David Atlee Phillips: Oswald never went to Mexico!

[David Josephs]

Thank you Greg... Wanted to let you know I'll give your reply some time...

Just very preoccupied at the time... please bear with.... thx...

State Secret and related material may give you the answer you are looking for better than I.

DJ

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

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?

 

Matt,

The reason the plotters would rather Oswald not  be there is that he would only get in the way. The plotters -- elements of the CIA -- were preparing evidence for a  Fake Conspiracy. The Fake Conspiracy consisted of Oswald planning the assassination with the Cubans and Russian.

According to the plan, immediately after the killing, the FBI would discover the Fake Conspiracy, but think it was real. That way Cuba and Russia would be implicated in the killing, and this would serve as a pretext for a Cuban invasion, or whatever the military could milk from it.

So, theoretically speaking, the CIA could have sent Oswald to Mexico City and told him to follow a script that, unbeknownst to him, was designed to make him a patsy. Or, they could just use some other CIA agent or agents to follow Oswald's script.

It's easier understanding this if you assume Oswald didn't go to Mexico City. Once you understand it, you can look at all the evidence and decide whether or not you think Oswald was there.

Maybe Oswald was in Mexico somewhere vacationing while others were busy setting him up in MC. That way he wouldn't need to be hid.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

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

Gene-

It appears the Hench memo has been discredited. 

My take is that Nagell is not a reliable source, and was capable of fabricating evidence. 

But hey, so was the FBI. 

Ever try to find your way through a jungle on a foggy moonless night? 

Edited January 10, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[Jonathan Cohen]

55 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Matt,

The reason the plotters would rather Oswald not  be there is that he would only get in the way. The plotters -- elements of the CIA -- were preparing evidence for a  Fake Conspiracy. The Fake Conspiracy consisted of Oswald planning the assassination with the Cubans and Russian.

According to the plan, immediately after the killing, the FBI would discover the Fake Conspiracy, but think it was real. That way Cuba and Russia would be implicated in the killing, and this would serve as a pretext for a Cuban invasion, or whatever the military could milk from it.

So, theoretically speaking, the CIA could have sent Oswald to Mexico City and told him to follow a script that, unbeknownst to him, was designed to make him a patsy. Or, they could just use some other CIA agent or agents to follow Oswald's script.

It's easier understanding this if you assume Oswald didn't go to Mexico City. Once you understand it, you can look at all the evidence and decide whether or not you think Oswald was there.

Maybe Oswald was in Mexico somewhere vacationing while others were busy setting him up in MC. That way he wouldn't need to be hid.

 

Another ludicrous post full of pretzel logic, which we can add to the preposterously complicated and unnecessary Oswald doppelganger project of which Sandy is a champion. Do you expect us to believe that the FBI would not actually investigate "the fake conspiracy" you outline above and instead just accept it hook, line, and sinker? Do you expect us to believe the CIA would take that risk in a conspiracy this wide-ranging? Furthermore, what kind of theory begins with such a consequential assumption (Oswald didn't go to Mexico City) rather than looking at all the evidence FIRST?

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, David Josephs said:

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.

 

DJ--

I am reading, and re-reading, your reports as posted on K&K. 

It surely looks like evidence was arranged or fabricated after the fact. 

You have done tremendous work. 

I have reservations about LHO meeting the three KGB'ers, due to---

1. The memo you posted herein (and for which I admire you, in a "full disclosure" vein). Do you have the date of that memo? We read that memo differently...so it goes. 

2. The three KGB'ers (including Kostikov) willing to be filmed and state on the record they met LHO at the Soviet Embassy (Frontline, 1993). If pecuniary interests were involved, my guess is they would have made more money by saying they never met LHO. 

3. The fact that the Russians never stated, never issued a statement, even through back-channels, that "This guy called LHO never visited the Soviet Embassy, certainly not in September-October 1963."  

I gather we hardly have full access to all Russian docs from the period. But none has surfaced suggesting the LHO-Kostikov meeting never happened. 

Side note: When my passport expired, I was sent back my old passport. LHO having his passport with the Russian stamps in it does not seem odd to me, if indeed he flashed that passport at the two Aussie women. 

PS I posted the NYT just for human interest. I place no faith in it. 

I was trying to find the earliest instance in the US media of LHO's purported visit to the Soviet Embassy. I can't seem to find out if the DRE released such info. Do you know? 

Obviously, even in the wake of the JFKA, David Atlee Phillips was spreading mal-information, about red-haired Negroes and whatnot. For Phillips, the JFKA was not an unimaginable horror, but another PR op. 

I hope you understand that while I contend LHO likely met Kostikov (a meeting likely arranged by the CIA) I hardly believe the official LHO story. 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

41 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Another ludicrous post full of pretzel logic....

 

Hey dude, it's not my theory. It is believed by several esteemed researchers including Peter Dale Scott. (What I call Fake Conspiracy is the same as what he calls Phase One.) I'm just trying to make it easier for other people to understand it.

Why don't you make yourself useful and do something for a change?

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Hey dude, it's not my theory. It is believed by several esteemed researchers including Peter Dale Scott. (What I call Fake Conspiracy is the same as what he calls Phase One.) I'm just trying to make it easier for other people to understand it.

Why don't you make yourself useful and do something for a change?

Just because Peter Dale Scott believes it doesn't mean it's correct, or even logical. You're apparently unwilling to discuss the flaws in the theory, much as you are with "Harvey and Lee" and other assassination-related speculation that necessitates most if not all of the evidence in the case having been falsified.

[Sandy Larsen]

59 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Matt,

The reason the plotters would rather Oswald not  be there is that he would only get in the way. The plotters -- elements of the CIA -- were preparing evidence for a  Fake Conspiracy. The Fake Conspiracy consisted of Oswald planning the assassination with the Cubans and Russian.

According to the plan, immediately after the killing, the FBI would discover the Fake Conspiracy, but think it was real. That way Cuba and Russia would be implicated in the killing, and this would serve as a pretext for a Cuban invasion, or whatever the military could milk from it.

So, theoretically speaking, the CIA could have sent Oswald to Mexico City and told him to follow a script that, unbeknownst to him, was designed to make him a patsy. Or, they could just use some other CIA agent or agents to follow Oswald's script.

It's easier understanding this if you assume Oswald didn't go to Mexico City. Once you understand it, you can look at all the evidence and decide whether or not you think Oswald was there.

Maybe Oswald was in Mexico somewhere vacationing while others were busy setting him up in MC. That way he wouldn't need to be hid.

 

Expand  

Another ludicrous post full of pretzel logic, which we can add to the preposterously complicated and unnecessary Oswald doppelganger project of which Sandy is a champion. Do you expect us to believe that the FBI would not actually investigate "the fake conspiracy" you outline above and instead just accept it hook, line, and sinker? Do you expect us to believe the CIA would take that risk in a conspiracy this wide-ranging? Furthermore, what kind of theory begins with such a consequential assumption (Oswald didn't go to Mexico City) rather than looking at all the evidence FIRST?

 

Snapshot of forum rule violation.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

A side note:

What I suspect what really happened in MC is even darker than the "LHO never went to MC" story.

1. If LHO never went to Mexico, then the intel community merely fabricated evidence that he did so.  It does not mean the intel community was manipulating or even operating LHO. 

2. In my version, first the CIA leaked info to the KGB that LHO was a US intel asset. This intrigued Kostikov into meeting with LHO. Then, someone gave LHO a ride to MC, likely by plane. Then, LHO met with Kostikov, as planned by the CIA, creating a record the Russians could not deny. The Russians know their phones were tapped and cameras working outside their Embassy. 

All of this strongly suggests overt manipulation of LHO as an operating asset--likely with LHO a somewhat witting asset. 

In other words, the CIA was in hip-deep with LHO. 

But later....

Then LHO somehow gets booby-trapped into the JFKA.  That is what the CIA has been lying about ever since, and I suspect, even had LHO murdered to cover up. 

No wonder both parties have hewed the official line on LHO ever since....

Edited January 10, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[James DiEugenio]

Ben:

Can you show me who discredited your Hench memo and how they did it and when?

Secondly, that was a wise pivot you made about the Oswald card you said could have been copied by Nagell out of CUrry's book.

Wrong. It was not the same card. So he could not have taken it out of that book.  Or any other book that I know of.

As Mary Ferrell said, how did Nagell get the Identification Card with no overstamp on it? ANd a different picture of Oswald.

Does that not denote that Nagell was extremely close to Oswald?  I mean anyone who is thinking logically would have to entertain that thought would they not?  Whatever one thinks of Ferrell she had a very wide background in the literature on the case. So how else could Nagell have gotten that card without the overstamp?

Here is a ist of witnesses who corroborate Nagell, please note the third one down.  You try and ridicule the letter Nagell wrote the FBI about the assassination The FBI had the letter and Gambert saw it.

1. Arthur Greenstein: Nagell’s friend in Mexico who he left while on assignment in late October of 1962. At that time, Nagell told him he would probably read about him in the papers since he was on to something big. (Russell, p. 160)

2. Eleanore Gambert: Nagell’s sister, who he wrote to before the assassination about the bank robbery being a charade. (Letter of October 10, 1963) FBI interviewed her and her family after the assassination (ibid, p. 37–39)

3. Louis Gambert: Eleanore’s husband at the time, present during the FBI interview, where a copy of Nagell’s warning to the FBI was produced (ibid, pp. 38–39)

4. Roger Gambert: their son, who told Russell there was a break in at their home afterwards and some of the items from this file were now gone (ibid p. 40)

5. John Margain: Nagell’s military and personal friend; a CIA acquaintance sent him an article about Nagell in 1968. Nagell had told Margain about his warning letter to the FBI and his visiting Mexico with Oswald. (ibid, 100–02, 240–41)

6. Jim Bundren: Oswald’s arresting officer in El Paso in September. Nagell was waiting for him, and he told Bundren he “would rather be arrested than commit murder and treason.” He later told the guard that he really did not want to be in Dallas; when Bundren asked him what he meant by that, he said, “You’ll see soon enough.” (Russell, pp. 2–3)

 

 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ben:

Can you show me who discredited your Hench memo and how they did it and when?

Secondly, that was a wise pivot you made about the Oswald card you said could have been copied by Nagell out of CUrry's book.

Wrong. It was not the same card. So he could not have taken it out of that book.  Or any other book that I know of.

As Mary Ferrell said, how did Nagell get the Identification Card with no overstamp on it? ANd a different picture of Oswald.

Does that not denote that Nagell was extremely close to Oswald?  I mean anyone who is thinking logically would have to entertain that thought would they not?  Whatever one thinks of Ferrell she had a very wide background in the literature on the case. So how else could Nagell have gotten that card without the overstamp?

Here is a ist of witnesses who corroborate Nagell, please note the third one down.  You try and ridicule the letter Nagell wrote the FBI about the assassination The FBI had the letter and Gambert saw it.

1. Arthur Greenstein: Nagell’s friend in Mexico who he left while on assignment in late October of 1962. At that time, Nagell told him he would probably read about him in the papers since he was on to something big. (Russell, p. 160)

2. Eleanore Gambert: Nagell’s sister, who he wrote to before the assassination about the bank robbery being a charade. (Letter of October 10, 1963) FBI interviewed her and her family after the assassination (ibid, p. 37–39)

3. Louis Gambert: Eleanore’s husband at the time, present during the FBI interview, where a copy of Nagell’s warning to the FBI was produced (ibid, pp. 38–39)

4. Roger Gambert: their son, who told Russell there was a break in at their home afterwards and some of the items from this file were now gone (ibid p. 40)

5. John Margain: Nagell’s military and personal friend; a CIA acquaintance sent him an article about Nagell in 1968. Nagell had told Margain about his warning letter to the FBI and his visiting Mexico with Oswald. (ibid, 100–02, 240–41)

6. Jim Bundren: Oswald’s arresting officer in El Paso in September. Nagell was waiting for him, and he told Bundren he “would rather be arrested than commit murder and treason.” He later told the guard that he really did not want to be in Dallas; when Bundren asked him what he meant by that, he said, “You’ll see soon enough.” (Russell, pp. 2–3)

 

 

 

 

Jim-

Let me get back to you on these questions. 

As for the Selective Service card...how did LHO make his phony card? He drafted it up in a graphics shop. 

There were graphics shops in those days, and white-out.  

On the Hench memo, see comments above. 

Side note: Has anyone seem the actual Nagell-Oswald selective service card? I have looked online without avail....

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

There's a previous discussion on the Education Forum from 2017 re how Nagell's Oswald military ID was likely forged, originally copied from the real Oswald military ID with the copy then altered to remove the postmark, not perfectly, https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23605-is-there-hard-evidence-that-richard-case-nagells-id-with-oswalds-signature-was-in-his-possession-when-arrested/page/2/#comment-360310.

From checking Russell, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Louis Gambert, husband of Eleanore, saw the FBI looking through papers of Nagell in 1965, and Louis later told Dick Russell one of those Nagell's papers was Nagell's alleged Sept 1963 letter to the FBI of which Nagell never supplied any postal receipt or evidence, nobody ever personally saw, and Nagell later said he may never have sent. But Louis Gambert never claimed to have personally seen any such Nagell letter to the FBI. He surely told Dick Russell that because Nagell told him that. That's no evidence. 

The articles of David Reitzes of https://www.jfk-assassination.net/nagell1.htm debunking the Nagell story convinced me a while ago that Nagell's claims of involvement with Oswald and the JFK assassination were not credible. Since then I see now that Fred Litwin has an entire series of articles from 2021 on his website on all of the specific aspects of the Nagell story (any one article of those has links at the bottom to all of the others, such as this one arguing that Nagell's letter to the FBI never existed: https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/richard-case-nagell-s-nonexistent-evidence).

I have not read the Litwin articles on Nagell, its not a particular interest of mine. But are people here who embrace or are sympathetic to the Nagell story aware of Litwin's debunkings?

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ben:

Can you show me who discredited your Hench memo and how they did it and when?

Secondly, that was a wise pivot you made about the Oswald card you said could have been copied by Nagell out of CUrry's book.

Wrong. It was not the same card. So he could not have taken it out of that book.  Or any other book that I know of.

As Mary Ferrell said, how did Nagell get the Identification Card with no overstamp on it? ANd a different picture of Oswald.

Does that not denote that Nagell was extremely close to Oswald?  I mean anyone who is thinking logically would have to entertain that thought would they not?  Whatever one thinks of Ferrell she had a very wide background in the literature on the case. So how else could Nagell have gotten that card without the overstamp?

Here is a ist of witnesses who corroborate Nagell, please note the third one down.  You try and ridicule the letter Nagell wrote the FBI about the assassination The FBI had the letter and Gambert saw it.

1. Arthur Greenstein: Nagell’s friend in Mexico who he left while on assignment in late October of 1962. At that time, Nagell told him he would probably read about him in the papers since he was on to something big. (Russell, p. 160)

2. Eleanore Gambert: Nagell’s sister, who he wrote to before the assassination about the bank robbery being a charade. (Letter of October 10, 1963) FBI interviewed her and her family after the assassination (ibid, p. 37–39)

3. Louis Gambert: Eleanore’s husband at the time, present during the FBI interview, where a copy of Nagell’s warning to the FBI was produced (ibid, pp. 38–39)

4. Roger Gambert: their son, who told Russell there was a break in at their home afterwards and some of the items from this file were now gone (ibid p. 40)

5. John Margain: Nagell’s military and personal friend; a CIA acquaintance sent him an article about Nagell in 1968. Nagell had told Margain about his warning letter to the FBI and his visiting Mexico with Oswald. (ibid, 100–02, 240–41)

6. Jim Bundren: Oswald’s arresting officer in El Paso in September. Nagell was waiting for him, and he told Bundren he “would rather be arrested than commit murder and treason.” He later told the guard that he really did not want to be in Dallas; when Bundren asked him what he meant by that, he said, “You’ll see soon enough.” (Russell, pp. 2–3)

 

 

 

 

Jim D-

 

OK, just a quickie:

"Nagell had told Margain about his warning letter to the FBI and his visiting Mexico with Oswald"

Well, now I am confused. Was LHO in MC or not? 

 

[David Josephs]

14 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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". 

I'm sorry Greg but I cannot accept your tautology here.  You can't define the options and then say I'm wrong because I didn't prove one of your choices...

iv: Oswald was somewhere else and the CIA planted him there using faked calls and/or transcripts of calls that never happened.

I already know that the FBI's asset OCHOA fabricated evidence.
I already see how the hotel registry was manipulated and the interviews of those at this hotel terribly conflicting
I already see how DURAN - who's job it was to assist visa seekers - cannot even tell us which of a few passport/visa photographers she sends the people she helps... nor could the FBI find one
The repeated wholesale fabrications of Mexico based events involving Oswald - all of which never happened... such as de la PAZ, ALVARADO, VILLANOVA, COBB, VALENCIA, TO NAME A FEW...

In the work I completed I started out in the first 2 chapters with the feeling that there may have been an imposter and it may have been Lee as opposed to Harvey... but I soon realized that wasn't the case. (We also have the multiple sightings of Oswald in south Texas interviewing at radio stations with a wife and 2 small children... the Alice Texas and area reports)

I realized that the FBI was fabricating the story of his journey.  And continued my writing from there...  as time went on and more information was released my initial hypothesis was proven and a new hypothesis emerged... no the FBI offered journey was not real but now I asked whether a person impersonated Oswald at all given the complete lack of evidence and the numerous fabricated stories the CIA offer to get him there...  was all this simply some means of hedgin their bets, the CIA, as well as doping some of the things mentioned in State Secret and other related writings...?

You make statements and ask questions in your reply which require the time tested poor excuse for a response in this case... "Does this make sense to you?" and "Why would they do that?"   

The reality again is THAT WAS WHAT HAPPENED, that was how it went down...  you can read into the situation what you like, and you do, but I am not asking WHY? they happened but "what does what happened mean in the context of all the other related evidence?"  It feels as if you do not want to look at the entire puzzle but just want to know why a certain piece is shaped a certain way...  I don't know the answers to that... but I can speculate as to what it all means as a whole...  as I've tried to do.

14 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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?

You can make assumptions to address these questions but many of your comments are supposition and guesswork on your part... again, a great place to start but not sufficient to counter an argument presented with supporting evidence.

===

I disagree with your conclusion the Odio incident happen on the 25th when all the evidence points to the 26th...

It is MALCOLM PRICE who places Oswald at the range on the 28th...

Mr. LIEBELER. The Commission has information to the effect that sometime during November 1963, you saw a gentleman at the rifle range whom you subsequently came to believe was Lee Harvey Oswald; is that correct?
Mr. PRICE. That's right. The first time that I saw this person was in September, the last week--the last Saturday of September, and that was the afternoon that they opened the rifle range.
Mr. LIEBELER. On the last Saturday of September?
Mr. PRICE. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. That would be September 28?
Mr. PRICE. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Tell me the circumstances under which you first saw this fellow?
Mr. PRICE. Well, it was just about dusky dark and he came in in an old model car, I would judge it was possibly a 1940 or 1941 model Ford.
Mr. LIEBELER. Was there anyone with him?
Mr. PRICE. No; he was by himself, and I have heard that he couldn't drive, but he was driving that day because he was the only one in the car, and he came down and inquired if there was anyone there that could set a scope, a telescope on a rifle, and I told him that I could, and he said, well--he had one that he had had mounted and boresighted but it hadn't been fired on a range and that he would like to have it sighted in, so I went down and set up a target on a hundred yards.
Actually, he set the target up himself and I drove my car and turned the headlights on on the target and as I proceeded to set the rifle--I fired the rifle approximately 12 to--12 to 18 times I would say and zeroed it in on a hundred yards and Mr. Davis came in from work before we left and he also drove his pickup down and turned his lights on. He drove his pickup down on the opposite side and turned his lights on the target.

I cannot tell you where he was from the 30th to the 4th...  But I know for sure he was not in Mexico or on any trip to and from Mexico based on the entirety of the evidence I've seen.  Hope that suffices...

If you can support your speculation with evidence please do... otherwise we're just kinda talking about what's possible... and virtually anything is possible in this case...  

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Jim D-

 

OK, just a quickie:

"Nagell had told Margain about his warning letter to the FBI and his visiting Mexico with Oswald"

Well, now I am confused. Was LHO in MC or not? 

 

I don’t really know much about Nagell, but I will point out that after being interviewed by Garrison investigator William Martin, Nagell accused Martin in a letter of being CIA.

Martin was indeed a CIA informant, and there’s evidence suggesting he may have been more than that. Literally immediately after Martin left Garrison’s investigation, he (officially) reestablished contact with CIA.

 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=55188#relPageId=122