What is known about Oswald's time in England?

[Mervyn Hagger]

32 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Mervyn,

Yes, the Warren Report's claim that "on the same day, he flew to Helsinki" is incorrect. The stamps in Oswald's passport show that he arrived in the UK on the 9th and left on the 10th. Compared to what else the Warren Report gets wrong, it's a trivial mistake, and I don't think we should read too much into it.

As Jason points out, Oswald sailed on two ships to reach England: the Marion Lykes from New Orleans to Le Havre, and the Liberté from Le Havre to Southampton.

Jason,

Thanks for uploading the images. They should make things easier for people to follow.

I agree with you that Oswald was unusually determined in making his way alone to Helsinki, particularly if it involved travelling across London to reach Heathrow, which can be a real pain these days and presumably wouldn't have been any less awkward in 1959.

You write that "My hunch is Oswald imagines himself a 007 James Bond-type figure even though his actual intelligence connections are slight at best." The significance of Oswald's route to reach the Soviet Union lies not in his use of England as a stop on the way but in his choice of Helsinki as his entry point. Helsinki was the only place where a Soviet tourist visa could be acquired quickly, a fact known to US intelligence agencies but (as far as I'm aware) not to the general public. Unless he chose Helsinki impulsively, which seems incompatible with what we know of his normal behaviour, this is pretty convincing evidence that a real connection existed between Oswald and US intelligence and that his defection was part of an intelligence operation.

The question of whether Oswald flew from Heathrow or Gatwick is just a curiosity with no obvious bearing on the JFK assassination. If the triangular "London Airport" stamp was unique to Heathrow, he definitely flew from there; if the stamp was also used at Gatwick, he may have flown from there. I imagined that some sort of online passport-stamp enthusiasts might exist who could resolve the question, but I haven't been able to track any down, sadly.

As an investigator I have come to understand that nothing is "trivial" and that nothing is settled. In fact, some of the greatest snow jobs begin with that gaslighting approach in order to try to convince a person (and bystanders), that the investigator is paranoid without reason. Once I started demolishing the storyline I have been following I found traces of truth and a whole pile of misdirection.

Therefore let me take note of the fact that Oswald left from Galveston. That is important.

I also think that it is important to note that he arrived in England by a peculiar method when his destination was Finland. That is important.

I note that his passport date stamp allows Oswald time to speak to someone, or do something, in England before setting off for the next leg of his trip.

It is important to note that he deliberately misled Customs by telling them that he would stay a week in England and go to school in Switzerland, when he had no intention of doing so. That is important.

I noted how little funding he started out with and how little money he arrived in England with.

Because there is a parallel storyline to his movements, and because that storyline involves the same people who crop up in the "Oswald saga", I don't think anything is settled.

In fact (and it is a fact), thanks to Jason the scope of my enquiry has not only become wider, but a lot of ambiguous pieces of a puzzle that I have been looking at have suddenly become much clearer.

I am not following a fantasy line, but a documented story line where the story has been spread in many areas - quite intentionally. Where the pieces are can only be discovered by trying and testing a hypothesis, just like a cold crime case, and that is what I am doing.

I have no loyalty to the memory of the Kennedys, and from what I know now, I think they were undesirable types who got followed by another undesirable type (LBJ), and that's before we get to Nixon and Watergate whose players scoot us back to the Bay of Pigs.

By the way, regarding trivia: "As Jason points out, Oswald sailed on two ships to reach England: the Marion Lykes from New Orleans to Le Havre, and the Liberté from Le Havre to Southampton."

I thought that Oswald left Galveston Island, not New Orleans, Louisiana. Leaving from Galveston is a very important point.

Mervyn

 

Edited May 5, 2018 by Mervyn Hagger
added comment about Galveston

[Jason Ward]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

this is pretty convincing evidence that a real connection existed between Oswald and US intelligence and that his defection was part of an intelligence operation.

Hi Jeremy,

While I agree that Oswald's beeline to Helsinki as the one place in the world issuing immediate Soviet entry visas is inexplicable, I do not conclude that this means his defection is a planned US intelligence operation. 

IMO too often around here EVERY inexplicable piece of evidence is said to be the work of the CIA.  The CIA is the answer whenever there is no answer.    This has been in effect for 50 years and I'd like to start working with a different hypothesis.   

Using CIA to fill in the blanks has left us in 1968 with Jim Garrison's able work as the end of assassination research, and perhaps permanently handicapped us because Garrison's work became an Oliver Stone film.   

So while I agree information from an intelligence source has apparently arrived in Oswald's hands, I do not agree that the only explanation for Helsinki is that he is a defector working for US intelligence.   

This leap to a conclusion has already been thoroughly explored for over 50 years, so what's the harm in trying out different ideas to see where fresh thinking might lead?   Maybe Mervyn is on to something, maybe Paul Trejo is on to something, maybe Jim Root is on to something, and maybe not automatically invoking the CIA or some murky "US intelligence" entity will open up something entirely new?   Maybe you will join us in challenging conventional wisdom?

 

Jason

 

Edited May 5, 2018 by Jason Ward

[Michael Clark]

Mervyn, I saved this document because I am interested in CIA location codes, (this on defines the code for Helsinki). It may or mayot not be familiar or of interest to you but I thought it relevant-enough to share.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/180-10142-10338.pdf

 

[Mervyn Hagger]

1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:

Hi Jeremy,

While I agree that Oswald's beeline to Helsinki as the one place in the world issuing immediate Soviet entry visas is inexplicable, I do not conclude that this means his defection is a planned US intelligence operation. 

IMO too often around here EVERY inexplicable piece of evidence is said to be the work of the CIA.  The CIA is the answer whenever there is no answer.    This has been in effect for 50 years and I'd like to start working with a different hypothesis.   

Using CIA to fill in the blanks has left us in 1968 with Jim Garrison's able work as the end of assassination research, and perhaps permanently handicapped us because Garrison's work became an Oliver Stone film.   

So while I agree information from an intelligence source has apparently arrived in Oswald's hands, I do not agree that the only explanation for Helsinki is that he is a defector working for US intelligence.   

This leap to a conclusion has already been thoroughly explored for over 50 years, so what's the harm in trying out different ideas to see where fresh thinking might lead?   Maybe Mervyn is on to something, maybe Paul Trejo is on to something, maybe Jim Root is on to something, and maybe not automatically invoking the CIA or some murky "US intelligence" entity will open up something entirely new?   Maybe you will join us in challenging conventional wisdom?

 

Jason

 

Jason, Perhaps what is lacking is another name for "CIA". I agree that "CIA", especially with "THE" slapped in front of it, makes it seem to be one solid Establishment front, like "the Mafia" or even "the Jews" or "the Freemasons" or "the" anything else.

In the UK the power remains hidden from general view because it resides with an institution known as "Crown" - which in law is a "corporation sole" - another term often used by people who don't understand it. The UK Crown is where sovereignty is vested and the monarch is merely the mascot - like Mickey Mouse or Ronald MacDonald, except that the mascot actually performs functions on behalf of the British Crown. Parliament is opened by the Crown with the monarch officiating. The military, courts, police, prisons, BBC, all operate under license from the British Crown. Parliament is half-elected and the House of Commons which is elected, is dominated by individuals who are members of the Privy Council which manages the British Crown.

While JFK yelled at CIA, he allowed his brother to run an operation using CIA assets.

Exactly who the cabal was in Dallas - Fort Worth is difficult to identify. It wasn't the JBS.

But even the cabal had its factionalism.

So I think that in order to actually define who is being referred to, it is either necessary to name real human beings, or come up with some sort of code similar to the one employed by CIA.

Mervyn

 

 

[Mervyn Hagger]

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

Mervyn, I saved this document because I am interested in CIA location codes, (this on defines the code for Helsinki). It may or mayot not be familiar or of interest to you but I thought it relevant-enough to share.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/180-10142-10338.pdf

 

 

5 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Jason, Perhaps what is lacking is another name for "CIA". I agree that "CIA", especially with "THE" slapped in front of it, makes it seem to be one solid Establishment front, like "the Mafia" or even "the Jews" or "the Freemasons" or "the" anything else.

In the UK the power remains hidden from general view because it resides with an institution known as "Crown" - which in law is a "corporation sole" - another term often used by people who don't understand it. The UK Crown is where sovereignty is vested and the monarch is merely the mascot - like Mickey Mouse or Ronald MacDonald, except that the mascot actually performs functions on behalf of the British Crown. Parliament is opened by the Crown with the monarch officiating. The military, courts, police, prisons, BBC, all operate under license from the British Crown. Parliament is half-elected and the House of Commons which is elected, is dominated by individuals who are members of the Privy Council which manages the British Crown.

While JFK yelled at CIA, he allowed his brother to run an operation using CIA assets.

Exactly who the cabal was in Dallas - Fort Worth is difficult to identify. It wasn't the JBS.

But even the cabal had its factionalism.

So I think that in order to actually define who is being referred to, it is either necessary to name real human beings, or come up with some sort of code similar to the one employed by CIA.

Mervyn

 

 

Michael - thanks - it all helps. Mervyn

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:

Hi Jeremy,

While I agree that Oswald's beeline to Helsinki as the one place in the world issuing immediate Soviet entry visas is inexplicable, I do not conclude that this means his defection is a planned US intelligence operation. 

IMO too often around here EVERY inexplicable piece of evidence is said to be the work of the CIA.  The CIA is the answer whenever there is no answer.    This has been in effect for 50 years and I'd like to start working with a different hypothesis.   

Using CIA to fill in the blanks has left us in 1968 with Jim Garrison's able work as the end of assassination research, and perhaps permanently handicapped us because Garrison's work became an Oliver Stone film.   

So while I agree information from an intelligence source has apparently arrived in Oswald's hands, I do not agree that the only explanation for Helsinki is that he is a defector working for US intelligence.   

This leap to a conclusion has already been thoroughly explored for over 50 years, so what's the harm in trying out different ideas to see where fresh thinking might lead?   Maybe Mervyn is on to something, maybe Paul Trejo is on to something, maybe Jim Root is on to something, and maybe not automatically invoking the CIA or some murky "US intelligence" entity will open up something entirely new?   Maybe you will join us in challenging conventional wisdom?

 

Jason

 

I would agree with this much - that US Intelligence is not just CIA. Perhaps if you really want to openly explore here you could stop using the term CIA-did-it conspiracy theorists. We all know that term is a false definition of what researchers are engaged in. Also, when individual CIA agents or Brass are ‘investigated’ that also does not meet your false definition. It’s a slap in the face, started by Trejo years ago, that you have parroted for no explicable reason. Someone as intelligent and openminded as yourself owes it to the community you joined here to refrain from pigeonholing. It’s beneath you.

[Mark Knight]

I, too, believe that Oswald's journey to Moscow is under-investigated. England is a prime example. I think that Jim Root may be on the right track. Who was Oswald in contact with between Southampton and Helsinki? He certainly wasn't a man in a bubble who wasn't seen or heard as Scotty teleported him from one location to the other. 

But unlike the Mexico City bus trip that was  -- or wasn't -- there are ZERO witnesses, to my knowledge, of Ozzie's trip from London to Helsinki, or to the time he spent -- or didn't spend -- in London.

Fifty-plus years on, finding witnesses will be nigh impossible. But surely there might be some more existing records than what we've seen so far.

Or not.

 

[Michael Clark]

25 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I would agree with this much - that US Intelligence is not just CIA. Perhaps if you really want to openly explore here you could stop using the term CIA-did-it conspiracy theorists. We all know that term is a false definition of what researchers are engaged in. Also, when individual CIA agents or Brass are ‘investigated’ that also does not meet your false definition. It’s a slap in the face, started by Trejo years ago, that you have parroted for no explicable reason. Someone as intelligent and openminded as yourself owes it to the community you joined here to refrain from pigeonholing. It’s beneath you.

 

On 3/17/2018 at 1:38 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Paul,

You are on of the best posters here.  And on top of that you are really a class act.

 

(Italics are mine, substituting are for were)

[Mervyn Hagger]

52 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

Who was Oswald in contact with between Southampton and Helsinki? But unlike the Mexico City bus trip that was  -- or wasn't -- there are ZERO witnesses, to my knowledge, of Ozzie's trip from London to Helsinki, or to the time he spent -- or didn't spend -- in London. Fifty-plus years on, finding witnesses will be nigh impossible. But surely there might be some more existing records than what we've seen so far. Or not.

 

Mark, the trip TO Southampton does not make any sense. Zero. Neither does Oswald's British Immigration explanation which can be read at least two ways:

1. Oswald was on vacation and doing it on the cheap. He wasn't sure where he was going or what he was going to do until he did it. When I was 21 I peddled my way during 1963 for over a month all over France, part of Belgium and West Germany (as it was then.) I even disassembled my bike and boarded a PanAm flight from within W.Germany to West Berlin where at midnight after arriving, I peddled up to the Brandenburg Gate and was challenged by a U.S. sentry. In Stuttgart I arrived so late that the hostels were shut and a kind West German cop let me sleep on his cot at the local police station. In France I napped on an embankment over night in a sleeping bag only to discover that in the morning I was being overlooked by commuter trains whizzing by, and pedestrians on their way to work. It was fun. I had no plan; few funds, a month away from college in the summer. So maybe Oswald was having fun.

2. Oswald was being sent low-key on a mission which involved a stop-off in England for further instructions.

If the traditional sources of research have been drained dry, then it is very possible that the answers are elsewhere. I have found in the parallel research to the JFK assassination that I am conducting, that people do not live in bubbles. Other people see them, know of them, briefly engage with them, and include their connectivity within the scope of their own biographical accounts and notes.

I doubt very much if there is any record of my meeting Bill Colby in Arlington, Texas during the Eighties, but I did meet him. He arrived to try to sort out a Haitian expropriation of Texan property which was being stifled by the U.S. State Department. Are there records relating to his being in Texas and this Haitian expropriation? Yes there are!

Gordon McLendon's biography omits any connection with the offshore station known as 'Big L' or the Texan behind it. But there are mountains of references elsewhere.

Same goes for material relating to Edwin Walker's gripe about the reason why he decided to quit the U.S. Army after being attacked in Overseas Weekly.

But having Paul wade in with his usual big bossy boots and tell everyone to think his way - or no way - is one reason way I dislike this kind of forum. That is, until I collide with someone very helpful like Jason.

The way information will be found is by treating this subject like the cold case crime scene that it is, and by treating everyone and everything as suspect until they can be ruled out AFTER the real culprits have been found. However, the standard approach seems to be treating this subject like a rusting sports car that is being considered for restoration. Then all kinds of faux material can be used to provide a replicated appearance, but it is not the original as it was. It is the restoration fans who get very angry and frustrated with me. I just laugh and continue plodding along with my research.

Mervyn

 

Edited May 5, 2018 by Mervyn Hagger
punctuation added

[Michael Clark]

9 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

 

 

But having Paul wade in with his usual big bossy boots and tell everyone to think his way - or no way - is one reason way I dislike this kind of forum. That is, until I collide with someone very helpful like Jason.

.

Mervyn

 

That is just not the case. You are seeing an admonishment of how you act, not how you think.

I am hoping you will see that, and come-around at some point. Your negative characterizations of this forum and its members, at nearly every turn do not pass the "would I want everyone to act as I act" test; if we all did this, we would all be slinging a barb at everyone else, in an obligatory way, with every post.

Jason Ward and Michael Walton are of this ilk, I hope you see fit to refrain from such manners.

[Paul Brancato]

11 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

That is just not the case. You are seeing an admonishment of how you act, not how you think.

I am hoping you will see that, and come-around at some point. Your negative characterizations of this forum and its members, at nearly every turn do not pass the "would I want everyone to act as I act" test; if we all did this, we would all be slinging a barb at everyone else, in an obligatory way, with every post.

Jason Ward and Michael Walton are of this ilk, I hope you see fit to refrain from such manners.

I honestly have no idea why he reacted that way. It’s such an unfair characterization. And I wasn’t admonishing Mervyn. I was cautioning everyone to stop labeling, especially Jason and Paul T. He should be agreeing with me. I did not say that Jason’s participation was unwanted - quite the opposite.

Mervyn - you kind of lost me on some other threads in the past two weeks because of two things. One - I asked you to provide your evidence of statements you’ve made about RFK running his own private CIA operation, which you didn’t do. Two - I asked if you knew who McClendons friend Colonel Frank M Brandstetter was, to which you replied no, without even a hint of curiosity. I’ll throw in another - what do you make of McClendon’s long time friendship with David Atlee Phillips? 

I think the subject of this thread is very interesting. That’s why I’m here. I don’t look at everything through any particular lens other than one, and that is that JFK was killed by conspiracy, not by Oswald. 

[Mervyn Hagger]

24 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I honestly have no idea why he reacted that way. It’s such an unfair characterization. And I wasn’t admonishing Mervyn. I was cautioning everyone to stop labeling, especially Jason and Paul T. He should be agreeing with me. I did not say that Jason’s participation was unwanted - quite the opposite.

Mervyn - you kind of lost me on some other threads in the past two weeks because of two things. One - I asked you to provide your evidence of statements you’ve made about RFK running his own private CIA operation, which you didn’t do. Two - I asked if you knew who McClendons friend Colonel Frank M Brandstetter was, to which you replied no, without even a hint of curiosity. I’ll throw in another - what do you make of McClendon’s long time friendship with David Atlee Phillips? 

I think the subject of this thread is very interesting. That’s why I’m here. I don’t look at everything through any particular lens other than one, and that is that JFK was killed by conspiracy, not by Oswald. 

All I can see is a bossy-boots, my way or the highway approach. I am in the Jason camp. Jason has been very helpful. I am not here to play guessing games. I don't even play games on the Internet or computer. I don't have the time. So as for asking about McClendon, I will ask you - who is he? McLendon I know.

Edited May 5, 2018 by Mervyn Hagger

[Mervyn Hagger]

46 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

That is just not the case. You are seeing an admonishment of how you act, not how you think.

I am hoping you will see that, and come-around at some point. Your negative characterizations of this forum and its members, at nearly every turn do not pass the "would I want everyone to act as I act" test; if we all did this, we would all be slinging a barb at everyone else, in an obligatory way, with every post.

Jason Ward and Michael Walton are of this ilk, I hope you see fit to refrain from such manners.

Damn cheek, is my response. Who the hell does he think he is? Whatever the answer I am not interested. On the other hand Jason has been very helpful and I very pleased to be able to take you up on your offer and associate me with "this ilk".

[Michael Clark]

9 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Damn cheek, is my response. Who the hell does he think he is? Whatever the answer I am not interested. On the other hand Jason has been very helpful and I very pleased to be able to take you up on your offer and associate me with "this ilk".

That is par for the par 1, one-hole, mini golf course, run by Trejo and Ward that you seem to be frequenting.

Paul Brancato asks insightful, intelligent and difficult questions and gets told to go-away, and put on an ignore list.

It is revealing, actually. Trejo is getting some desperately-needed reinforcement for his perpetually failing theory.

Cudos to Mr. Brancato, for flicking on the light switch, at the right moments.

[Mervyn Hagger]

Mike, I can't make it any plainer: I just don't care what Paul thinks or you think for that matter. I am not here to play silly games. I am very appreciative of the pointers provided by Jason.