The Mexico City Mystery Man

[David Josephs]

Just now, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Please David could you help me follow your thinking by describing some possibly common ground;

1. Suspiciously quickly after the assassination claims are made that Oswald was a commie with known associations to Cuba (Russia trip,FPCC New Orleans, and MC visit)

Why "suspiciously" Eddy?  Our little Harvey made darn sure anyone coming in contact with him knew his stance and his Marxist leanings.  He walked around iwth a sandwich board supporting FPCC.... etc.   I don't see too much suspicion needed to come to that conclusion...  That it was focused on Oswald and only Oswald within hours of the shooting is what makes this investigation "suspicious"... if that's what you meant.

2. The claims can be traced to the DRE, and thus to Phillips and the CIA.

If I remember correctly, the DRE was ANTI-Castro and ANTI-communist.   http://jfkfacts.org/secret-jfk-document-3-dreamspell-file/#more-24738 as was more closely associated with George Joannides.  The "fight" with Beringuer was a set-up.   There is even thought that William Shelley is in the New Orleans ITM leaflet photos.  All this was the "summer of Oswald" orchestrated by Guy Bannister et al....

3. You believe that Oswald was never in MC at the relevant time, thus blurring the argument that the MC episode was a sheep dipping exercise by the CIA to prepare Oswald for his Patsy role. It's taking a big risk with the Oswald part of the cover-up if any investigation can quickly refute Oswald was in MC. Wasn't there a risk the FBI might blow the story? You certainly provide a strong argument they had the evidence to do so?

A calculated risk at best.  The use of the name Oswald in Mexico related to Cuba and Castro was no big thing until Nov 22 at 12:33pm.  At that point the FBI looks and see that at the same time he is with Cubans and traveling to Odio's and Dallas... the CIA is claiming he was in Mexico City... the FBI knew that it could not have been Oswald... so why does the FBI cover?  My take is so they don't have to admit that Oswald was spying for the FBI... and was now JFK's killer.  I don't think he went to Mexico at all, was working for the FBI and the FBI needed to and created the evidence supporting a bus trip to and from...  I prove that to be BS...  if Oswald did go we'd have known about it.

4. The Oswald as Commie story seems to have been superceded/covered up/rejected by the establishment, but its hard to make the case that this was because they realised his links to MC were bogus. Do you subscribe to a possible explanation that the 'Oswald as commie' and perhaps the assassination itself was a rogue/compartmentalised CIA plot? and that the realisation of the consequences of this plot caused the wider CIA/wider establishment to cover up?

An interesting thought Eddy.  Your guesses are as good as anyone's... and "possible explanations" are a dime a dozen.  Work it thru.  Ask yourself
who had the power to control the Bethesda autopsy?  If Rose does the autopsy in Dallas, the party's over, shot from the front.  So the SS takes the body and the military has the body and the court-martial to keep everyone quiet.  The FBI takes all the evidence Friday night and returns well more than they took on Nov 26th.  

The FBI incriminates Oswald while the Military controls the "Best Evidence"  (also ask yourself who in the entirety of this operation was never in the military - you wont find too many I guarantee that.) 

The CIA and assets were the most logical and prepared group to pull this off - the men involved were experts at their craft and had come off a decade of success removing banana republic leaders...  the man in office was colluding with the Russians and Cubans...  he needed to go.  Beyond that are the words of Vincent Salandria:

 

            "I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly.  "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early.  I see that now.  We spent too much time and effort micro-analyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy.  Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way?  They chose not to.  Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner.  The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny.  The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear:  'We are in control and no one -- not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official -- no one can do anything about it.'  It was a message to the people that their government was powerless.  And the people eventually got the message.  Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination.  People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

            "The tyranny of power is here.  Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by* promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad.  And that will lead not to revolution but to repression.  I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities.  No doubt we  are dealing now with an international conspiracy.  We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence.  That's exactly what they want us to do.  They have kept us busy for so long.  And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you.  They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down."

Eddy...  there is very little supporting Oswald in Mexico City at this time... worse still are the repeated attempts at explaining the trip with physical evidence only to find the evidence doesn't fit - so that evidence was dropped and forgotten for NEW evidence that said what it was supposed to and got Oswald where he needed to be on time....  .

Just now, Eddy Bainbridge said:

This, I feel is a good explanation of the failure to provide actual photos of Oswald in MC, since less questions about covert operations are asked if the 'myth' of Oswald in Mexico is maintained.

 

 

[Mathias Baumann]

I don't believe that the incidents in Mexico City were part of an elaborate effort to frame Oswald for the Kennedy assassination.

At the time Oswald/the impostor? visited Mexico:

- he had not yet gotten the job at the School Book Depository

- he was still on the FBI's watch list

- the conspirators could not possibly know that it would not be raining in Dallas on November 22 (and that the bubbletop would be open)

- they could not possibly know that Oswald would be anyplace near the motorcade route (after all wasn't he trying to get back to Russia?)

- etc.

We know of other plots that failed (Chicago, Miami). So clearly the conspirators were not putting all their eggs in one basket.

So why would they orchestrate such a risky operation as Mexico City when they could not be reasonably sure it would pay off?

If you look closely at the transcripts of the impostor's call to the Russian embassy you'll notice that obviously he's trying to fish for information. And I think that was the whole purpose of the call - finding out what exactly Oswald was up to. We know that David Atlee Phillips used similar tricks before.

I think the decision to frame Oswald for the assassinatoion wasn't made until he was back in Dallas and OFF THE FBI WATCH LIST. Then the conspirators could be reasonably sure that their plan might work.

 

 

Edited July 1, 2017 by Mathias Baumann

[Brendan Boucher]

15 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Here is the photo recap sheet from 9/27 and 2 of the proofs for the 2 photos highlighted...

"10:50 - Man sent to the Consulate" and again an hour later as "Young man sent to the Consulate"

David, have you seen slides 8 and 14 that aren't completely whited out? Because somebody did go into the Consulate and discuss Visas with Silvia Duran right?  I'm not implying this was necessarily Oswald I'm just wondering why those 2 frames don't show anything?

 

I wonder about Silvia Duran as well.  She seemed to believe that the man who's image was splashed across the TV for days was the man who attempted to obtain travel documents in her office.  If this was not the same person, was there truly an impostor that was so similar to Oswald that Duran was unable to recognize the difference?  Her treatment at the hands of the authorities is pretty appalling and I have no doubt that certain statements could have been coerced out of her, but I'm not aware of her raising the specter the the man she interacted with in late Sep. was not the man who was being shown on television.

 

The other thing that bugs me about the "Oswald never went" scenario is that we know these initial visits ascribed to LHO are fairly innocuous.  It's all about Visas, and we know for sure because the Cubans and Russians are taking about it back and forth on tapped lines.  It isn't until the Kostikov bomb is dropped in the absurd Oct. 1 call that things become much more vague and potentially sinister.  To me it makes far more sense that "they" would piggyback on top of an actual Oswald visit.  In my mind the only way an LHO visit works is if he is driven down and then driven back in fairly short order.  I trust Mr Joseph's painstaking research on this matter.

 

2 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

If you look closely at the transcripts of the impostor's call to the Russian embassy you'll notice that obviously he's trying to fish for information. And I think that was the whole purpose of the call - finding out what exactly Oswald was up to. We know that David Atlee Phillips used similar tricks before.

 

I had entertained this possibility but I find it very unlikely that this was a MEXI Station operation.  They had impersonated Cuban Embassy personnel over the phone in July to snag Eldon Hensen and Headquarters was not at all pleased that they would risk the LIENVOY operation to dupe this Texas cattle rancher.  And they knew what the Unidentified American had discussed in the Embassies anyway, Visas.  The October 1st call was almost assuredly used to plant a virus, because without the Kostikov-Oswald connection there is hardly anything nefarious going on.  Those names having been uttered together sent shockwaves through certain corridors post-assassination.  The people in the know pre-assassination would make much of this supposed link later on when they needed to push the hypothetical LHO/Russia/Cuba conspiracy.  

 

It strikes me that a "Mexico Mystery Men" thread may be necessary because it seems nigh on impossible to nail down who was doing what when in MC.

 

 

 

 

 

[Mathias Baumann]

27 minutes ago, Brendan Boucher said:

The October 1st call was almost assuredly used to plant a virus, because without the Kostikov-Oswald connection there is hardly anything nefarious going on.  Those names having been uttered together sent shockwaves through certain corridors post-assassination.  The people in the know pre-assassination would make much of this supposed link later on when they needed to push the hypothetical LHO/Russia/Cuba conspiracy.  

But how could the conspirators be sure Oswald would be at the right time and place for the assassination? How did they know he'd be back in Dallas by November working in a building right next to the parade route and not back in Russia? How did they know conditions would be favorable in Dallas? If not, would they just have found him work in some other town Kennedy was to visit?

You'd have to assume a great deal of prescience and/or omnipotence on the part of the conspirators.

Edited July 1, 2017 by Mathias Baumann

[Brendan Boucher]

I won't feign to know exactly what the plotters had in mind.  The point I was trying to make is that I highly doubt the call linking Oswald and Kostikov was a legitimate intelligence operation.  This was a golden opportunity to connect an extremely rare bird in Oswald and a KGB officer associated with Dept. 13.  If LHO was never used we would have never heard about the call/incident so what was the risk in planting that time bomb?

 

 

 

 

[Mathias Baumann]

They were certainly taking a huge risk by making a phone call that maybe could be traced back to them.

And if their purpose was to create a false link between Oswald and Kostikov they did a very bad job. The FBI realized very quickly that the man on the phone was not Oswald. If the conspirators indeed had intended to plant a virus as you say, would they not at least have used someone who spoke proper Russian?

No matter what the purpose of the call was, I find it hard to believe that the people behind it were already planning to use Oswald in the assassination.

EDIT: another thought - if Kostikov was suspected to be KGB I think it's likely the CIA would try to find out if Oswald had established contact with him. I think that might explain the call.

Edited July 1, 2017 by Mathias Baumann

[David Josephs]

On 7/1/2017 at 3:51 AM, Brendan Boucher said:

David, have you seen slides 8 and 14 that aren't completely whited out? Because somebody did go into the Consulate and discuss Visas with Silvia Duran right?  I'm not implying this was necessarily Oswald I'm just wondering why those 2 frames don't show anything?

 

I wonder about Silvia Duran as well.  She seemed to believe that the man who's image was splashed across the TV for days was the man who attempted to obtain travel documents in her office.  If this was not the same person, was there truly an impostor that was so similar to Oswald that Duran was unable to recognize the difference?  Her treatment at the hands of the authorities is pretty appalling and I have no doubt that certain statements could have been coerced out of her, but I'm not aware of her raising the specter the the man she interacted with in late Sep. was not the man who was being

No Brandan, I have not seen the images on 8 or 14...maybe in the Oct release - lol.  and yes, it would make sense that the transcripts and photos match to actual happenings, ie an unidentified man in and out of the consulate matches to the 10:50am time frame...  which in turn matches to a bus that arrives that morning...  but as you retrace the evidence we run into numerous conflicts and extended coincidence...  moving forward back to Dallas, more of the same.

Now, Duran & Azcue describe a person.  As you read Duran's testimony, Cornwell refers to her "previous ID of Oswald as the man at the consulate"... this is after her friendly questioning of course... and well before Alvarado tells an entirely different story about Oswald.  Cornwell and all others will refer to the man there as Oswald as a foregone conclusion.  I simply don't see it foregone.

All he needs is a little convincing.  Maybe like Sylvia.

 

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by David Josephs

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

12 hours ago, Brendan Boucher said:

David, have you seen slides 8 and 14 that aren't completely whited out?

No Brandan, I have not seen the images on 8 or 14...maybe in the Oct release - lol.

 

Try ignoring the typewritten numbers and use the handwritten numbers instead. That will solve your problem.

What is the significance of the guys shown in #8 and #14?

 

 

"10:50 - Man sent to the Consulate" and again an hour later as "Young man sent to the Consulate"

Here is the rest of that sheet

•  

[Brendan Boucher]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Try ignoring the typewritten numbers and use the handwritten numbers instead. That will solve your problem.

What is the significance of the guys shown in #8 and #14?

 

Ah yes, thanks Sandy!

 

Somebody possessing Oswald's documents was in and out of the Consulate at least twice on the 27th.  Frame "13" which is distorted or whited out is listed as "Man Leaving" at 11:40 might be of interest still.

 

Azcue's testimony is interesting DJ.  Amazing to me though that the first time he saw Oswald's image was on a newsreel of him being slain by Ruby.  Cuban TV or Newspapers were not showing the image of Kennedy's killer?  He does seem pretty convinced though.  

 

This response was fairly amusing.

Quote

Mr. PREYER: You have indicated to us that you don't believe the man whose photograph appears on the visa application and the passport was the same Man who appeared before you in the consulate. Have you ever seen a photograph of the man you believed to have appeared before you in the consulate? 

Senor AZCUE: Never. I shall explain. The committee brought to me an album with many photographs. I shall try to explain. It is very possible that amongst all of those photographs which were made available to us by those persons who took pictures of every person that went near the consulate or the Embassy and that were contained in those that I was shown, it is very difficult when I consider all of the photos that I saw, that anyone could escape being photographed if he approached the consulate during working hours, that is, escape without having his photograph taken. It would be easy for them, having at hand the photographs and the dates, to facilitate or make available the photograph of the person who went to the consulate, be it the decedent or the dead man or the other person that I think I saw went to the consulate. It is indeed curious that they did not provide that photograph, because if it were the same man, you would have recognized him in that photograph. And if I remembered the face, I would have recognized it amongst those photos. And there was no photo of either. This is very curious, that something like that should happen, especially among individuals or men who are so efficient and who spied on our consulate and our Embassy. 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscaascu.htm

 

Another item touched on briefly in the testimony is the somewhat bizarre scenario where a "Non-Oswald" character was told to procure a photograph for his Visa application and then this impostor returns with actual pictures Lee Harvey Oswald and Sylvia Duran affixes the photo and processes the application without issue.  Azcue chalks it up to a simple mistake, while conceding it's possible he is mistaken as well.

 

Quote

Mr. DODD: In effect suggesting that there was an enormous error. 

Senor AZCUE: It is a mistake that results very often in the case of the course of one's work, in the normal or ordinary case. 

Mr. DODD: And that also, if I understood you, the third option being is that you could be mistaken as to separating the identity of the two people. 

Senor AZCUE: It is possible. We are all exposed to error or mistake. It is not, however, my view. My view is that I am right. Now I have to say I am not infallible. 

Mr. DODD: I wasn't suggesting that.

 

[Mathias Baumann]

Re-reading the relevant pages in John Newman's book I've now become even more convinced that the purpose of the fake phone calls was to glean information about Oswald's activities. It appears that at first the impostors did not even know Oswald's Name.

Of the eight calls attributed to or involving Oswald, his name appeared in only one of them: the last call at 10:45 A.M. on Tuesday. This too seems odd. There must be something more going on here. It seems likely that the impostors who made the Saturday call knew of an American's presence in the consulates but did not yet know his name. (page 373, Oswald and the CIA)

...

Who in the CIA Station figured out Oswald had visited the Cuban Consulate? At the end of Goodpasture's career, David Phillips [...] wrote up her retirement award in 1973. It contained this passage: "She was the case officer who was responsible for the identification of Lee Harvey Oswald [...] (page 374)

And then we learn that Goodpasture was connected to a "super-secret element at headquarters", namely staff D, within which was hidden ZR/Rifle, the "Agency's program to develop a capability for assassination".

And this of course leads us to the ilk of Bill Harvey, David Morales, and Johnny Roselli. They learn about Oswald being involved with the KGB and when he gets back to Dallas they recruit him for some role in the assassination and set him up as the fall guy.