research them if I can. I hope that's okay with you.

With all due respect, should I accept your statement as fact simply because you posted it?

--  Tommy  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey there Jim....

A good amount of the recent release involved one of these people... the detailed reports are fascinating. 

And then there's this to reconfirm DURAN was more willing to help than the WC cared to follow up upon...

Kinda strange that none of the discussion would include OSWALD, the man she supposedly went to a Rave party with and with whom she had an affair (all of which has been debunked)

DJ

(I covered up the asset's cryto with white)

Tommy - have you been thru the files that were released?
There are 688 files FROM Mexico and another 1100 TO Mexico...  might be a good place to start your research...  just sayin'

5a612542b826c_CIAassetreportonnothingmoretoreportonDURAN.thumb.jpg.cd47bc3068c415dcca037dcb3d892e47.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Hey there Jim....

A good amount of the recent release involved one of these people... the detailed reports are fascinating. 

And then there's this to reconfirm DURAN was more willing to help than the WC cared to follow up upon...

Kinda strange that none of the discussion would include OSWALD, the man she supposedly went to a Rave party with and with whom she had an affair (all of which has been debunked)

DJ

(I covered up the asset's cryto with white)

Tommy - have you been thru the files that were released?
There are 688 files FROM Mexico and another 1100 TO Mexico...  might be a good place to start your research...  just sayin'

5a612542b826c_CIAassetreportonnothingmoretoreportonDURAN.thumb.jpg.cd47bc3068c415dcca037dcb3d892e47.jpg

David,

With all due respect, I'm counting on you to ferret out the "really good goodies."

You whited out a crypto that had been released?  Why did you do that?  To protect James, or just to make it a bit more ... mysterious?

--  Tommy  :sun

PS  Is Duran's "not mentioning (to the asset) any of the details of her meeting with Oswald" the same as her saying Oswald wasn't the guy she'd dealt with at the consulate?

Is that what James is trying to assert?

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

With all due respect, I'm counting on you to ferret out the "really good goodies."

Yes indeed Tommy... been doing it for many years now.

Except it's your turn now to step to the plate and offer some work...  I whited them out with respect to Jim's wishes...  plus, I may not even be correct.

In either case as I read it - it's up to Jim to release that info if he chooses....

 

Respect appreciated Tommy....

I've come across a number of docs from the new release which support my conclusion about the trip....  and have posted them.  When the Mexico Trip, like the lunchroom encounter is finally accepted for the charades they were - related evidence and its purpose becomes more clear.

:cheers

====

The bottom line concept is that the man in Mexico on Friday the 27th - if there even was one - was not the man who killed Ruby and the WC did all it could to insure there would be no surprises related to Mexico... so it was basically shelved until the HSCA...  and even then they did not bother looking at the travel evidence...

Concluding that Oswald was not in Mexico begins the domino drop that leads back to GAUDET securing the paperwork necessary to show "Oswald" on his way thru Mexico to Cuba.

Hoover knew the CIA lied about Oswald since he was in Dallas on FBI business - which in turn is the reason Hoover covers it up in the first place....

There is simple not a soul or a bit of evidence which authentically gets Oswald to Mexico... or explains DURAN's voice on calls she did not make or receive....  Yet there are thousands of documents provided by the FBI which attempts to explain this trip....  There are 5 good chapters on the Mexico Charade at K&K... another good place to start.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TG:  With all due respect, should I accept your statement as fact simply because you posted it?

 

You are implying with the above that I am somehow making something up about a document that has been recently declassified as a result of the JFK Act?  Which dozens of other people have already and which Rex Bradford has put up on his site?  And you yourself could find rather easily if you tried.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Yes indeed Tommy... been doing it for many years now.

Except it's your turn now to step to the plate and offer some work...  I whited them out with respect to Jim's wishes...  plus, I may not even be correct.

In either case as I read it - it's up to Jim to release that info if he chooses....

 

Respect appreciated Tommy....

I've come across a number of docs from the new release which support my conclusion about the trip....  and have posted them.  When the Mexico Trip, like the lunchroom encounter is finally accepted for the charades they were - related evidence and its purpose becomes more clear.

:cheers

====

The bottom line concept is that the man in Mexico on Friday the 27th - if there even was one - was not the man who killed Ruby and the WC did all it could to insure there would be no surprises related to Mexico... so it was basically shelved until the HSCA...  and even then they did not bother looking at the travel evidence...

Concluding that Oswald was not in Mexico begins the domino drop that leads back to GAUDET securing the paperwork necessary to show "Oswald" on his way thru Mexico to Cuba.

Hoover knew the CIA lied about Oswald since he was in Dallas on FBI business - which in turn is the reason Hoover covers it up in the first place....

There is simple not a soul or a bit of evidence which authentically gets Oswald to Mexico... or explains DURAN's voice on calls she did not make or receive....  Yet there are thousands of documents provided by the FBI which attempts to explain this trip....  There are 5 good chapters on the Mexico Charade at K&K... another good place to start.

 

David,

It may not even be correct?

With all due respect, if i decide to accept this mission, does it mean I have to ferret out recently released goodies that *appear* to support the theory that the CIA (especially that evil, evil mastermind, JJA) killed our beloved (although somewhat hawkish) President, or, even better, that there was a 10-year project that involved two identical-looking (well, at least at times, you know) Oswald's and two identical - looking (ditto) Marguerites? Or can I concentrate on those nice Ruskies (including GdM), and those even nicer pro-Castro Cubans?

--  Tommy  :sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

TG:  With all due respect, should I accept your statement as fact simply because you posted it?

 

You are implying with the above that I am somehow making something up about a document that has been recently declassified as a result of the JFK Act?  Which dozens of other people have already and which Rex Bradford has put up on his site?

 

James, 

If you were to "follow" me on FB, you'd realize that I'm a great believer in fact-checking (something that Alexander Surkov strived successfully to get many Russians away from, and whose methods Roger Ailes picked up on and successfully implemented right here in the "evil, "evil" USA -- ergo the ascendancy to the presidency of one DJT).

No need to take it so personally, James.

I mean, YOU research and fact-check other people's assertions from time-to-time.  Don't you?

I mean, isn't that what serious students and researchers and historians are supposed to do?

--  Tommy  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, for the rest of the people here, this is a document I have talked about numerous times on Coast to Coast, and other radio shows, and I think I talked about it on Jesse Ventura's show.

I am sure David Joseph's has seen it. It is time stamped November 28, 1963. It is from Mexico City to John McCone, and also to Whitten, who was designated as the CIA's point man on the case at that time.

The code names for the informants were Litamil 7 and Litamil 9.

In the third paragraph of the document, in the last sentence, it says that neither informant has seen Oswald at the embassy at any time.  In another document that David has, Litamil 9 was shown a photo of Oswald and asked a second time if he was at the embassy, he again said no.

In another document declassified recently, which again, Tommy apparently does not know about, the ARRB agreed with CIA not to declassify LItmail 9's identity until he passed away.  And the CIA agreed that they would check on this each year and when he passed on they would agree to declassify.

Now, I know John Newman has both of their names and probably David Josephs does also.  I have at least one of them.

If you want to find out from one of them what the name is fine.  I know how the CIA feels about me, and sorry, I am not going to play into their hands.

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, for the rest of the people here, this is a document I have talked about numerous times of Coast to Coast, and other radio shows, and I think I talked about it on Jesse Ventura's show.

I am sure David Joseph's has seen it. It is time stamped November 28, 1963. It is from Mexico City to John McCone, and also to Whitten, who was designated as the CIA's point man on the case at that time.

The code names for the informants were Litamil 7 and Litamil 9.

In the third paragraph of the document, in the last sentence, it says that neither informant has seen Oswald at he embassy at any time.  In another document that David has, Litamil 9 was shown a photo of Oswald and asked a second time if he was at the embassy, he again said no.

In another document declassified recently, which again, Tommy apparently does not know about, the ARRB agreed with CIA not to declassify LItmail 9's identity until he pass away.  And the CIA agreed that they would check on this each year and when he passed on they would agree to declassify.

Now, I know John Newman has both of their names and probably David Josephs does also.  I have at least one of them.

If you want to find out from one of them what the name is fine.  I know how the CIA feels about me, and sorry, I am not going to play into their hands.

 

 

James,

Thanks for the clarification.

--  Tommy  :sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy, if you're idea of fact checking is what you just dumped out about Angleton and Nosenko, then I think most of us would observe that you are not out to check facts, what you are about is propagating a wild theory in the JFK case which somehow includes a Russian translator as part of the plot.

If you were about facts, then you would have informed the reader about Bagley's role in the Nosenko affair which is easily available in Mangold's book.

Sorry, but I won't research that one for you.

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...