Dan Hardway and Ed Lopez, Sept. 2014: Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City

Valuable.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?321703-2/discussion-lee-harvey-oswald-cia-mexico-city

Realy enjoyed this Alan. Will it be possible to put up a link to Blakey's segment?.

^ Thank you, Dan. I expect both the Blakey and Antonio Veciana segments will be uploaded and available via C-Span. If not, I know that the entire conference and all of the presentations were recorded on behalf of the AARC. Dvds will eventually be made available through the AARC.

Thanks for watching.

Alan Dale wrote:^ Thank you, Dan. I expect both the Blakey and Antonio Veciana segments will be uploaded and available via C-Span. If not, I know that the entire conference and all of the presentations were recorded on behalf of the AARC. Dvds will eventually be made available through the AARC.

Thanks for watching.

I would love to see a film version of the whole Mexico episode made. What a way to wake people up.

Alan,

thanks for the head's up.

Quoting Pat Speer's Ed Forum review of Veciana's talk:

Phillips had asked him if one could get a visa to visit Cuba simply by showing up at the Cuban consulate in Mexico City and asking for one. Veciana said he had told Phillips "No." This was apparently around the time Veciana saw Phillips with Oswald. 

Can you confirm that this really is what Veciana said?

Hi Greg,

Yes. I was sitting on stage during Mr. Veciana's presentation.

My notes say this: Phillips asks Veciana: "Would one be able to get a visa in Mexico from Cuban consulate to travel from Mex?" 

I did not record Veciana's reply to DAP.

The scene eventually provided some high drama as Mr. Veciana became increasingly forceful in his declarations. His translator did an excellent job of keeping up with the rhetoric, but the electricity in the room generated by Veciana's undiminished passion required no translation.

Am I correct we've recently learned that some kind of travel visa (to Cuba only) was, indeed, granted to the Oswald figure?

Alan Dale wrote:Hi Greg,

Yes. I was sitting on stage during Mr. Veciana's presentation.

My notes say this: Phillips asks Veciana: "Would one be able to get a visa in Mexico from Cuban consulate to travel from Mex?" 

I did not record Veciana's reply to DAP.

The scene eventually provided some high drama as Mr. Veciana became increasingly forceful in his declarations. His translator did an excellent job of keeping up with the rhetoric, but the electricity in the room generated by Veciana's undiminished passion required no translation.

Am I correct we've recently learned that some kind of travel visa (to Cuba only) was, indeed, granted to the Oswald figure?

Thanks for quick reply, Alan.

The reason I asked is that it seems to me if anyone did not need to ask that question, it was one David Atlee Phillips. It also seems to conflict with  what Bill Kelly has said here:  http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/antonio-veciana-comes-clean.html

"Oswald and Fidel Castro were ideal scapegoats for the murder of the president. Bishop told Oswald to travel to Mexico City. …Phillips knew of the difficulty of getting a visa for Cuba from the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City. That resulted in the Mexico City incident. Oswald was directed.”  

Personally I would not be relying on Cuban exiles (or American Soldiers of Fortune) to help solve this case any more than I would rely on Jim Fetzer or Alex Jones. In this instance, Veciana may be right - I just would not rely on him without supporting evidence. Bill Kelly does make a case that at least is plausible based on Phillips' background.  But for the sake of argument, even if he is right about Veciana, it does not follow that Veciana's identification of Oswald must also be correct. Larry Crafard was provably mistaken for Oswald multiple times around Dallas and Oak Cliff. Crafard had been to the building where the DAP meeting allegedly took place at least once in the past with Jack Ruby. He also claimed at one stage that he was with the CIA. Furthermore I'm inclined to believe that Oswald never went to Mexico. In fact, the bus witnesses alone - despite identifying Oswald as a passenger, make other statements which conclusively rule him out. Not saying it was Crafard with Phillips -- but the case for it being Crafard is just as good  - and maybe better than it being Oswald.  And not to belabor it, but that is also assuming it was Phillips to start with.

Am I correct we've recently learned that some kind of travel visa (to Cuba only) was, indeed, granted to the Oswald figure?

Sorry Alan --any recent developments on this have passed me by.

IIRC, all "Oswald" had to do get a visa to Cuba was to volunteer as a cane cutter.

I believe Veciana, who was both shot and framed for his deep knowledge of the case. Fonzi's portrait of him, also, is very compelling, as one of the few members of the anti-Castro cause who was not motivated by greed or sheer fascist obsession. As for Crafard, a mystery figure, though I don't see him as a Phillips associate. We certain have less info on Crafard which would bring him into contact with Phillips; whereas Oswald had a number of reasons to meet Phillips, from his FPCC work to Nagell's testimony of Oswald's CIA manipulation.

Allen,

I believe people like you, Alan, Bill Kelly and a few others believe him for all the right reasons. There are a few who push him simply because he helps their pet theory or agenda. You guys may be right. All I'm saying is I won't rely on professional liars to help solve this case without lots of supporting material. The attempt on his life is merely assumed to be tied in with this case. It may be. But then again, it may not. 

Does it not ring alarm bells that someone like Phillips (if Veciana is to be believed) has to summon a Cuban exile from Miami to Dallas in order to ask about getting a visa to Cuba from Mexico? Shouldn't Phillips already know the answer? But if not, wouldn't he have other (and better placed/more certain) sources for finding out?

Did Veciana ever say why he was summoned to Dallas for a meeting? 

The case for Phillips' involvement is based on suspicion arising from circumstantial evidence. It holds together only on the say-so of Veciana. If Veciana is not credible, the rest of it equates to a case good enough for books or internet forums, but not good enough to stand up in a legal sense. This stuff has been known about for ages. It has made not a dent toward prying the case open. Veciana for all his histrionics at this latest event could gain a lot of credibility (with me, anyway) if he was not feeding this stuff to people primed to suspend disbelief when it comes to favored villains like DAP.  He should take that passion and put it on display at his local FBI office and provide whatever evidence - verbal or documentary - as he may possess.

As for Crafard -- a lot of work has been done in the background.

^ Thank you, Greg.

For some time I have been open to the theory that DAP may have been the 2nd most astonished person on Earth on the afternoon of Nov. 22, 1963. The depth of suspicion that Phillips MUST have been aware of, or had to have been "handling" Oswald for the purpose of incrimination in the president's murder is, in my opinion, based largely upon suppositions that ignore what may properly be referred to as authorized operations. Dr. John Newman is deeply immersed in differentiating between Authorized Ops such as the program to discredit/tarnish the FPCC in foreign states and an ultimate Dark Op that was in play beneath the surfaces. He used to refer to the "piggybacking" of a sinister plot to kill JFK and blame the sadly disposable low-level asset LHO upon such officially sanctioned, though covert, operations.

The esteemed Malcolm Blunt asked Mr. Veciana what if any contact he had with American Military Intelligence during the relevant periods of Alpha 66 activity. My recollection is that Mr. Veciana seemed pretty casual in stating that he met only once in Puerto Rico with an Army Intelligence officer from the 902nd Military Group named Patrick Harris. My impression when speaking with Malcolm later was that Veciana was downplaying that association.

My personal opinion is that Antonio Veciana is being completely straight, honest, and truthful about identifying DAP as his CIA mentor, and that all or some of the rest of his "testimony" may be based upon supposition and misinterpretation. It seems plausible to me that what he believes about the implications of thinking he saw DAP with LHO prior to the assassination may be the result of a sincere attempt to fill-in-the-blanks.

I could be wrong. I do not write off the many reasons for which Phillips is a legitimate suspect.

PDF files of both Blakey and Hardway are available from the AARC by scrolling down (From The Conference) to links on this page:

http://aarclibrary.org/blog/

Greg's points do make me wonder, about a lot of things; though I do think Phillips was knee-deep in this thing. Let us not forget that he admitted to his brother, while weeping, that he was in Dallas on November 22, 1963.