David Atlee Phillips: Oswald never went to Mexico!

[Sandy Larsen]

30 minutes ago, Mart Hall said:

Sandy, David,

Is the report being sent by the USSR embassy in Washington (it has Washington in the header)?

If so, then the author is saying Oswald never attended that embassy rather then the one in Mexico City.

 

The letter is being sent from the Russian Embassy in Washington. But reference to Oswald never visiting the embassy is referring to their embassy in Mexico City.

In context it would make no sense to state that Oswald hadn't visited the Washington embassy. Why say that? The point of the above letter was that Oswald's letter was a concocted forgery. And they knew that because the letter refers to his visit to the embassy in Mexico City, which they had no record of.

 

[David Josephs]

This is the postmark on the NOV 8th dated letter supposedly inside...  If that was Nov 12th then it would appear like the "MAR 12" below it...  You'd see the #1...  there is no "1" in front of that "2"...  There is much more about that terrible letter that suggests it was created...  but it is good to know they Russians saw this as a fake as well...

[Steve Roe]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Steve,

Your remark, which is obviously directed at David Josephs, violates forum rules. Kindly remove it and report back here in a post stating you have done so. If you do not, I will report your post.

Although I don't agree this violates forum rules Sandy, I did delete the comment (in red).

[Benjamin Cole]

David/Sandy--

Not pushback, just asking questions. 

1. OK, after the JFKA, did the Soviets ever issue a statement to the effect that "LHO never visited our Embassy in Mexico City, including in September of 1963.  That is a canard."  Why not? Did they even send a message like this through back channels to, say, RFK? Why would the Russians stand still for the linking of LHO to Kostikov? Did they fear there were photos of LHO entering the Embassy? 

2. What is the date of this bit of writing below, and can you explain context? It appears to confirm LHO visited the MC-Soviet Embassy: 

[Handwritten number: 721 Top Secret. Copy no. 2 Appendix 2
Draft

MEXICO
TO THE SOVIET AMBASSADOR

665. I agree with you that you should visit the MFA of Mexico (the minister or his deputy) and say, referring to reports in the press, that Oswald requested the consular division of the Soviet embassy in Mexico for a visa to enter the USSR, that the procedure for obtaining entry visas was explained to him at the consular division, and that afterwards he no longer contacted the Soviet embassy. According to information available at the embassy, the request for the entry of Oswald and his family into the USSR that he made at the Soviet embassy in Washington was turned down.

---30---

3. If the three KGB agents who told Frontline (1993, filmed and recorded) they met LHO in MC were just out for money...why not reveal the more-explosive story that the trio had met an obvious imposter or no one, instead of LHO in 1963? They would have made some money that way....

4. Is not a reasonable scenario that LHO was transported to MC by means unknown, including possibly an intel-provided Cessna or what have you, and visited the Russian Embassy wherein a Kostikov was intrigued into meeting with LHO? Ergo, the Kostikov-LHO link was forged, and the Russians could not deny it. And they did not deny it---ever. 

5. Of course, the CIA could not say "Oh, we gave LHO a ride down to MC, and tricked Kostikov into meeting him by leaking info on LHO that he was CIA."  So they covered up, invented the bus ride. Why the impersonation at the Cuba Embassy I do not know. Just to smear them too, I guess. 

Just my queries....

 

[Benjamin Cole]

Just for fun, a 1975 NYT article on LHO's visit to MC. 

https://www.nytimes.com/1975/09/21/archives/oswald-calls-to-embassies-reported-taped-by-cia-oswald-calls.html

 

[Mart Hall]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The letter is being sent from the Russian Embassy in Washington. But reference to Oswald never visiting the embassy is referring to their embassy in Mexico City.

In context it would make no sense to state that Oswald hadn't visited the Washington embassy. Why say that? The point of the above letter was that Oswald's letter was a concocted forgery. And they knew that because the letter refers to his visit to the embassy in Mexico City, which they had no record of.

 

Please accept my apologies if I am confusing matters, but my observation was influenced by the report/memo that is above the letter sent by the USSR embassy in Washington.

Particularly this part:

“According to information available at the embassy, the request for the entry of Oswald and his family into the USSR that he made at the Soviet embassy in Washington was turned down.”

The first embassy referred to in this paragraph is the USSR embassy in Mexico, this implies that the writer believed an Oswald attended that embassy. 
 

I see that Ben has made reference to the part I quote above in his query, so I expect this will be clarified. 

Edited January 9, 2023 by Mart Hall
Typo

[Sandy Larsen]

57 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Although I don't agree this violates forum rules ....

 

You called David's belief a "fantasy."

 

On 10/13/2014 at 4:11 AM, James R Gordon said:

Terms of Forum Use

General Posting Behaviour:

No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Mart Hall said:

The first embassy referred to in this paragraph is the USSR embassy in Mexico, this implies that the writer believed an Oswald attended that embassy.

 

Mart,

The two documents were written by (probably) two different people on two different occasions for two different purposes. I stand by what I said about the second of the two documents.

As for the first of the two documents, the only information given is what we already have evidence for, and that is that Oswald contacted the Mexico City Soviet embassy and tried to get approval for a Russian visa, and that the Soviet embassy contacted the Soviet embassy in Washington for approval. It doesn't specifically state that Oswald visited the embassy.

Even if he did visit the Soviet Embassy, I would believe it was an imposter who did, just as in the case of the Cuban consulate.

 

[David Josephs]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

you should visit the MFA of Mexico (the minister or his deputy) and say, referring to reports in the press,

Ben... this is the relevant passage in that letter...  they are not agreeing or stating he was at the consulate...  they are "referring to the reports in the press" and talking about how they will handle them with MFA in Mexico.

These reports just like the article you posted from 1975, are just uncorroborated press reports.. but the Russians would not take that opportunity to begin arguing with the US and world press over whether he was there or not.

I see this as going along to get along...  when the other internal reports say he was not there as Sandy pointed out... I believe we have to take each word seriously.

How I see it 

btw - was not referring to you with the pushback comment...  Just seems so many, rather than take the time and read the work or learn the material, would rather just float ideas and have others do the work...  Took me 3 years to work thru the docs to write those chapters... kinda hard to paraphrase in a post the mountain of BS the FBI put in those docs.

And ask yourself... why have you never heard of Hernandez OCHOA when he single-handedly was responsible for all the evidence given to the FBI about Oswald.

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by David Josephs

[Gene Kelly]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Of course, you guys do know that Oswald denied going to Mexico City in the DPD interrogation report, and in one of the FBI reports he said he'd been to Mexico only once, and that was to visit Tijuana.

(My apologies if you've already discussed this. It seems clear to me that Holmes was simply in error on this point.)

 

Sandy and David:

Not sure how you feel about Nagell's credibility in this case, but several years after the assassination, Nagell allegedly told a military friend (John Margain) that he had visited Mexico with Oswald (not sure specifically when).  Also, a Military Intelligence report written in May 1969 by special agent Thomas Hench states that Nagell had been conducting "inquiries" into Marina and Lee Oswald from April - September 1963.  Since Nagell was arrested on September 20, 1963, in El Paso, he was out of the picture during the alleged Consulate and Embassy visits.  But if we put stock in some of Nagell's stories, he seemed to know quite a bit about LHO, and some of that interaction apparently occurred in Mexico. 

Nagell's allegations about his Mexico adventures with Oswald have always muddied the waters for me about Mexico City.  

Gene

[David Josephs]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Just for fun, a 1975 NYT article on LHO's visit to MC. 

https://www.nytimes.com/1975/09/21/archives/oswald-calls-to-embassies-reported-taped-by-cia-oswald-calls.html

 

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20—The Central Intelligence Agency secretly tape‐recorded two telephone conversations between Lee Harvey Oswald and the Cuban and Soviet Embassies in Mexico City some eight weeks before President Kennedy was shot to death on Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas, Government sources familiar with the events said today.

Ben,

Kinda cool how "just for fun" can illuminate more of the conflicts in the record...

The following is the attachments list from a memo from HELMS to Hoover/Papich about the call transcripts his CIA had to offer.  the ones that FBI agents said did not sound at all like Oswald...  Tarasoff was CIA contract and did all the Russian translation, his wife the Spanish... which the call on the 27th was supposedly in...

Attachments:
A. 28 Sep 63 transcript.
B. transcript of 3 calls 27 Sept, 1 on 1 Oct and 1 on 3 Oct.   

That's 6 calls... and the FBI puts Oswald on a bus the morning of Oct 2nd.

 

[David Josephs]

Finally on the subject of these calls I'd like to offer this:  The wholesale manipulation of the record to further implicate Oswald...  Shameful really.

This is SLAWSON to COLEMAN from the M.Blunt collection thanks for Bart... (hoping he is well)
I am at a loss for what #3 is about... but I get the sense there was a lot more false transcripts designed to implicate Oswald that were not used, yet obviously heard...

SLAWSON was convinced by CIA that Oswald was down there yet at the same time he says things like he never heard Oswald's voice before so how would I know if it was Oswald I listened to?  Instead he writes that the voice "sounded like I'd expect his voice to sound"

rif 179-40006-10049.  I only have pages 1, the cover page and this one, page 2. 
The Subject is "Appendix on LHO in Mexico: Comments on fFirst Draft"

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

These reports just like the article you posted from 1975, are just uncorroborated press reports.. but the Russians would not take that opportunity to begin arguing with the US and world press over whether he was there or not.

 

I agree with you David. That they got the info from press reports.

 

[Greg Doudna]

8 hours ago, David Josephs said:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=650. 

These are the reports of Kelley... Mexico is not mentioned once.  GRAVES is mistaken (lying is so harsh). And since we have nothing recorded regarding the interrogations is the man mistaken about Kelley also mistaken about Oswald's statement?  I'd bet on it.

HOLMES lied about virtually everything and a reference to someone else's report that does not have what he says it has in it does not constitute 2nd witness corroboration ...

Why all the pushback anyway? 

I offer hundreds of pages of evidence and analysis which shows he was not there... the men down there even said the only evidence of his being there are the CIA transcripts and the Hotel register... there is simply you can say which overrides LITAMIL 9 & 7 stating he wasn't there....  maybe that was why his evidence about Oswald not being there was suppressed until 2018?

And the response is HOLMES and "some guy said"....?

So here again from the horse's mouth...   FALSE STORY yet he and his FBI produced thousands of pages trying to defend a fictitious trip...  New Orleans to AUSTIN to DALLAS to ODIO with Cubans...  Wonder why the FBI would want to cover that up 8 weeks before the assassination... 

 

David, I have printed out all six parts of your series on Mexico City on Kennedys and King with the massive research there. I did read it once before and am going off memories of that, but will study through it again. I realize you have been at this a long time and compared to you I am a newcomer. I do not agree with expressions of disrespect toward you personally, and I realize the labor and work you put into preparing your research and argument. 

You ask why the pushback. Speaking for myself it is because I have trouble seeing how the no-MC-trip idea (of LHO) makes sense. My memory of reading your argument the last time was a series of arguments knocking down claimed evidences for Oswald going to and from and being in Mexico City. What I did not see established was positive evidence he wasn't there. The only real way that could be shown is to establish unequivocally he was somewhere else during those days. Lacking that, knocking down claimed positive evidence only at best knocks down particular reconstructions, does not establish a negative in itself. I felt while reading of arguments knocking down the bus trips, the hotel stay, etc. that there was inadequate addressing of the positive reasons to suppose LHO was in Mexico City--the Soviet embassy personnel believed it was him; the address book; CIA officials internally believed it was him; authenticated handwriting of Oswald writing that he was there; Marina, his wife, told of it; artifacts brought back by Oswald from Mexico City, etc. I see people just handwaving these things away.

Is Oswald securely placed elsewhere than Mexico City during those days? No. As I recall you cited two claims on that, one a claim at the Sports Drome Rifle Range which was clearly that witness mistaken by a month on his claimed Oswald sighting (which I don't believe was Oswald either, separate matter but irrelevant since the date isn't right). The other more important issue is you keep citing the Silvia Odio sighting. The problem is that the Silvia Odio sighting can be nailed down to not long after 6 pm Wed Sept 25, 1963. Oswald is in a car with two others who said they just came from New Orleans. A check cashed in New Orleans in the morning and a 7.5 hour drive from New Orleans to Dallas. Then 4 hours drive to Houston and bus leaving from there about 2 a.m. I don't know how he got from Houston to Mexico City but showing that the Warren Commission's reconstruction has problems (if so) does not logically equate to the trip did not happen. It could mean they just got the reconstruction wrong.

But here is the point: you are completely right the New Orleans to Houston aspect of that trip is unexplained in the WC reconstruction, there is no evidence of Oswald getting there by such a bus trip and as I recall there are grounds why there could not have been such a bus trip. BUT, Oswald is seen, not on a bus, but in a car being driven, at exactly--can't emphasize this enough, exactly--the right time to get him from New Orleans to Houston, in that leg at least of the MC trip which the WC has failed to find a good explanation. It is that coincidence or juxtaposition in timing, combined with the strength of the argument for the Silvia Odio Oswald sighting having been genuine, that powerfully supports Oswald's Mexico City trip. Because: he is in a car that came from New Orleans. He leaves in that car headed somewhere. It explains that leg of the trip to Mexico City and does so almost to the exact hour expected. Now, you could say he went somewhere else from Dallas that evening for the next five days, but there is no evidence for that, and the timing is perfect for Oswald having been driven at least to Houston (or further, however the driving worked). You cannot keep citing Silvia Odio as if that is a counterargument to the Mexico City trip since it is in perfect agreement with a MC trip and solves how Oswald traveled that leg of the trip which the WC did not get correctly.

Then on the two in the Cuban consulate--my memory is they said they did not see Oswald there. That is a lot different than saying they know he was never there. Big difference, especially as I think I recall reading somewhere that they also said they would not have been in a position to have seen if Oswald had been there, due to where they normally were in the buildings or something. The only way those two become evidence is if they were present with Silvia Duran and did see whoever it was come in to see Silvia Duran, and said that was not Oswald, but those two did not say that (as I recall). Azcue did, later claimed it wasn't Oswald (did he originally?--why then did Castro think Oswald was there?--Azcue's doubts it was Oswald come about later?). If Azcue's claim it was someone different is true that of course is evidence Oswald was not at the Cuban consulate, but the two others who weren't in Azcue's position to see are not as I see it. On Azcue, if he was right that would deny Oswald was in the Cuban consulate, though would not prove Oswald was not in Mexico City (the same with Silvia Duran who is all over the map on whether it was or was not Oswald, but mostly seems to say it was Oswald and has height remembered wrong by 3 or 7 inches years later). But Azcue could be not correct, wittingly or unwittingly, and there is motive involved, so falls short of stand-alone decisive, though I agree it is something if there are other reasons in agreement with Azcue on that (but are there, is the question). 

On Hoover referring to CIA lying to FBI about Oswald and Mexico City, you are filling in what that means. Hoover knows CIA sent up a tape of Oswald which wasn't his voice, and misled re a photo (although CIA claims they never did claim that photo was of Oswald). Does Hoover know Oswald was not in Mexico City at all? No evidence Hoover ever said that directly. Or is Hoover complaining that CIA was lying about that trip, which is not the same thing as saying Oswald wasn't there? Can you prove what Hoover meant? Even if he did mean Oswald literally was never in Mexico City, how could he possibly know that? Just because he's been lied to by CIA about the trip? All he could justifiably say at most is "We have not confirmed, on the basis of evidence at our disposal, that he was in Mexico City". That would be ambiguity or uncertainty, not proof he wasn't there. And yet there is no evidence Hoover or top FBI officials ever said that explicitly either, is there. Apart from the Hoover LBJ phone call speaking of an impersonator in Mexico City (but is that an impersonator plus Oswald, or impersonator minus Oswald? in Hoover's mind?).

On Marina. Marina lied early on for reasons all of which make good sense as being done on her own for self-serving reasons, analogous to the witnessed (by Marguerite) and confessed (by Marina) destruction of a BYP (or BYPs, plural, in Marina's telling of the incident to HSCA as I recall) by setting them on fire in a hotel room Sat night Nov 23. Everyone cites how she was then threatened with her deportation status, but that was to get her to talk and they wanted her to talk truthfully--not lie to them! It was, "cooperate--talk to us, tell us what happened, answer our questions (truthfully!)" or the implied leverage of deportation. But I see CT's thinking it is just perfectly normal that FBI would be pressuring her into learning memorized lines fed her, having her learn complex fabricated complete falsehoods well enough that she can answer back lies to FBI agents writing up interviews of her! CT's think the deportation leverage was to force her to lie to them in answer to their own questions!  

No matter how widespread and uncritically assumed in CT-land that is, that widespread idea just make zero sense. What other security agency interrogators want civilian witnesses to answer lies back to them to their own questions? And if there was such a massive plot to secretly have Marina scripted and marionette-stringed to learn lines of falsehoods fed to her like an actor, there would surely be a separate set of secret FBI interrogations in which they would tell her, "OK, now Marina for this interview we really, really want you to tell us the truth". Two sets of FBI files with two sets of interviews of Marina, the first the lies they trained her to say and want her to answer back to them, and the second in which they want her to answer truthfully which have never come to light to the present day. And if you were the FBI, would you trust Marina--the traumatized widow--to be able to keep her two sets of interviews straight, one where she is supposed to lie to FBI agents and the Warren Commission et al her trained, rehearsed false complete-fabrication answers, and the other where she is supposed to tell the truth to FBI agents' questions? Do the field FBI agents getting Marina's scripted false answers fed back to them and writing up their interview reports filed with hq--do those agents know it, or are they hapless cogs in a larger hidden-hand operation of higher-level handlers? Does that make sense to you? Not only is there not a shred of evidence of any such FBI or any other agency marionette-string scripting of Marina's testimony or any other civilian witness (highly illegal on the part of any agency if it ever came to light, to suborn perjury), but is there any comparative parallel or precedent that makes that scenario plausible or realistic even as a conjecture? No. I realize you did not invent that CT idea, but I believe you do assume it as a part of your larger interpretation of Marina's testimony that everything she said about Lee having talked about going to Mexico City, then of Lee doing so, was scripted lies--the FBI secretly forcing Marina to answer their own questions back to them with lies. No, whatever spoken or unspoken pressure was on Marina at the outset would have been to get her to talk, and to tell the truth in answer to questions, right? (Which she was not doing on some things at the beginning certainly, and may have continued to be an issue on certain points even after Marina assured them she had gone straight with them on the matter of telling the truth.) 

So it makes no sense to me to hear leading CT's cite Marina's original denials of this or that as if that is evidence of anything, against Marina's later testimony of the opposite under oath. In such cases, in which clearly one or the other of Marina's stories was falsehood, the more likely--all else being equal--sequence is: she lies on her own for self-serving reasons, and then either because called out on it or maybe because she came to like them and decided to tell the truth, whichever, she tells the truth. I realize there is a third path, in which she on her own shapes her testimony to give the questioners what she can tell they want to hear. That is possible. But that is not the scripted marionette-stringing that is supposed in some CT's explanation of how it came to be that Marina told of Lee going to Mexico City. 

There are about three logical options: (i) Oswald went to Mexico City and agencies surveilled him and piggybacked some covert stuff on top of his (from his point of view) innocent trip; (ii) Oswald was an operative working for an agency on that trip; or (iii) Oswald was somewhere else, it was an imposter from start to finish run by an agency, pinned on Oswald with fabricated paper trail; material artifact and planted artifact trail; successfully forged Oswald handwriting trail; and suborned civilian witnesses top to bottom and front to back, the whole works, and the whole MC/Oswald trip was a complete fabrication. 

All I can say is finding contradictions in the official version of the Mexico City trip, to the extent that that enterprise is successful, does not really directly address whether it is i, ii, or iii, that is, exclude "i" and "ii" leaving only "iii". 

[Matt Allison]

I think that is well-reasoned statement from Greg there.

I have moved into the "not sure" camp on whether LHO was in Mex City or not.

But the questions must be addressed: Why? Why say he was there when he wasn't unless there was a plan to hide him elsewhere?

And from the other viewpoint, if he was there, yet was being impersonated while there, what was the point of him going there in the first place?

I'm not sure there is a bigger mystery in American history than the story of LHO in Mexico City.