LHO was in Mexico City

[Paul Cummings]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

You apparently don't have the aptitude for this sort of thing, Kirk.

I don't just willy-nilly decide which of the CIA's and FBI's reports and statements are fabrications. I question the ones that either contradict each other, or contradict the evidence. And then I make a hypotheses that removes the contradictions.

Until someone discovers a flaw in my hypothesis, it is considered to be valid. That is the way the scientific method works.

I notice that you rarely, if ever, put forth a hypothesis. That's probably a good thing.

heh heh

 

Damn it. Just when I was going to nail you for being a willy nilly. 

[Sandy Larsen]

28 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

It is the use of Oswald in MC that interests me, not his presence. Evidence of his presence is undoubtedly mixed with false evidence. Is anyone doubting he was put to some use by intelligence in MC?

 

Eddy,

Based on all the evidence I'm aware of, which is quite a bit, I don't think Oswald was in Mexico City.

But I agree with you, that it doesn't really matter if one believes Oswald was there or not. The important thing is to understand how the CIA used the trip to give the impression that Oswald was in cahoot with the Cubans and Russian in killing Kennedy.

Having said that....

If one accepts -- even just temporarily -- that Oswald wasn't in Mexico City, and tries to figure out what the heck the purpose of the fabricated trip was, it quite easily becomes obvious that the CIA was using the trip in order to have the FBI later determine that the Cubans and Russians were behind the assassination.

Then, once that is well understood, put the real Oswald back into the story if you wish. Doing so won't contradict your understanding of what the CIA's Mexico City aim was.

 

(But for heaven's sake, don't use as your primary evidence what was claimed, right after the fall of the Soviet Union, by a number out out-of-work former KGB agents. That they met with an emotional Oswald waving a gun around. Just like you shouldn't believe what CIA asset Alvarado said about Oswald being paid $6500 to do the killing.)

(And don't follow what Kirk says about it not being possible to determine when the CIA and FBI are or are not lying. No wonder he can't figure things out.)

 

[Sandy Larsen]

8 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

Damn it. Just when I was going to nail you for being a willy nilly. 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

I do not have an infallible lie detector kit that I can apply to 30-year-old videos. 

The three KBG agents, interviewed by Frontline-PBS in 1993, all stated they met the real LHO in MC, a meeting also noted in contemporary cables and memos in the CIA and also in Russian agencies. 

Evidently, the three KGB agents interviewed were the actual agents who worked in MC at the time---no one has said they are actors. 

I am uncomfortable with witness cherry-picking, and deciding that some witnesses are lying and must have been bribed---but with no evidence that they have been bribed. 

If the CIA wanted to arrange a meeting between LHO and Kostikov---and I think they did---then thy best way to do that is to send LHO to MC and the Russian embassy. 

LHO's trip to MC appears confirmed by the KGB'ers, and contemporary memos and cables. 

Seems like a sensible conclusion to me. Others have different opinions. That is fine. 

 

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

Jim, I know you posted this in relation to Mexico City but this part is just stunning.

"From November of 1959 to February of 1964, Oswald’s file contained a grand total of 771 documents, 167 originated with CIA."  

In four years and 2 months?  I.E. 51 months, that comes out to 15.42 documents a month, just those originating from the CIA itself is 3.28 per month.

Yet at the time of the assassination didn't they claim they didn't know anything about Oswald?  When they finally admitted they did have a file on him it turned out it was backdated and only had 3-4 items in it (?, a couple of newspaper articles, a picture or two).  Is this close to right?

All of this Angleton kept privately, close to the vest?  Would Jane Roman have signed off on all of them as having been received?  If so, she knew a whole lot more than what she admitted to in "What Jane Roman Said".

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I am uncomfortable with witness cherry-picking, and deciding that some witnesses are lying and must have been bribed---but with no evidence that they have been bribed. 

 

Then you must feel comfortable with all the witnesses most researchers consider to be discredited. Not to mention frauds like Judyth Vary Baker and James Files. Because there's no evidence they've been paid anything for their stories.

We don't merely cherry pick witnesses like your KGB three to be frauds. We think they are frauds because 1) there are some legitimate reasons not to believe them, and 2) their statements conflict with making sense of other evidence. Other evidence that is known to be factual.

Since you accept the statements of your KGB three, you have to ignore and cherry pick other evidence. Like why did an Oswald imposter enter the Cuban Consulate? Why did the CIA get Elena Garro to give her story, and then have asset June Cobb corroborate the timing of it?

 

[Greg Doudna]

46 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

We don't merely cherry pick witnesses like your KGB three to be frauds. We think they are frauds because 1) there are some legitimate reasons not to believe them, and 2) their statements conflict with making sense of other evidence. 

Could you apply your criteria to the Soviet embassy letter of Oswald written over the weekend of Nov 9-11 and what evidence or reason causes you to conclude Oswald never wrote it even though not a single expert has ever questioned the handwriting authentication as Oswald’s handwriting. 

Could you explain why you suppose both Ruth and Marina perjured under oath in saying they saw Lee writing that letter. Who do you think put both of them up to perjuring in that way and why? 

Michael Paine was also there and testified under oath that he saw the letter. Who do you think put Michael Paine up to perjury about that and why?

The relevance of these questions of course is that Lee wrote in that letter about his trip to Mexico City and visit to the Cuban consulate. 

Edited December 14, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Benjamin Cole]

38 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Then you must feel comfortable with all the witnesses most researchers consider to be discredited. Not to mention frauds like Judyth Vary Baker and James Files. Because there's no evidence they've been paid anything for their stories.

We don't merely cherry pick witnesses like your KGB three to be frauds. We think they are frauds because 1) there are some legitimate reasons not to believe them, and 2) their statements conflict with making sense of other evidence. Other evidence that is known to be factual.

Since you accept the statements of your KGB three, you have to ignore and cherry pick other evidence. Like why did an Oswald imposter enter the Cuban Consulate? Why did the CIA get Elena Garro to give her story, and then have asset June Cobb corroborate the timing of it?

 

My understanding is that Judyth Baker, unfortunately, has been shown to have an evolving tale that evolves with the known public record. 

James Files has never provided any credible evidence for his tale. There is no evidence he was in Dealey Plaza.

In stark contrast, the KGB officers are known to have worked in the Soviet Embassy at the very time LHO visited the embassy. No one has ever said the trio were PBS-Frontline actors. 

I have checked the video of Kostikov against a known photo of Kostikov, and it is a match. 

The trio are credible witnesses in the sense there were known to be government officials working in the Soviet Embassy at the time LHO is recorded to have visited, as ascertained by contemporary memos and cables, both US and Russian. 

If you have any evidence the trio were all bribed, show it.

Otherwise you are making an accusation against credible witnesses, without any evidence. 

You may be right; the trio may have been bribed. But you have no evidence for such a statement. You make an entirely unfounded statement.

You have a suspicion they were bribed. You may be right. Or, you may be wrong. 

I advise all JFKA researchers to advise readers when they are airing speculations and suspicions, and when they are airing something that is generally regarded as a fact. 

And really, the trio of KGB'ers are who they say there are. They are not comparable to a James Files or Ms. Baker. 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

James Files has never provided any credible evidence for his tale. There is no evidence he was in Dealey Plaza.

 

Likewise there is no evidence that Kostikov met with LHO.

(There is evidence he may have met with an Oswald impersonator. But not with the real Oswald.)

 

[Sandy Larsen]

34 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Could you apply your criteria to the Soviet embassy letter of Oswald written over the weekend of Nov 9-11 and what evidence or reason causes you to conclude Oswald never wrote it even though not a single expert has ever questioned the handwriting authentication as Oswald’s handwriting. 

 

The evidence is so strong that Oswald didn't go to Mexico City, that I accept that he didn't. (He even said in his interrogation that he didn't... a fact that I don't recall others mentioning.)

Since I accept that Oswald didn't go to Mexico City or meet with Kostikov, I don't accept that the letter he allegedly wrote reflects the truth about that trip... or I should say, non-trip.

I hypothesize that either 1) Oswald was instructed by his CIA handler to write the letter (he was probably given a script to copy); or 2) The letter was written by a person capable of replicating Oswald's handwriting.

In either case, forum member Chris Newton did some great work proving that Ruth lied about how she came into possession of the letter. It begins somewhere in this thread:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23844-wheres-ruths-couch/

and continues somewhere in this one:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24107-ruth-a-typewriter-15-days/

I summarized how and why Ruth lied in this post:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24107-ruth-a-typewriter-15-days/?do=findComment&comment=358598

What Chris Newton showed was that Ruth lied about moving the furniture in her livingroom. And my hypothesis was really a summary of the point he was trying to make. (I had to ask him because it wasn't clear to me what his point was.) Anyway, Jim D. has wanted Chris to write this up for his K&K website, but Chris hasn't been able to, for personal reasons I guess.

Ruth's lie in how she "innocently" came into possession of the letter doesn't lead me to have confidence in her story or the letter.

 

34 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Could you explain why you suppose both Ruth and Marina perjured under oath in saying they saw Lee writing that letter. And who you think put both of them up to perjuring in that way and why?

 

Oh my gosh, they both lied numerous times in their WC testimony. I don't trust anything either of them said.

Aren't you aware that the U.S. government covered up what really happened? Are you a WC apologist?

 

34 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

The relevance of these questions of course is that Lee wrote in that letter about his trip to Mexico City and visit to the Cuban consulate. 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

8 hours ago, Jim Rose said:

So will Wormwood Exposed ever be released?

 

On 12/12/2023 at 1:20 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yes, the same CIA that said LHO visited Silvia Duran in the Cuban Consulate, even though he didn't.

The same CIA that paid Gilberto Alvarado to say that he saw LHO get paid a $6500 down payment to kill Kennedy, also in the Cuban Consulate. The same CIA that paid Elena Garro to say that she saw Oswald at a party with Silvia Duran and Cuban officials. The same CIA that instructed agent June Cobb to corroborate Elena's story.

 

Do records reflect Cobb was instructed to corroborate Garro’s story?

Didn’t COS Scott’s late November 1964 memo to file undermine June Cobb’s credibility altogether? Would that not cancel out her earlier corroboration as (allegedly) dictated by the agency?

[Sandy Larsen]

55 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Do records reflect Cobb was instructed to corroborate Garro’s story?

 

Heavens no. But the authorities didn't believe Cobb's story and she was CIA. So the conspiracy theory is that she was instructed by her handler to vouch for Garro.

 

55 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Didn’t COS Scott’s late November 1964 memo to file undermine June Cobb’s credibility altogether? Would that not cancel out her earlier corroboration as (allegedly) dictated by the agency?

 

I don't know about that memo.

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Likewise there is no evidence that Kostikov met with LHO.

(There is evidence he may have met with an Oswald impersonator. But not with the real Oswald.)

 

There is evidence---numerous contemporary cables, memos and the testimony of the three KGB officers who indisputably worked the Russian Embassy and all say they met with LHO.

Anyway---this is my last say.  You have the floor. 

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What Chris Newton showed was that Ruth lied about moving the furniture in her livingroom. And my hypothesis was really a summary of the point he was trying to make. (I had to ask him because it wasn't clear to me what his point was.) Anyway, Jim D. has wanted Chris to write this up for his K&K website, but Chris hasn't been able to, for personal reasons I guess.

Sandy I realize this is only one detail in your larger argument, but on this business that Ruth lied in saying she moved her sofa on Nov 10, 1963, did you read my post in that thread on that? I showed Ruth's sofa-moving, far from being a sinister plot, was done twice a year based on the changing time of sunset putting the setting sun in the west directly through that picture window on the south wall into the eyes of anyone sitting on the sofa against the east wall. The east wall was the preferred position of the sofa because it was private, even with the picture window draperies open because off to one side of the room and not on fishbowl display visible from the street as people were when the sofa was against the north wall. However, that preferred east wall sofa location worked only in the winter months when the sun set earlier. In the spring, summer, and fall months the sun in the eyes in the 6-8 pm time made the sofa on the east wall uncomfortable, so Ruth moved the sofa to the north wall those months. To not have the setting sun direct in the eyes when watching television in the evening. 

Nov 10, 1963 was when Ruth had the sofa moved from the north to the east wall, and the sofa was moved again back to the north wall sometime before March 23 as the time of sunset came to be later in the day again. 

Ruth in her Warren Commission testimony in March 1963 simply was mistaken in memory which wall her sofa was against in November 1963. Her testimony was in error but it was a mistake, not part of an elaborate plot to commit perjury in intentionally for nefarious purposes giving the wrong location of her sofa in Nov 1963 (which could easily be falsified from photographs). 

Alas, my humble post appearing belatedly in that thread with my simple mundane explanation received no attention, changed no one's mind. DiEugenio--and you (as continuing here to present moment)--and everyone just merrily continued with the elaborate Ruth Perjury Over Sofa Moving Plot--because why accept a simple explanation that clears Ruth Paine from a fresh allegation when a vastly complex scenario that makes her guilty of perjury can be had? 

On the rest of what you write, you did answer the question so I hand that to you, but I sure do not see this notion of your ubiquitous handlers suborning many witnesses like marionettes to perjury, wholesale and flagrantly and massively, as you do, all done so skillfully that not a single one ever talked or told of such marionette-stringing of handlers of witnesses to perjure in the rest of their entire lives. I won't press this, except that the ones you've got marionette-stringed perjuring in this instance is only the tip of the iceberg, there are many more. For example, how do you interpret Dallas Police Detective L.C. Graves who testified under oath that he personally heard Oswald telling Secret Service Kelley, semi-privately after interrogation was completed on Nov 24, Oswald telling about his Mexico City trip? Graves' handler had him do that? Of course, guess I didn't even need to ask that, right?

No, I don't think of myself as an apologist for the Warren Commission. But that doesn't mean I have to buy every theory that makes no sense. 

[Sandy Larsen]

36 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

No, I don't think of myself as an apologist for the Warren Commission.

 

Do you accept that there was a government coverup?

Because if you do, then you should EXPECT that the U.S. government altered documents, faked things, and got important witnesses to lie. That's what happens in government coverups.

If none or little of that happened, then there was no coverup. It was all just honest mistakes.