Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Ron

"Why do you say that? Why did it have to be Oswald who fired the shot, as long as he got blamed for it later? Would Oswald even know why Walker was fired at? It's not clear to me from your research why it had to be Oswald firing at Walker, and what Oswald's motive would be." Ron

Do you have six or eight hours?

Over the last eleven years or so I have collected hundreds of small pieces to this puzzle that center around Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker. Until I went to Center Point, Texas (Walker's home town) a few years ago the pieces never made any sense nor could they be connected in my simple mind in a logical way to create a logical picture. But, the information gathered on that trip led me directly to General Maxwell Taylor. Since that time the pieces have been falling into place and the picture that emerges is facinating to say the least. The complexity of the picture is what makes it so compelling. It incompasses almost every aspect of the assassination story.

For myself the evidenciary "screw up" the Warren Commissioners (McCloy, Dulles) would be pleagued by begins when Walker talks on the phone to a German newpaper while he is staying in a hotel room in Shreveport, LA. the morning after the assassination. The newspaper then reports the Oswald - Walker shooting story several days before the FBI investigates it.

My contention has always been that Walker paniced when he saw the pictures of Oswald on the news the day of the assassination because Walker recognized him. But from where?

A logical answer to this question emerged when I discovered that they were both traveling in Europe at the same time in October of 1959. A possible encounter becomes more reasonable to accept if one could show that Oswald took a route that does not suit his "frugal" character. Remember that Oswald's journey begining in Santa Ana, CA (Sept 4, 1959) and ending in Helsinki (Oct. 10, 1959) coincides exactly with two messages received by the State Department from the Helsinki embassy. Put this together with the fact that Oswald's itenerary could be specificly identified in evey aspect by the Warren Commission except his journey from London to Helsinki and we ask, once again why the mystery surrounding this portion of the trip?

If Oswald had had contact with Walker when he defected to Russia, Walker would know why Oswald would have a motive for shooting at him. What Walker would not have known was that Oswald had returned from the Soviet Union. Since Walker was known as "anti-Kennedy" the scenerio presented, I believe, could create panic, even in a seasoned soldier such as Walker. Remember once again that Walker's flurtations with the "right wing" coincides exactly with Oswald's contact with the State Department that begins the process of his return to the US.

On the other hand if Walker was involved in the assassination plot, the last thing he would want to do is make himself the center of the investigation. So why the interview with the German paper? I believe that Walker new immediatly that if Oswald was involved in the assination that there was a conspiracy and that he, if he had met Oswald, could be implicated by the accused assassin. But this only works if Walker would know that Oswald was an intelligence asset and that Walker would have a reason to recognize Oswald as an intelligence asset. Did Walker pass infromation to Oswald directing him to the Soviet Embassy in Helsinki? With the new information that Antti was able to gather in Helsinki I believe the possibility of this meeting has been increased.

Piecing together the military career of Walker was not an easy task. Although in no way complete the information I have gained points toward three conclusions:

A) Walker was involved in military intelligence.

B) Walker was very closely associated with Maxwell Taylor.

C) Walker was "out of the loop" where the assassiantion was concerned but could guess who was involved and he needed an insurance policy that was purchased when he contacted the German newspaper.

Please reread my posts if you are interested in more of the pieces that time and space here limits.

Jim Root

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

J. Raymond Carroll  Yesterday, 08:46 PM Post #25 

Experienced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 57

Joined: 10-March 05

Member No.: 2672

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ May 30 2005, 02:50 PM)

* He spent about 230 dollars on a 5000 mile sea trip (New Orleans, LA, USA to LeHavre, France) and then about 109 dollars to travel about 1200 miles from London to Helsinki. Not to mention the fact that the first leg took him several weeks and for the second to the last bit he seemed to be in a hurry. Why the sudden hurry and spending money on an expensive flight?

Antti, Do you know if he could have taken a train from Calais to Helsinki? If so, how long would it take and how much cheaper would it be than the $109 airfare?

Ray 

Hi Ray,

I think the cheapest and the most logical way for the frugal Oswald (unless he was in a hurry) to proceed from France was to find another vessel, bound for somewhere in Scandinavia. I'm sure some were available (probably via Germany though).

Even if no vessels were leaving for Scandinavia from France (LeHavre, or Calais etc.) He could have jumped on a train there and traveled to one of the bigger German harbor cities (like Hamburg) and taken a ferry to Finland from there.

I don't know how much cheaper it would have been to travel by boat, but I'm sure it would have been less than the airfare.

John Geraghty, I'm sure the language barrier was one issue to consider, but Oswald was bound to enter other countries on his trip, like Finland, were English wasn't any more commonly spoken than in France (back in 1959).

There is no hard evidence that Oswald was directed by someone, however, IMO some of his actions and some other coincidences suggest someone was telling him what to do and where to go. B)

Edited by Antti Hynonen
Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if no vessels were leaving for Scandinavia from France (LeHavre, or Calais etc.) He could have jumped on a train there and traveled to one of the bigger German harbor cities (like Hamburg) and taken a ferry to Finland from there.

I don't know how much cheaper it would have been to travel by boat, but I'm sure it would have been less than the airfare.....

There is no hard evidence that Oswald was directed by someone, however, IMO some of his actions and some other coincidences suggest someone was telling him what to do and where to go. :)

Hi back to you antti. My next question is this: If Lee had taken a ship or train to Hamburg and a ferry to Finland (lets say this was the smartest route for a frugal traveller) might not that equally be evidence that someone was telling him what to do and where to go? I suggest that finding this route would take some planning and inquiry for the average 19 year old American, even today.

Is it possible that he had a conversation with a crewman or an officer on the ship from New Orleans, where he got some travel tips? Perhaps he was advised that ships and trains to Helsinki were way too complicated for a young kid like him and by the time he paid for his food etc., might not be such a helluva lot cheaper than a planeride from London I don't think they had the famous Eurorail passes back in 1959.

Link to post
Share on other sites
J. Raymond Carroll Posted Today, 12:10 AM

  QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ May 31 2005, 01:51 PM)

Even if no vessels were leaving for Scandinavia from France (LeHavre, or Calais etc.) He could have jumped on a train there and traveled to one of the bigger German harbor cities (like Hamburg) and taken a ferry to Finland from there.

I don't know how much cheaper it would have been to travel by boat, but I'm sure it would have been less than the airfare.....

There is no hard evidence that Oswald was directed by someone, however, IMO some of his actions and some other coincidences suggest someone was telling him what to do and where to go.

Hi back to you antti. My next question is this: If Lee had taken a ship or train to Hamburg and a ferry to Finland (lets say this was the smartest route for a frugal traveller) might not that equally be evidence that someone was telling him what to do and where to go? I suggest that finding this route would take some planning and inquiry for the average 19 year old American, even today.

Is it possible that he had a conversation with a crewman or an officer on the ship from New Orleans, where he got some travel tips? Perhaps he was advised that ships and trains to Helsinki were way too complicated for a young kid like him and by the time he paid for his food etc., might not be such a helluva lot cheaper than a planeride from London I don't think they had the famous Eurorail passes back in 1959.

J. Raymond Carroll:

might not that equally be evidence that someone was telling him what to do and where to go? I suggest that finding this route would take some planning and inquiry for the average 19 year old American, even today.

-------

Goog questions Ray, but maybe I wasn't so clear. "The someone" telling him where to go and what to do, is where I meant him finding the best way to get to Russia and to get the visa. Afterall that was his objective.

Well perhaps he just was smart enough to ask the right people the right things on his way, and therefore found his way to Russia in a matter of days... then again, maybe not.

My second point is, when considering his moving about Europe, the route and means of transportation he chose, imply pretty much the fastest and most expensive way to travel. The fact that he chose to fly, when cheaper alternatives were available, indicates to me that 1) he was in a hurry OR 2) he didn't care about the cost OR 3) both.

Those facts lead me to believe he wasn't just having a fun little trip getting across Europe, but that he intended to defect to Russia as fast and as smoothly as he could.

Where he got his information and guidance, I don't know. It could have been the travel agent in New Orleans for all I know (though not likely).

J. Raymond Carroll:

I suggest that finding this route would take some planning and inquiry for the average 19 year old American, even today.

Yes, you're absolutely right, traveling in a foreign part of the world requires some serious planning, for pretty much anyone.

Oh by the way, Eurail, available since 1959.....

from the Eurail site:

Who are we?

The Eurail Group G.I.E. was established in 2001, replacing the Eurail community which was managing the Eurail products since 1959. The Eurail Group G.I.E. is a legal entity, registered in Luxembourg under Luxembourg law, but with its head office in Utrecht, the Netherlands.

The Eurail Group is owned by a number of train- and ship operating companies, referred to as the Eurail members. In addition to the members, other travel related companies offer special prices or discounts to Eurail travellers. Such companies are not members of the Eurail Group G.I.E., and are referred to as Bonus Partners.

The Eurail Group G.I.E. offers Eurail Passes and Eurailtickets via authorized sales agents outside of Europe. The Eurail products are tickets for point-to-point travels (Eurailtickets) and passes for a number of countries (Eurailpasses and Eurail Selectpasses) valid for travel during a chosen time of validity in a number of the countries of the Eurail member's operation, depending on the pass purchased.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh by the way, Eurail, available since 1959

The someone" telling him where to go and what to do, is where I meant him finding the best way to get to Russia and to get the visa. Afterall that was his objective.[/quote]

Antti, Thanks for the Eurail info. Hope your your efforts boost European tourism this year.

You and Jim have established that Helsinki was an ideal choice for someone wishing to visit the USSR. However, as I argued in a previous post, it has not been established that Helsinki was the ONLY place where tourist visas were issued on short notice.

My second point is, .... The fact that he chose to fly, when cheaper alternatives were available, indicates to me that 1) he was in a hurry OR 2) he didn't care about the cost OR 3) both. Those facts lead me to believe he wasn't just having a fun little trip getting across Europe, but that he intended to defect to Russia as fast and as smoothly as he could.

We are considering two possibilities, a/ he was dispatched on an intelligence mission or b/ he was just an impulsive teenager who had it in his head to go to Moscow to see the great soviet system firsthand.

I would argue that there would be no need to hurry if he was on an intelligence mission with long-term objectives, whereas an impulsive teenager - well I could write a book about impulsive teenagers, 3 of my kids have gone through that stage and the fourth is there right now - when he wants something, he wants it NOW.

So I would argue that signs of hurry should be viewed as signs that he was not a spy.

I am still puzzled about why he went to London instead of Paris and I agree that the language barrier is not a strong explanation. Is it possible that he missed the last train to Paris and rather than hang around all night he decided to head for London?

Ray

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray

"You and Jim have established that Helsinki was an ideal choice for someone wishing to visit the USSR. However, as I argued in a previous post, it has not been established that Helsinki was the ONLY place where tourist visas were issued on short notice."

This is part of what I find so interesting about this trip to Helsinki; the problems that it creates for the CIA and the Warren Commission findings. While the infomation that Antti and I have gathered does, I agree, "establish that Helsinki was an ideal choice for someone wishing to visit the USSR," it is the CIA, the Warren Commission and the HSCA that seem to believe that, "Helsinki was the ONLY place where tourist visas were issued on such short notice."

The classified evidence that was released by the CIA to the HSCA to show that it was in fact possible, although unusual in the big picture, to receive an entry visa at the Soviet Embassy in Helsinki in less than 24 hours was, at that moment, information provided to prove that Oswald did not need the help of an intelligence agency. At the time, the release of this clasified information was to prove that it was possible for a "teenager" to just stumble through Europe and end up in exactly the right place at the right time in history (something Oswald would again accomplish by being in the TSBD when the Kennedy motorcade passed).

When this information is examined closely (the dates the information was gathered vs the date Oswald applied for his passport and the "extra" travel day) we must logically scurtinize the fact that the US was in posession of the information, that it gained the information at the times when it would be most needed by someone who would have both a reason and the opportunity to provide that exact information to this novice traveler.

"So I would argue that signs of hurry should be viewed as signs that he was not a spy."

We are talking about an "extra" day of travel and "extra" expense for the "frugal" Oswald. The "frugal" part is, once again, a contridiction for the CIA, FBI and the Warren Commissioners. Oswald acts "out of character."

More importantly, for myself, when we talk about the "signs of hurry" we must be able to search for a logical answer. Oswald takes an overnight ferry to Southampton, gets on a train and heads directly for London, goes directly to the airport and leaves the country within hours. All the time he is showing signs of non stop movement toward his ultimate destination. But, in contrast, he then arrives a day later than he could have at his destination in Helsinki and expends more of his limited resources.

There were only three commercial flights daily into Helsinki. All were Fin Air. We know for a fact that the "direct" route (23:35 arrival time) would not have allowed Oswald to arrive in Helsinki in time to check into the Torni Hotel before midnight when he in fact did check in. This "direct flight" is out. But in another Warren Commission Report contridiction we find that the cost of Oswald's flight is given as $111.90. Using the 1959 exchange rates and fare rates that Antti obtained we find that the flight that Oswald could not have taken is the one priced most closely to $111.90. In two ways the "report," based upon CIA provided information, seems to attempt to direct us away from looking at the alternative flight possibilities. We must ask, why? It was not until Chris Mills reported in 1993 discovered that there were, in fact, two other flights available into Helsinki (neither direct) that day that the "mystery" of Oswald's travel was solved. But was it?

The next facinating puzzle piece (fact) that we now can add to this emerging picture......

Oswald had to change planes after leaving London, at least once, perhaps more than once, on his way to Helsinki in order to arrive on either of the two reamaining possible flights. Upon examination of this information we realize that this provides additional opportunities for the information necessary to obtain his travel visa into Russia to be passed to Oswald while he wound his way toward Helsinki.

Although not logical, we can even show that Oswald could have flown back to France on the 10th of October and then arrive on the same plane that he did in fact arrive on in Helsinki. What other possible airports could Oswald have been in on October 10th, 1959?

The reason for his hurried departure from London (which may be tied to later events in the life of Oswald) may lead us to finding the proof that Oswald was acting as an intelligence asset.

Jim Root

Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason for his hurried departure from London (which may be tied to later events in the life of Oswald) may lead us to finding the proof that Oswald was acting as an intelligence asset.Jim Root

Jim, you and Antti have raised interesting questions, but until I see some compelling evidence, I can only conclude that Lee Oswald went to Moscow because he was interested in Marxism and wished to experience the Soviet system for himself. He was also interested in the Russian language and literature, and the music of Tcaikovsky (sp).

As I mentioned earlier, at this stage I consider that all the accusations against him remain unproven, including accusations that he was an agent of the KGB or U.S. intelligence

But I am willing to reconsider if the evidence warrants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

J. Raymond Carroll wrote:

As I mentioned earlier, at this stage I consider that all the accusations against him remain unproven, including accusations that he was an agent of the KGB or U.S. intelligence

Huh? If he was an agent for either KGB or US intelligence, that may be in hiis FAVOR, depending on your political POV.

Also query whether last "or" should be "and/or" since in the murky field of counterintelligence there do exist double agents.

I tend to believe that LHO was an agent for US intelligence but I am sure we would all agree there are no easy answers to this question.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray

"Jim, you and Antti have raised interesting questions, but until I see some compelling evidence, I can only conclude that Lee Oswald went to Moscow because he was interested in Marxism and wished to experience the Soviet system for himself. He was also interested in the Russian language and literature, and the music of Tcaikovsky (sp).

As I mentioned earlier, at this stage I consider that all the accusations against him remain unproven, including accusations that he was an agent of the KGB or U.S. intelligence

But I am willing to reconsider if the evidence warrants."

Thank you for the complement. I find the questions interesting as well and have for years been searching for the "evidence" that would make the nation reconsider this case.

I will admit, once again, that my compelling interest in this case has centered around Edwin Walker. Who he was. Where and how he happens to fit into the picture. His military backround and the Warren Commissions refusal to delve into it. I have found my research to be very interesting (please read previous posts)

When I first began searching this topic, the coincidental fact that Walker was traveling in Europe at the same time as Oswald caught my attention. Once again I found a gap in the Warren Commissions investigation that delt with the area of Oswalds travel to Helsinki. Walker's assumtion of command of the 24th Infantry Division in Augsburg, Germany, to me, presented an opportunity for these two men, Oswald and Walker to have crossed paths. Add to this that the change of command in the 24th was out of the normal rotation sequence and you add another coincidence that compounded my interest.

One problem that I had with while following this line of thought was that the two routes that were identified by Chris Mills that would take Oswald from London to Helsinki would have routed Oswald through Copenhagen or Stockholm. Neither of these routes would be conducive to Walkers destination of Augsburg. What we have discovered in this new research is that Oswald would have to get off of his plane and board another plane that would have originated in Germany while traveling to Helsinki. We have also added additional alternatives that Oswald could have used. Oswald could have gone first to any one of five destinations in Germany and still then be on the same airplane that Oswald did in fact arrive on in Helsinki.

Oswald could first have gone to Nurnberg, Stutgart, Hamburg, Frankfurt or Munich. All of the routes that would lead to Helsinki would then travel through Hamburg on there way to Helsinki. Each of the other cities could be reached by going to Hamburg first while traveling toward each of the others.

There are two logical destinations that Walker might have had on this list, Stutgart which was the center of the US Military command in Germany at the time or Munich, the airport used by US Military personel on their way to Augsburg. Walker could be traveling to Munich from London or from Munich to Stutgart and have numerous combinations that would put the two men at the same airport or on the same airplane at the same time.

The speed which Oswald left London could easily have been because he had a particular flight to catch and a particular man to meet, Edwin Walker, along the way.

Coincidence?

Tim

While I remain open to other theories my original hypothisis dominates my attention. Especially so with this new information.

Jim Root

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim & Antti:

I don't know if the following will prove helpful to your quest, or be a hindrance. It's from something that I wrote between 10 and 20 years ago, and examines precisely the same data, with a few meaningful additions. I subscribe to the notion that Oswald seemed in a significant hurry to reach Helsinki and Moscow, for reasons that remain open to speculation.

According to passport stamps, Oswald departed from England on October 10 and arrived the same day in Helsinki. Records clearly show there were no direct commercial airline flights between London and Helsinki, other than a single FinnAir flight. The Commission learned that the FinnAir flight on that date arrived in Helsinki at 11:35 PM local time. Since Oswald checked into the tony Hotel Torni before midnight, it was untenable - to even the Commission - that he had checked through customs and made it to the hotel in less than a half hour. But if that was the only direct commercial flight available and he couldn't have flown aboard it, how did Oswald get to Helsinki so quickly? Many researchers have suggested a covert military flight, though even that is an unnecessary [and needlessly suspect] contrivance.

On November 25, 1963, the Stockholm newspaper Squib Dagans Nyheter reported Oswald passed through Sweden in October 1959. The article postulated Oswald had spent several days in Helsinki without being granted a Soviet travel visa, so he came to the Soviet Embassy in Stockholm, where his visa was granted. Though the report did not identify its source, the wording employed led some to believe it originated with Swedish authorities, who would be in a position to know such a thing. As for how this detail was known by November 24 [in order to be published in the following day's paper], is a mystery to which we shall return shortly.

The Commission attempted to resolve these contradictions, but with little success. The Soviets were asked to supply all of Oswald's travel documentation, which they did. The signatures of eight persons on these various documents were all illegible, making it impossible for the Commission to declare with certainty who had granted Oswald his travel visa. It was felt the indecipherable signatures were a deliberate ploy by the Soviets, so that any US intelligence agency sponsoring Oswald would not have been able to trace back the personnel involved in the process. The Commission may have been stymied, but by deductive reasoning, we can draw some strong conclusions.

There is no stamp in Oswald's passport for a trip to Sweden, which should have been present had he obtained his Soviet visa from the Soviet Embassy there, as alleged by the Stockholm newspaper article. It has been suggested that because both countries were members of a common customs bloc, Oswald could have traveled from Helsinki to Stockholm and back without his passport being stamped. This is false. Such flexibility would have pertained had Oswald been a citizen of either country. As a US citizen, Oswald would have been subjected to the same customs scrutiny as other foreigners.

Additionally, there was no reason for Oswald to resort to a Stockholm solution, because there was no Helsinki problem. On the contrary, Oswald's visa was granted to him in record time. The Commission asked the US State Department to determine the length of delays typically encountered by US citizens visiting the USSR. In turn, State asked the same question of three travel agencies in Helsinki who dealt with such matters daily. The consensus was: uniformly, for the period of 1959 to 1964, US citizens would face a minimum 7 to 14 day waiting period.

Lee Harvey Oswald, however, knew that he would receive his in far less time. Arriving at his hotel before midnight on Saturday, October 10, he applied for his visa on Monday, October 12. The visa was granted two days later on Wednesday, October 14, and Oswald departed for Moscow the same day.

Oswald knew he would not face a two week wait for his visa. In 1978 a Finnish government document came to light. It was a "For Facilitating Passport Examination" form filled out by Oswald before or upon his arrival in Helsinki. One question asked of all respondents was how long they would be staying. Oswald incorrectly advised that he arrived October 11, and predicted he would depart on Thursday, October 15. That would allow only three days between his first opportunity to apply for his visa [October 12] and his planned departure from Helsinki. Oswald either knew nothing about the traditional waiting period and simply assumed his application would be expedited, or he knew that he would receive preferential treatment at the Helsinki Embassy.

Unknown to the average US citizen, but well known to the US State Department and CIA, was an obscure detail about the way in which the Soviet bureaucracy worked. Soviet Embassy personnel in European capitals were not authorized to rubberstamp Soviet travel visa applications. Protocol required such applications to be forwarded to Moscow, where approval was either granted or denied, and then returned to the Embassy where the request originated. In Europe there was a single exception to this hard and fast rule. The Kremlin granted the Soviet consul in Finland discretion to unilaterally authorize travel to the USSR. Consequently, while the average traveler might have waited one to two weeks for a visa in Helsinki, this was the single European capital wherein the consul's personal prerogative allowed him to expedite the process, witness Oswald's case.

What's more, the US State Department and CIA were well aware of this fact. During a prior luncheon, Soviet Consul Gregory Golub had announced that "as long as he [Golub] was convinced the American as "alright," [Golub] could give him a visa in a matter of minutes." The US government also knew this was no idle boast from a vodka-soaked bureaucrat. As a State Department dispatch from the US Embassy in Helsinki noted, "Since [september 4, 1959] Golub has only phoned once and this was on a business matter. Two Americans were in the Soviet Consulate at the time and were applying for Soviet visas through Golub. They had previously been in the American consulate inquiring about the possibility of obtaining a Soviet visa in 1 or 2 days. [We] advised them to go directly to Golub...which they did. Golub phoned [us] to state that he would give them their visas as soon as they made Intourist reservations. When they did this, Golub immediately gave them their visas..." The date of that dispatch was October 9, 1959, the day before Oswald's arrival. Was the State Department's interest solely in testing Golub's willingness to grant such travel visas, or in exploiting that it knew he would?

Golub's unique ability to expedite foreign visa applications raises several interesting points. The State cable cited above clearly indicates that when two travelers wanted speedy approval for their applications, it was the US government which steered them toward Golub, indicating the US government knew of his ability to expedite such requests. Moreover, in that instance, Golub didn't advise the applicants directly, but contacted the US Embassy to advise the applications were approved. Golub's only precondition was that Intourist reservations be made first, so that the travelers could be met upon arrival in the USSR, which was a requirement for all foreigners.

One assumes that this was also known by PFC Lee Harvey Oswald. Of all the possible entry points that he might have chosen to cross the frontier, Oswald selected Helsinki. What led him to this, the least problematic of entry points, if not the foreknowledge possessed by the US government? We know that Oswald must have also made the required Intourist reservations, because he was met upon arrival in Moscow by an Intourist guide. How did Oswald, so unaware of travel protocols according to travel agent Louis Hopkins, become so incredibly astute on the same subject in so short a time span?

Yet, if Oswald received the tip to seek out Golub from the US Embassy in Helsinki, as had the two previous US citizens, why is there no State Department dispatch on the subject as there was for the two prior travelers directed to Golub? Why did the sidebar trip to Sweden receive consideration as an alternative explanation for Oswald's mode of travel, if the US provided this information to Oswald in Helsinki?

While in Helsinki, Oswald stayed at a most expensive and exclusive hotel. The frugality ascribed to Oswald by the Warren Commission, a trait necessary for him to save up the money required to travel to the USSR, was apparently no longer in evidence. Recall also that Oswald could have obtained cheaper means of travel had he chosen more direct routes, instead of zigzagging to France, England and Finland.

In July of 1964, CIA determined that there was a means by which Oswald might have been able to travel so quickly from London to Helsinki. An October 9 flight had left London at 7:05 PM local time, which arrived in Stockholm at 1:30 AM local time. A connecting flight, SK 734, then left Stockholm at 3:15 PM local time, arriving in Helsinki on October 10 at 5:35 PM. Such a flight might explain Oswald's means of travel, but left open three questions: Why did his passport contain an October 10th UK exit stamp if he flew out of London the previous day? What might Oswald have done for half a day in Stockholm? And why didn't he register in the hotel for more than six hours after his arrival in Helsinki. Despite self-evident signs to the contrary, the Commission declared Oswald left London a day earlier than his passport stamp indicated.

Also, given the timelines, what exactly was CIA's report attempting to resolve? Was CIA attempting to explain the speed with which Oswald arrived in Helsinki? Or was CIA explaining the reports that Oswald had been in Stockholm? Or both? Had Oswald taken such an indirect route, it would not only offer a reason for the Stockholm sighting of Oswald, but a plausible rationale for his presence there without a Swedish stamp in his passport. Had he been in transit, awaiting a connecting flight, he would only have passed through passport control if he wished to leave the terminal. If he spent 14 hours in the terminal waiting for his connecting flight, there would be no such stamp. Yet sitting in the terminal for 14 hours was not what the Squib Dagans Nyheter reported; it stipulated he received his Soviet visa in Stockholm, which he could not have accomplished without leaving the terminal.

Whatever the CIA's and Commission's purpose, the Stockholm option was problematic. If the October 9 flight to Stockholm departed from London at 7:05 PM, it left before Oswald even arrived in Southampton, let alone London. To posit that Oswald was aboard this flight required that he used some means other than the Liberte to reach Southampton from Le Havre, France. While possible, there is no record that this occurred, and would make inexplicable the presence in Oswald's passport of a UK entry stamp for October 9 at Southampton. Moreover, if Oswald left aboard the 7:05 PM flight from London on October 9, why did his passport carry a UK exit stamp dated October 10?

Again, Oswald's route indicates that time was of the essence. Had he simply waited an extra day, he could have taken a direct flight from London to Helsinki. Instead he must have taken an indirect flight either to Stockholm on the previous night [which the Commission considered] or an October 10 flight to Stockholm or Copenhagen [which the Commission did not consider], the connecting jumps from which would have placed Oswald in Helsinki between 5 and 5:35 PM local time. Either possibility, however, again raised the question of where Oswald might have bided his time for six hours before registering at the Helsinki hotel.

The possibility that Oswald was met in Helsinki by another party, with whom he then spent many hours, never received the Commission's attention. Nor did the fact that Oswald seemed to be in an unnecessary hurry to get to Helsinki by any means possible. Was there a reason Oswald felt compelled to arrive late on a Saturday night if his first chance to apply for a visa would not occur until the following Monday? Instead of taking a connecting flight to Stockholm or Copenhagen at a greater cost, Oswald could have spent an extra day in London and then flown to Helsinki directly for less money. At this juncture, it is apparent that saving money was not the object, whereas saving time was. But for what purpose?

Whatever his means of travel, Oswald seemed determined to reach Helsinki well before he could even commence the next leg of his journey. This in itself suggests he may have wished to leave himself the time necessary to consult with another party prior to filing his visa application with the Soviets in Helsinki. Perhaps he required instructions on how to achieve his visa without unnecessary delays. Or perhaps CIA had already recruited Helsinki's Soviet consul Gregory Golub, who would then expedite the visa applications of travellers who volunteered a particular code word. Hence, Oswald may have arrived in Helsinki early specifically to be advised of that code word. There are any number of possibilities, none of them easy to credit.

As for the Stockholm newspaper report of Oswald's presence there, it too may help resolve a small mystery. Within two days of the assassination, Swedish authorities had located four year old immigration files to determine Oswald's presence in their capital. Why? There was, and is, no known documentation for Oswald's presence there in October 1959. There is no plausible reason that FBI or CIA or the State Department would have requested such information from the Swedes immediately following the assassination, so why did the Swedes feel the sudden need to scour through years worth of immigration paperwork to procure their four year old Oswald documents?

FWIW.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert

Thank you for the information. It seems we are in the same chapter if not on the exact same page.

This subject has interested me since the begining of my research because the Warren Commission was so sketchy and because Edwin Walker was traveling in Europe at the same time.

Some updated info from when you wrote your piece may be helpful. We now know that Oswald did not apply for his visa till Tuesday and received it in less than 24 hours. My feeling is that he was securing his Intourist vouhers on the Monday preceeding his application.

When the Warren Commission talks of a "direct flight' from London, I thought that ment non-stop. I have since learned that it only means that Oswald would arrive in Helsinki on the same plane that he boarded in London. The direct flight in reality made two stops along the way but that has no meaning in this discussion because his checkin time at the Torni Hotel eliminates that possibility. The 17:35 flight is my best guess and is the one that in fact is routed through Stockholm. Even in 1963, Sweedish authorities would have know that Oswald would probably have deplanded in Stockholm on his way to Helsinki.

In fact it was in Stockholm that the London passengers would exit their plane and board another plane that had actually started in Frankfort, Germany and was routed through Hamburg on its way to stockholm and Helsinki.

We know that Oswald would have arrived in London late on the night of the October 9th and that his passport is stampted as departing on the 10th. But this means only that he left London for some destination that the Warren Commission refused to divulge at some time after 00:01.

Our new research shows that Oswald could have journed to any number of cities in Germany (listed above) and still been on the same plane that arrived in Helsinki at 17:35. All of those additional locations would route him through Hamburg where he could have met anyone going to any of the other cities on the same list. Or Oswald could have first traveled to any of those other cities first on his way to Helsinki.

The information that was gathered from Golub on the 9th would be readily available to pass to a traveler on the 10th who was now on his way from London.

"Since [september 4, 1959] Golub has only phoned once and this was on a business matter. Two Americans were in the Soviet Consulate at the time and were applying for Soviet visas through Golub. They had previously been in the American consulate inquiring about the possibility of obtaining a Soviet visa in 1 or 2 days. [We] advised them to go directly to Golub...which they did. Golub phoned [us] to state that he would give them their visas as soon as they made Intourist reservations. When they did this, Golub immediately gave them their visas..." The date of that dispatch was October 9, 1959, the day before Oswald's arrival. Was the State Department's interest solely in testing Golub's willingness to grant such travel visas, or in exploiting that it knew he would?

The nature of this message seems to be in answer to a question presented to the Embassy rather than a message that just happened to be sent on the day that Oswald arrived in London. "Since [september 4, 1959] Golub has only phoned once and this was on a business matter." Once again remember that September 4th was the day Oswald applied for his passport in Santa Ana, California (some 9 time zone from Helsinki) and began being processed out ot the Marines some six weeks early.

My position is, not only was Oswald in a hurry to get to Helsinki from London but it seems that the US Government was helping him along the way beginning on September 4th when they first learned that Helsinki was an easy place to enter the Soviet Union from (unless we want to believe that the Soviets helped Oswald obtain his early discharge).

It is also during this same time that Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker is receiving his orders to pack up his office in Little Rock, Arkansas and move on to Augsburg, Germany and command of the 24th Infantry Division. (if Walker flew to Augsburg, he would have landed in Munich on one of the potential routes that Oswald could have used to be on the 17:35 flight into Helsinki). Walker could also have been traveling between Stutgart and Munich as well as London to Munich or London to Stutgart or London to Hamburg to then arrive at Augsburg. All logical routes for Walker and all available routes for Oswald.

Is it just a coincidence that the man Oswald would alledgedly shoot at seven months before the assassination of Kennedy could (although it is not yet proven) have been on the same airplane that Oswald could have been on which would allow Oswald to arrive at the destination and at the time that Oswald did in fact arrive in Helsinki? Is it a coincidence that, although passenger records were readily available from this time period when the Warren Commission met that the CIA could not be more specific about Oswald's route and in fact directed suspicion toward a route that it knew was impossible for Oswald to have taken? Was this in fact a distraction for researchers that we are just now begining to understand?

Why, over 40 years after the assissination, can Anti Hynonen gather this information that the CIA seems to have overlooked at the time?

I find this information substantial!

Jim Root

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim

You are right, Robert's post is dead on.

The overall picture, which includes the fact that Oswald was an Atsugi Marine when Atsugi was a hotsopt for MK/ULTRA, points to a false defector program.

The fast expedited Helsinki access into USSR was known to Oswald becuase he was a false defector, part of a program which we now know existed. The speed with which he gained entrance to the USSR, combined with the inconsistencies and logistical impossibilities, points to a coached and assisted exit from the West into the Communist bloc.

I don't think Edwin Walker ever panicked.

I think when he was safely down in Louisiana with his alibi, he simply played a pre-arranged card in the frame up of Lee.

Oswald was a communist, taken "off the shelf" - a product of the false defector program.

The fact that he was not watched as a real security threat after his return from Russia shows they were not afraid he had been turned, because they (ONI/CIA)were still using him for the thankless work he engaged in with Dr. Oeschner and David Ferrie, posing as an anti Castro trotskyite, etc.

Oswald was a low level Marine/Navy intelligence "burn card" he was someone with a "legend" built up over time that could be used any way his handlers wished.

One other thing:

Political radicals who commit assassination CLAIM RESPONSIBILITY PROUDLY,

but Oswald denied any part of the "political act" until his death.........

:ph34r::hotorwot:ph34r::ph34r::blink::hotorwot

Edited by Shanet Clark
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shanet

"I don't think Edwin Walker ever panicked.

I think when he was safely down in Louisiana with his alibi, he simply played a pre-arranged card in the frame up of Lee. "

Shanet, on this one I will respectfully disagree with you. I try to keep an open mind about the subject and toy with the thought that yuu are right except for some coincidences that continue to 'bug" me. I believe the date Walker resigned from the Army was November 4, 1961. Walker was releived from command of the US 24th Infanty Division on April 17, 1961 after it was "discovered" he was using "Pro Blue" material from the John Burch Society to "indoctrinate" his troops. On March 31, 1959 "pro blue" program shut down.

Compare these dates with the actions of Oswald during the same period of time. I believe, just as there travel in Europe overlaps that these actions overlap as well.

December of 1960: Oswald claims to have first applied to return to US.

February 5, 1961: First acknowledged letter from Oswald requesting return to US.

Feruary, 1961: Pro Blue Program is up and running

March 20, 1961: Additional letter from Oswald forwarded to State Department.

April 13, 1961: State infroms US Embassy in Moscow that Owald will be issued a passport "available for direct return to US.

April 17, 1961: Walker relieved of command

March 26, 1961: Oswald wants guarantees that he will not be prosecuted "under any circumstaces" should he return to US.

May 31, 1961: Pro Blue Program shut down and Walker becomes the center of the "muzzling of the military" controversy.

November 4, 1961: Walker resigns from the Army

December 28, 1961: Oswald passport approved

It remains my contention that Walker was a pawn and was unaware of Oswald's return to the US. Further more that when Walker first saw Oswald after his arrest, the day of the assassination, that Walker paniced and began making arrangements to contact a German Newpaper to publicize himself in a way that any connection to Oswald that would be uncovered could be defended.

After the death of Oswald, Walker's "need" for a defense became moot!

Jim Root

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great article by Mr. Charles-Dunne!

You raise the same questions that Mr. Root and I have raised. A few comments I'd like to point out:

The Scandinavian countries have been a "passport free zone" (for Scandinavians)since the 1950's, and for instance in my experience, typically you are not asked anything, and also if you are asked something, you might be asked where you are coming from. If you claim to be coming from Finland, and going to Sweden, you will just be asked to proceed.

In other words Oswald could have "snuck" into Sweden without getting anything stamped, however, I doubt his Soviet visa was issued anywhere but Helsinki. Also Hotel records indicate he stayed at the Torni from the 10th tothe 11th and the at the Klaus Kurki, until he left for Moscow on the train.

Actually he probably got the departure date down correctly on his Finnish goverment form, didn't his train leave Helsinki on the 15th? Funny that he knew this so precisely in advance... upon entering Finland.

http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald/journey.htm

Peter Wronski has compiled this site and has scanned some of Oswald's travel documents onto the web-site.

Most important evidence is that Oswald's visa was approved in 1 day!!!

He applied for it on the 13th and received it on the 14th....

Many of the dates do coincide nicely with the US embassy in Helsinki, Walker's travels etc.

Edited by Antti Hynonen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...