I contend

Ben Cole @ the Ed Forum wrote:I contend LHO was in fact in Mexico City in September 1963.

I contend that the word "contend" is not synonymous with the word "pretend".

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/oswald/

The above is a PBS Frontline documentary, first aired in 1993. Go to about 1:10 mark. 

The three KGB agents, who worked in MC in September 1963, on camera, and on record, attest to PBS they met the real LHO at the embassy.  Kostikov is among the three attesting to LHO's visit to MC. The trio have little doubt about the meeting, thanks to LHO's erratic behavior. Like LHO wanted to make an impression. Sounds like LHO. 

Lol. I contend that you are trying your darndest to make it sound like 3 professional liars were bound to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me Lenny, like it was to a court, and not to the good folk at PBS. 

Perhaps the three KGB'ers were bribed to say they met the real LHO, as some suggest. But that is a slippery road, to suggest some witnesses were bribed. Where do we stop with this sort of analysis? We all want to cherry-pick witnesses. 

I contend that this is utter nonsense. If cops and courts accepted all witnesses at face-value, justice would grind to a halt. "Cherry-picking" happens. But those of us serious about getting to the facts use a variety of methods to sort witnesses with cred from those with crud. 

My explanation is that the CIA wanted LHO to meet Kostikov, and they intrigued Kostikov into the meeting. Why else would the Soviet Embassy receive LHO on a Saturday? 

I contend that your "explanation" is just more "pretend".

There are other witnesses to LHO's presence in Mexico and MC, including hotel workers, and bus riders. Can we dismiss all witnesses? 

I contend not only can we dismiss them, a closer look at the witnesses, the circumstances, and in some cases their backgrounds, means we are bound to dismiss them.

LHO was also likely impersonated in MC. LHO can be in MC and also impersonated---the two thoughts are not mutually exclusive. 

I contend that two things not being mutually exclusive is not a reason to believe they co-existed. 

In fact, likely LHO was shadowed, even possibly impersonated by a KGB'er or CIA'er at the Cuban embassy. There was a ton of Spy vs. Spy stuff going on. Spy agencies like to create false leads and confusion, for the simple sake of creating false leads and confusion. 

Que? I contend you must have short-term memory issues. Weren't you the contender pretending that we must accept all witnesses, or else be condemned to the pit of cherry-picked pits? 

LHO's Mexico bus-trip paperwork is perhaps sketchy. Perhaps fabricated. Or perhaps just 1963-era paperwork for a Mexico bus company. I suspect LHO got a ride in a car or airplane.

I contend you protest pretend too much. 

Of course, in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA, the CIA tried to leverage his presence there to hype the commie angle. See David Atlee Phillips and also the DRE. 

I contend they were leveraging a false narrative, based on the use of Oswald's name and background in an operation unrelated to the assassination.  Which is why they did not need anyone who actually looked like him.

That angle, it turns out, was also effective in ending a true investigation into the JFKA, due the what John Newman calls the WWIII virus. It looked like the KGB may have had a hand in the JFKA, which could mean WWIII, thanks to a barely controllable Joint Chiefs of Staff. And so the WC and establishment went with the "leftie, but loner-loser angle" on LHO. Blame LBJ too. 

Mick Jagger contended that we are all to blame. I contend that Mick's contention is not just superior, it is also more melodic than yours.

From 11/23, the State Dep't was "finding no evidence" of Russian or even foreign collusion in the JFKA. 

I contend that no one need give a shit about what the state dept did or didn't find. It was not an investigative body in the case.

In fact, I am not sure what happened in the JFKA, except that a lone gunman, armed with a single-shot bolt-action rifle, could not have shot Connally at Z-295 and then JFK at Z-313, which I believe the Z film shows. I suspect elements of the CIA-Miami Station had a role in the JFKA.

I contend that this is gobbledigook. You say you are not sure what happened, with one exception. But the exception you cite is of something you say did NOT happen. 

So you are saying you are not sure what happened except for that one thing that did happen that really didn't. I further contend you just have to be religious with thinking of this dizzying magnitude.

How high up from there? Who knows? 

I contend that in South East Asia baby, you can get as high as you want. I contend you should test the limits and report back.

It would be nice if the JFK Records were released. 

I contend that's a shoe-in with all the heavyweights on the job. 

THE GREAT CONDENDER

Oh-oh, yes, I'm the great contender
Pretending that I'm doing well
My need is such, I contend too much
I'm lonely, but I've come out of my shell

Oh-oh, yes, I'm the great contender
Avoiding a stint in the cooler
I played the game but to my real shame
You caught me sucking a 70 year old hooker, not a hookah

Too real is this feeling of make-believe
Too real when I feel what my bullshit can't conceal
(Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh)

Yes, I'm the great contender
Just laughin' and gay,  a boy who is proud
I seem to be what I'm not, just like George Santos
I'm wearing my heart like a tiara
Pretending that you're Carman Miranda 

Too real is this feeling of make-believe
Too real when I feel what my heart can't conceal
(Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh)
Yes, I coulda been a contender (like Brando)

Just laughin' like a  gay caballero
I seem to be what I'm not, you see
I'm wearing my heart like a tiara
Pretending that I can weave a plot around Che Guevara.

Well put. Hope Ben will read it.