Home
Portal
Events
ROKC Wiki
Gallery
Search
Register
Log in
GuestGuest
The Mexico City Files: Criticism and Advocacy
Sun 02 Feb 2014, 2:08 pm
Did Lee Harvey Oswald make every appearance at the Communist aligned Cuban and Soviet Embassy in Mexico City? This long debated question has both inspired new evidentiary findings and generated untenable speculations. However, the speculation appears on both sides of this debate. Some have overlooked all the evidence and others have created unlikely constructs to explain the events. Considering some of the arguments in comparison to the primary evidence may narrow the field.
Critical Argument 1: "A Conspiracy too big? Intellectual dishonesty in the JFK assassination", Mexico City and the Oswald Impostor by Fred Litwin.
"When the CIA erroneously released photos taken at the Soviet embassy in Mexico City that was obviously not Oswald, it was seized upon as evidence of an Oswald impostor. Yet, now there is direct evidence from three Soviet embassy employees (including the infamous Kostikov) that Oswald was indeed at the embassy. Peter Dale Scott, one of the more respected critics, spent time with Nechiporenko (one of the employees) and came away impressed with his story. Paul Hoch feels that "the impostor hypothesis gets more attention than other aspects of the Mexico puzzle for non-evidentiary reasons -- that is, as historical baggage which we picked up when we had much less information." As time passed, it became very unlikely that this man was an Oswald impostor -- for one thing, he was photographed again when Oswald was supposed to be in the U.S. -- and he does not fit the description given by Sylvia Duran, now the leading impostor witness. In other words, if we first came to the Mexican evidence now, we might not find an impostor such an appealing explanation of the confusion." [i]
("A Conspiracy too big?..." by Fred Litwin)
Rebuttal 1:
Fred Litwin's first statement is correct. The photo release was a Central Intelligence Agency error. The photograph is not Lee Harvey Oswald, and many did seize upon it as singular proof of a Conspiracy. [ii] Yet this photographic claim is not conclusive. For the picture to be relevant clear instances of primary evidence, must support or dispel it.
Yet Litwin does not consider all the evidence in doing so. He states a few Soviet witnesses to support that Oswald was present in Mexico City. He cites Oswald did visit the Soviet and Cuban Embassy. Is he relying upon photographic evidence or the tape recordings of the Oswald phone calls? No.
After the Agency rechecked their files, the repeated photographs of a person supposedly identifying himself as "Oswald" were not Lee Harvey Oswald.[iii] The Agency had no photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. [iv] "Complete Recheck Photos all visitors to Cuban EMB August thru first half NOV against good press photos shows no evidence Oswald visit. Similar blank against all SOVEMB photos from 1 Sept. Note only visit we know he made was Cuban Embassy 28 Sept, Saturday on which Emb closed and we have not had coverage..."So no photographs existed except of others possibly claiming to be Oswald.
Additionally, the taped calls from Oswald were allegedly erased. They existed as classified transcripts complied before outside officials verified the tapes. Despite these facts, the Agency goes on to claim that erased phone calls and hidden transcripts prove Oswald's appearances. The official story assumes these claims are facts.[v]
The Agency also did not report the information in a timely manner. CIA officers gave conflicting and misleading statements regarding this period. They often made mistakes and offered discredited explanations that later investigations disproved.[vi] A further problem is the House Select Committee found that "testimony from knowledgeable people that it would have been unlikely the photo surveillance would have missed someone (Lee Harvey Oswald) it had at least five chances of recording, and reports that such a photo did, in fact exist..."[vii] However, the photograph offered was not Lee Harvey Oswald.
Litwin then references Paul Hoch who "feels" the Imposter hypothesis is based on reasons that do not relate to evidence. He states that it is not due to evidence but historical baggage. Mr. Hoch's speculations are unsupported by anything more than instinct and feelings. They do not support the claim made by Litwin with primary evidence.
Litwin then goes on to list the conflicting details within some witness testimony and the recorded Agency documents. I would agree many repeated discrepancies exist. However, if sufficient evidence supports a contending theory it should be considered. I would not state Lee Harvey Oswald was never in Mexico City, yet little available primary evidence supports it.[viii]
Other examples of primary evidence and official findings support unknown men possibly attempted to assume Oswald's identity. Some have made claims of Oswald twins, doppelgangers, and even more unlikely scenarios. However, not every idea associated with a possible imposter is unfeasible. All the evidence must be considered.
The Senate Church Committee states “There is no indication that any of the FBI agents assigned to the Oswald case were ever warned that an imposter might attempt to assume Oswald’s identity.” Commenting on the Central Intelligence Agency, the Committee said, “…the CIA inquiry was deficient on the specific question of the significance of Oswald’s contacts”, “This evidence indicates that the investigation of the assassination was deficient, and that the facts which might have substantially affected the course of the investigation were not provided to the Warren Commission". These included Mafia and Intelligence community assets.[ix]
Whether the Imposter hypothesis is "appealing" or not, we should follow the evidence and it will determine the feasibility of any claim. To dismiss primary evidence without overwhelming proof to contend the hypothesis is not inquiry. It is a commitment to deny evidence that contends your ideas. We need unbiased inquiry to resolve this matter and separate facts from opinions.
Advocate Argument 1:
"JFK researcher John Armstrong has shown the Warren Commission combined the biographies of two different people to arrive at the classic legend of Lee Harvey Oswald. A Russian speaking youth, possibly of Hungarian parents, was brought to the U.S. following World War II and given the name HARVEY Oswald. HARVEY was of small stature, quiet, slightly malnourished, and lived with a short, heavy-set Marguerite Oswald impostor who never smiled. New Orleans born LEE Oswald was tall, husky, and athletic. As a youth LEE lived with half-brother John Pic, brother Robert Oswald, and his tall, nice-looking mother, Marguerite Claverie Oswald. A program created by US intelligence merged the identities of Russian-speaking HARVEY and American-born LEE Oswald. The result, ten years later, was that young Russian-speaking HARVEY had an American background and birth certificate. HARVEY was an ideal candidate to “defect” to the Soviet Union and work as an undercover agent who secretly understood Russian. HARVEY “defected” and two years later returned to America with a Russian wife and child. A year later this former “defector” was handing out literature in support of Castro and Cuba. Unknown to HARVEY, he had become the ideal candidate to frame for the assassination of President Kennedy. And also unknown to HARVEY were the activities of LEE Oswald in the summer and fall of 1963, when LEE was impersonating HARVEY and helping to set up HARVEY as the accused assassin of President Kennedy." (John Armstrong - Harvey and Lee Homepage)
Armstrong has implied, not shown, that two men were using the same identity. He states, "A Russian speaking youth, possibly of Hungarian parents, was brought to the U.S. following World War II and given the name HARVEY Oswald. HARVEY was of small stature, quiet, slightly malnourished, and lived with a short, heavy-set Marguerite Oswald impostor who never smiled."
The first portion is speculation. Armstrong suggests a Russian speaking youth, "possibly of Hungarian parents was brought to the U.S. and given the name Harvey Oswald." Yet this claim is insufficient without primary evidence of these actions in detail or people involved. Much of Armstrong's accurate primary evidence is lost to the overriding contention of two actual men named Oswald.
Armstrong's idea requires further two unproven long-term imposters (Harvey and Marguerite) necessary to secure the hypothesis. I have no doubt Intelligence programs still use imposters and decoy agents. Yet there is no substantial amount of primary evidence supporting two different doppelganger Oswald's, with two different mothers. This improbable elaborate plan allegedly spans over a decade.[x] Yet evidence to prove this extraordinary claim is not sufficiently offered.
Armstrong's main contention remains merely supported by speculation and leaps of faith. He begins using examples of Central Intelligence Agency operations that relocated Soviet exiles. He then offers covert operations included anti Communist refugees, this as well is feasible. Armstrong states some are taught English, and then he diverges from the seemingly factual into speculation.
"A young boy, later given the name "HARVEY Oswald" may have been among these Eastern European refugees and, along with his caretaker (a woman who was given the name "Marguerite Oswald"), may have been subjects of a CIA related file." May have and possibly do not substantiate this idea. They attempt to explain a huge portion of time with speculation. Much is also made of photographic claims despite no independent testing by an independent review panel using modern technology.
Armstrong states that a Lee Oswald was living in one city and a Harvey Oswald was living in another. This merely demonstrates two men with the same last name are concurrently living in different cities. A brief search of current phone records state over twenty instances of L. Oswald in various locations worldwide. They also reveal four men named Harvey Oswald in the United States.[xi] Yet these facts are not conclusive proof. They offer that multiple people have and will share the same last name, or even the same name. Both could occur without nefarious context.
Armstrong's unfeasible plot includes a complicit Marguerite Oswald and her doppelganger being in contact. It requires too many components and opportunities for discovery. Armstrong then refers to an adjournment called by Allen Dulles during the testimony of Robert Oswald to the Warren Commission. Armstrong cites the adjournment as proof that Dulles "had intimate detailed knowledge of Harvey and Lee's backgrounds." I agree that Allen Dulles had possible connections to the suppression of evidence based on official investigations. However, no single adjournment is a sign of his knowledge, nor complicity in the Harvey and Lee hypothesis. [xii]
Armstrong's contention relies on much later supporting recollections and photographic claims. Portions of the official record are contradictory and likely faced alteration in some instances. Yet the seizure and alteration of Oswald's school records, does not support these extraordinary claims. Altered records do not prove two nearly identical men, lived two different intersecting lives. It proves that records were allegedly changed; the purpose of such changes is the question that remains.
The hypothesis states just before the assassination of President Kennedy, Harvey was on the Sixth floor of the Schoolbook Depository. Simultaneously, Lee was four floors down in the lunchroom. This in my view is nearly impossible, with over seventy people in the Depository; no one observed Oswald and doppelganger near each other? Armstrong then asserts the combined actions of both support additionally unproven claims made by Roger Craig. The true Oswald supports the official version of the lunchroom encounter. It further concludes while Harvey was in jail, a witness views Lee driving in Fort Worth.
These ideas are based on rampant speculation. The Bureau, Agency, and some other official groups committed grievous errors, intentionally suppressed evidence, and wantonly deceived investigators. Yet these actions do not prove Armstrong's main contention of two men living the same life. We should not attribute nefarious action to what in most instances were incompetence and inaction. Armstrong further asserts the Warren Commission combined two different biographies to attribute guilt to a single man.
In January 1960, five months after Harvey Oswald “defected” to the Soviet Union, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover wrote a memo stating that someone was using Lee Harvey Oswald's birth certificate... On March 31, 1961, a memo was sent from the passport office to John White, an official at the consular section of the State Department, reiterating the concern about two Oswalds originally expressed by Hoover nine months earlier. In the fall of 1961, while Harvey Oswald was still in Russia, Police Officer Charles Noto arrested LEE Oswald and Celso Hernandez on Breakwater Road on the Lakefront in New Orleans. In April, 1962, while Harvey Oswald was still in Russia, LEE Oswald visited the Texas Employment Commission in Ft. Worth and filled out form E-40a, Aptitude Profile Test (APT) B-1002 and the Occupational Aptitude Pattern test [WC XIX, p 491] (John Armstrong -Harvey and Lee Homepage)
Despite Armstrong's Harvey and Lee hypothesis, many of these things do not support his later speculation. The Hoover document only proved suspicion of a possible imposter; it does not prove the complex Lee and Harvey contention. Oswald is abroad while another person named Lee Oswald is recorded in the United States. This is not conclusive proof of Armstrong's contentions. If someone named Lee Oswald was arrested or taking a test, it only supports a possible imposter or a man with the same name. It does not verify a more vastly complex hypothesis.
"There is no doubt that Hoover knew about a LEE Harvey Oswald in the United States while Lee HARVEY Oswald was in the Soviet Union. Hoover's knowledge of two Oswalds became clear the day after the assassination of President Kennedy. Hoover sent agents to Stripling Junior High in Ft. Worth to confiscate HARVEY Oswald's school records. FBI agents were sent to the Pfisterer Dental Laboratory, Gerard Tujague Company, J.R. Michaels, and Dolly Shoe in New Orleans to confiscate all of HARVEY Oswald's employment records. These documents, and others like them, comprised much of the evidence that two young men shared the identity of Lee Harvey Oswald. Most of these documents were never given to the WC and disappeared. And documents that were given to the WC by the FBI were photographs (not originals) and many had been altered or fabricated. In May 1999, Mr. Armstrong found a document at the National Archives indicating the FBI had a procedure in place which routinely allowed the alteration of testimony of its own agents before the Warren Commission, sometimes over the objections of staff attorneys. The document indicated that a procedure was set up to handle these objections and to persuade the staff to go along with the alterations." (John Armstrong - Harvey and Lee Homepage)
Unless primary official evidence offers supported specific details of the Harvey and Lee hypothesis, there is every doubt that Hoover knew of such a plan. Hoover repeatedly ignored the law when he wished, that is true. Subsequent official investigations determined the Bureau conducted a flawed, adversarial, and incompetent investigation. However, these claims do not prove the primary contention of two men sharing the same identity in a long-term intelligence program.
I support a feasible conspiracy possibly occurred. Yet it was not a vast conspiracy that relied on too many connected personalities of no importance. A successful conspiracy would converge on the target and then vanish with as little attention and direct evidentiary traces as possible. Hundreds of pieces of primary evidence support a feasible conspiracy. Yet the vast majority does not prove a large network utilized the elaborate plot Armstrong contends. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sincerely,
C. A. A. Savastano
tpaak.com
facebook/NeapMG
neamg.com
[i] Fred Litwin, "A Conspiracy Too Big? Intellectual Dishonesty in the JFK Assassination" , 1994-1995, mcadams.posc.mu.edu
[ii] Hearings of the Pres. Com. Vol. XVI, Ex. 237, Photograph of unidentified man, p.638.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Central Intelligence Agency File, Memorandum: Complete Recheck Photos All Visitors to Cuban EMB Aug thru first half Nov against good press photos shows no evidence Oswald visit, November 23, NARA ID: 104-10015-10336
[v] CIA File, Memorandum: Contact of Lee Oswald with a member of Soviet KGB Assassination Department, November 23, 1963, National Archives and Records Administration Identification Number: 104-10436-10025.
[vi] House Select Committee Staff Report, Report on Lee Harvey Oswald's Trip to Mexico City, pp. 160-17, NARA ID: 108-101110-10484. (aka the Lopez Report)
[vii] Ibid, p. 91.
[viii] Hearings of the President's Commission, Volume XXV, Commission Exhibit 2564- State Department letter to the Commission forwarding letter from Cuban Embassy..." pp. 813-14.
[ix] Senate Select Comm. on Intelligence Activities Report, Bk.5, Part I, Performance of the Intelligence Agencies, Summary and Findings, p. 6.
[x] John Armstrong, "Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong's Documented History of the CIA's "Oswald Project", December 12, 2013, harveyandlee.net
[xi] White Pages phone number search for L. Oswald and Harvey Oswald, whitepages.com
[xii] John Armstrong, "The Early Lives of Harvey and Lee", n.d., harveyandlee.net
Critical Argument 1: "A Conspiracy too big? Intellectual dishonesty in the JFK assassination", Mexico City and the Oswald Impostor by Fred Litwin.
"When the CIA erroneously released photos taken at the Soviet embassy in Mexico City that was obviously not Oswald, it was seized upon as evidence of an Oswald impostor. Yet, now there is direct evidence from three Soviet embassy employees (including the infamous Kostikov) that Oswald was indeed at the embassy. Peter Dale Scott, one of the more respected critics, spent time with Nechiporenko (one of the employees) and came away impressed with his story. Paul Hoch feels that "the impostor hypothesis gets more attention than other aspects of the Mexico puzzle for non-evidentiary reasons -- that is, as historical baggage which we picked up when we had much less information." As time passed, it became very unlikely that this man was an Oswald impostor -- for one thing, he was photographed again when Oswald was supposed to be in the U.S. -- and he does not fit the description given by Sylvia Duran, now the leading impostor witness. In other words, if we first came to the Mexican evidence now, we might not find an impostor such an appealing explanation of the confusion." [i]
("A Conspiracy too big?..." by Fred Litwin)
Rebuttal 1:
Fred Litwin's first statement is correct. The photo release was a Central Intelligence Agency error. The photograph is not Lee Harvey Oswald, and many did seize upon it as singular proof of a Conspiracy. [ii] Yet this photographic claim is not conclusive. For the picture to be relevant clear instances of primary evidence, must support or dispel it.
Yet Litwin does not consider all the evidence in doing so. He states a few Soviet witnesses to support that Oswald was present in Mexico City. He cites Oswald did visit the Soviet and Cuban Embassy. Is he relying upon photographic evidence or the tape recordings of the Oswald phone calls? No.
After the Agency rechecked their files, the repeated photographs of a person supposedly identifying himself as "Oswald" were not Lee Harvey Oswald.[iii] The Agency had no photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. [iv] "Complete Recheck Photos all visitors to Cuban EMB August thru first half NOV against good press photos shows no evidence Oswald visit. Similar blank against all SOVEMB photos from 1 Sept. Note only visit we know he made was Cuban Embassy 28 Sept, Saturday on which Emb closed and we have not had coverage..."So no photographs existed except of others possibly claiming to be Oswald.
Additionally, the taped calls from Oswald were allegedly erased. They existed as classified transcripts complied before outside officials verified the tapes. Despite these facts, the Agency goes on to claim that erased phone calls and hidden transcripts prove Oswald's appearances. The official story assumes these claims are facts.[v]
The Agency also did not report the information in a timely manner. CIA officers gave conflicting and misleading statements regarding this period. They often made mistakes and offered discredited explanations that later investigations disproved.[vi] A further problem is the House Select Committee found that "testimony from knowledgeable people that it would have been unlikely the photo surveillance would have missed someone (Lee Harvey Oswald) it had at least five chances of recording, and reports that such a photo did, in fact exist..."[vii] However, the photograph offered was not Lee Harvey Oswald.
Litwin then references Paul Hoch who "feels" the Imposter hypothesis is based on reasons that do not relate to evidence. He states that it is not due to evidence but historical baggage. Mr. Hoch's speculations are unsupported by anything more than instinct and feelings. They do not support the claim made by Litwin with primary evidence.
Litwin then goes on to list the conflicting details within some witness testimony and the recorded Agency documents. I would agree many repeated discrepancies exist. However, if sufficient evidence supports a contending theory it should be considered. I would not state Lee Harvey Oswald was never in Mexico City, yet little available primary evidence supports it.[viii]
Other examples of primary evidence and official findings support unknown men possibly attempted to assume Oswald's identity. Some have made claims of Oswald twins, doppelgangers, and even more unlikely scenarios. However, not every idea associated with a possible imposter is unfeasible. All the evidence must be considered.
The Senate Church Committee states “There is no indication that any of the FBI agents assigned to the Oswald case were ever warned that an imposter might attempt to assume Oswald’s identity.” Commenting on the Central Intelligence Agency, the Committee said, “…the CIA inquiry was deficient on the specific question of the significance of Oswald’s contacts”, “This evidence indicates that the investigation of the assassination was deficient, and that the facts which might have substantially affected the course of the investigation were not provided to the Warren Commission". These included Mafia and Intelligence community assets.[ix]
Whether the Imposter hypothesis is "appealing" or not, we should follow the evidence and it will determine the feasibility of any claim. To dismiss primary evidence without overwhelming proof to contend the hypothesis is not inquiry. It is a commitment to deny evidence that contends your ideas. We need unbiased inquiry to resolve this matter and separate facts from opinions.
Advocate Argument 1:
"JFK researcher John Armstrong has shown the Warren Commission combined the biographies of two different people to arrive at the classic legend of Lee Harvey Oswald. A Russian speaking youth, possibly of Hungarian parents, was brought to the U.S. following World War II and given the name HARVEY Oswald. HARVEY was of small stature, quiet, slightly malnourished, and lived with a short, heavy-set Marguerite Oswald impostor who never smiled. New Orleans born LEE Oswald was tall, husky, and athletic. As a youth LEE lived with half-brother John Pic, brother Robert Oswald, and his tall, nice-looking mother, Marguerite Claverie Oswald. A program created by US intelligence merged the identities of Russian-speaking HARVEY and American-born LEE Oswald. The result, ten years later, was that young Russian-speaking HARVEY had an American background and birth certificate. HARVEY was an ideal candidate to “defect” to the Soviet Union and work as an undercover agent who secretly understood Russian. HARVEY “defected” and two years later returned to America with a Russian wife and child. A year later this former “defector” was handing out literature in support of Castro and Cuba. Unknown to HARVEY, he had become the ideal candidate to frame for the assassination of President Kennedy. And also unknown to HARVEY were the activities of LEE Oswald in the summer and fall of 1963, when LEE was impersonating HARVEY and helping to set up HARVEY as the accused assassin of President Kennedy." (John Armstrong - Harvey and Lee Homepage)
Armstrong has implied, not shown, that two men were using the same identity. He states, "A Russian speaking youth, possibly of Hungarian parents, was brought to the U.S. following World War II and given the name HARVEY Oswald. HARVEY was of small stature, quiet, slightly malnourished, and lived with a short, heavy-set Marguerite Oswald impostor who never smiled."
The first portion is speculation. Armstrong suggests a Russian speaking youth, "possibly of Hungarian parents was brought to the U.S. and given the name Harvey Oswald." Yet this claim is insufficient without primary evidence of these actions in detail or people involved. Much of Armstrong's accurate primary evidence is lost to the overriding contention of two actual men named Oswald.
Armstrong's idea requires further two unproven long-term imposters (Harvey and Marguerite) necessary to secure the hypothesis. I have no doubt Intelligence programs still use imposters and decoy agents. Yet there is no substantial amount of primary evidence supporting two different doppelganger Oswald's, with two different mothers. This improbable elaborate plan allegedly spans over a decade.[x] Yet evidence to prove this extraordinary claim is not sufficiently offered.
Armstrong's main contention remains merely supported by speculation and leaps of faith. He begins using examples of Central Intelligence Agency operations that relocated Soviet exiles. He then offers covert operations included anti Communist refugees, this as well is feasible. Armstrong states some are taught English, and then he diverges from the seemingly factual into speculation.
"A young boy, later given the name "HARVEY Oswald" may have been among these Eastern European refugees and, along with his caretaker (a woman who was given the name "Marguerite Oswald"), may have been subjects of a CIA related file." May have and possibly do not substantiate this idea. They attempt to explain a huge portion of time with speculation. Much is also made of photographic claims despite no independent testing by an independent review panel using modern technology.
Armstrong states that a Lee Oswald was living in one city and a Harvey Oswald was living in another. This merely demonstrates two men with the same last name are concurrently living in different cities. A brief search of current phone records state over twenty instances of L. Oswald in various locations worldwide. They also reveal four men named Harvey Oswald in the United States.[xi] Yet these facts are not conclusive proof. They offer that multiple people have and will share the same last name, or even the same name. Both could occur without nefarious context.
Armstrong's unfeasible plot includes a complicit Marguerite Oswald and her doppelganger being in contact. It requires too many components and opportunities for discovery. Armstrong then refers to an adjournment called by Allen Dulles during the testimony of Robert Oswald to the Warren Commission. Armstrong cites the adjournment as proof that Dulles "had intimate detailed knowledge of Harvey and Lee's backgrounds." I agree that Allen Dulles had possible connections to the suppression of evidence based on official investigations. However, no single adjournment is a sign of his knowledge, nor complicity in the Harvey and Lee hypothesis. [xii]
Armstrong's contention relies on much later supporting recollections and photographic claims. Portions of the official record are contradictory and likely faced alteration in some instances. Yet the seizure and alteration of Oswald's school records, does not support these extraordinary claims. Altered records do not prove two nearly identical men, lived two different intersecting lives. It proves that records were allegedly changed; the purpose of such changes is the question that remains.
The hypothesis states just before the assassination of President Kennedy, Harvey was on the Sixth floor of the Schoolbook Depository. Simultaneously, Lee was four floors down in the lunchroom. This in my view is nearly impossible, with over seventy people in the Depository; no one observed Oswald and doppelganger near each other? Armstrong then asserts the combined actions of both support additionally unproven claims made by Roger Craig. The true Oswald supports the official version of the lunchroom encounter. It further concludes while Harvey was in jail, a witness views Lee driving in Fort Worth.
These ideas are based on rampant speculation. The Bureau, Agency, and some other official groups committed grievous errors, intentionally suppressed evidence, and wantonly deceived investigators. Yet these actions do not prove Armstrong's main contention of two men living the same life. We should not attribute nefarious action to what in most instances were incompetence and inaction. Armstrong further asserts the Warren Commission combined two different biographies to attribute guilt to a single man.
In January 1960, five months after Harvey Oswald “defected” to the Soviet Union, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover wrote a memo stating that someone was using Lee Harvey Oswald's birth certificate... On March 31, 1961, a memo was sent from the passport office to John White, an official at the consular section of the State Department, reiterating the concern about two Oswalds originally expressed by Hoover nine months earlier. In the fall of 1961, while Harvey Oswald was still in Russia, Police Officer Charles Noto arrested LEE Oswald and Celso Hernandez on Breakwater Road on the Lakefront in New Orleans. In April, 1962, while Harvey Oswald was still in Russia, LEE Oswald visited the Texas Employment Commission in Ft. Worth and filled out form E-40a, Aptitude Profile Test (APT) B-1002 and the Occupational Aptitude Pattern test [WC XIX, p 491] (John Armstrong -Harvey and Lee Homepage)
Despite Armstrong's Harvey and Lee hypothesis, many of these things do not support his later speculation. The Hoover document only proved suspicion of a possible imposter; it does not prove the complex Lee and Harvey contention. Oswald is abroad while another person named Lee Oswald is recorded in the United States. This is not conclusive proof of Armstrong's contentions. If someone named Lee Oswald was arrested or taking a test, it only supports a possible imposter or a man with the same name. It does not verify a more vastly complex hypothesis.
"There is no doubt that Hoover knew about a LEE Harvey Oswald in the United States while Lee HARVEY Oswald was in the Soviet Union. Hoover's knowledge of two Oswalds became clear the day after the assassination of President Kennedy. Hoover sent agents to Stripling Junior High in Ft. Worth to confiscate HARVEY Oswald's school records. FBI agents were sent to the Pfisterer Dental Laboratory, Gerard Tujague Company, J.R. Michaels, and Dolly Shoe in New Orleans to confiscate all of HARVEY Oswald's employment records. These documents, and others like them, comprised much of the evidence that two young men shared the identity of Lee Harvey Oswald. Most of these documents were never given to the WC and disappeared. And documents that were given to the WC by the FBI were photographs (not originals) and many had been altered or fabricated. In May 1999, Mr. Armstrong found a document at the National Archives indicating the FBI had a procedure in place which routinely allowed the alteration of testimony of its own agents before the Warren Commission, sometimes over the objections of staff attorneys. The document indicated that a procedure was set up to handle these objections and to persuade the staff to go along with the alterations." (John Armstrong - Harvey and Lee Homepage)
Unless primary official evidence offers supported specific details of the Harvey and Lee hypothesis, there is every doubt that Hoover knew of such a plan. Hoover repeatedly ignored the law when he wished, that is true. Subsequent official investigations determined the Bureau conducted a flawed, adversarial, and incompetent investigation. However, these claims do not prove the primary contention of two men sharing the same identity in a long-term intelligence program.
I support a feasible conspiracy possibly occurred. Yet it was not a vast conspiracy that relied on too many connected personalities of no importance. A successful conspiracy would converge on the target and then vanish with as little attention and direct evidentiary traces as possible. Hundreds of pieces of primary evidence support a feasible conspiracy. Yet the vast majority does not prove a large network utilized the elaborate plot Armstrong contends. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sincerely,
C. A. A. Savastano
tpaak.com
facebook/NeapMG
neamg.com
[i] Fred Litwin, "A Conspiracy Too Big? Intellectual Dishonesty in the JFK Assassination" , 1994-1995, mcadams.posc.mu.edu
[ii] Hearings of the Pres. Com. Vol. XVI, Ex. 237, Photograph of unidentified man, p.638.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Central Intelligence Agency File, Memorandum: Complete Recheck Photos All Visitors to Cuban EMB Aug thru first half Nov against good press photos shows no evidence Oswald visit, November 23, NARA ID: 104-10015-10336
[v] CIA File, Memorandum: Contact of Lee Oswald with a member of Soviet KGB Assassination Department, November 23, 1963, National Archives and Records Administration Identification Number: 104-10436-10025.
[vi] House Select Committee Staff Report, Report on Lee Harvey Oswald's Trip to Mexico City, pp. 160-17, NARA ID: 108-101110-10484. (aka the Lopez Report)
[vii] Ibid, p. 91.
[viii] Hearings of the President's Commission, Volume XXV, Commission Exhibit 2564- State Department letter to the Commission forwarding letter from Cuban Embassy..." pp. 813-14.
[ix] Senate Select Comm. on Intelligence Activities Report, Bk.5, Part I, Performance of the Intelligence Agencies, Summary and Findings, p. 6.
[x] John Armstrong, "Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong's Documented History of the CIA's "Oswald Project", December 12, 2013, harveyandlee.net
[xi] White Pages phone number search for L. Oswald and Harvey Oswald, whitepages.com
[xii] John Armstrong, "The Early Lives of Harvey and Lee", n.d., harveyandlee.net
- GuestGuest
Re: The Mexico City Files: Criticism and Advocacy
Sun 02 Feb 2014, 3:32 pm
Well written and researched Carmine, as we have come to expect of you.
I have a question. Is it possible that at one point the CIA (or rogue elements of it) actually planned for a conspiracy involving Oswald and Cuban plotters to be "discovered", and that his trip to the embassy in Mexico City, whether real or made up, was part of that plan? Were the photos of an Oswald "impostor" really meant to lead the WC down a path where no conspiracy existed, once it was decided to go with the plan of Oswald acting alone? It almost seems there was a brief period when it might have gone either way, and plans were drawn up and dropped every ten minutes.
I have a question. Is it possible that at one point the CIA (or rogue elements of it) actually planned for a conspiracy involving Oswald and Cuban plotters to be "discovered", and that his trip to the embassy in Mexico City, whether real or made up, was part of that plan? Were the photos of an Oswald "impostor" really meant to lead the WC down a path where no conspiracy existed, once it was decided to go with the plan of Oswald acting alone? It almost seems there was a brief period when it might have gone either way, and plans were drawn up and dropped every ten minutes.
Martin Hay- Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22
Re: The Mexico City Files: Criticism and Advocacy
Sun 02 Feb 2014, 6:55 pm
Traveller11 wrote:Well written and researched Carmine, as we have come to expect of you.
I have a question. Is it possible that at one point the CIA (or rogue elements of it) actually planned for a conspiracy involving Oswald and Cuban plotters to be "discovered", and that his trip to the embassy in Mexico City, whether real or made up, was part of that plan? Were the photos of an Oswald "impostor" really meant to lead the WC down a path where no conspiracy existed, once it was decided to go with the plan of Oswald acting alone? It almost seems there was a brief period when it might have gone either way, and plans were drawn up and dropped every ten minutes.
That's what most informed people believe, Robert.
The whole idea of the Mexico City charade was to lay the blame for the assassination at Castro's door. As I wrote in my recent review of Howard Willens's book:
The echoes of gunfire in Dealey Plaza had barely stopped ringing when the CIA began a campaign to lay the blame for the assassination at Castro's feet through the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE) – an anti-Castro Cuban exile group the Agency funded. According to journalist Jefferson Morley, "the DRE was perhaps the single biggest and most active organization opposing Fidel Castro's regime." CIA veteran George Joannides "was giving the leaders of the group up to $25,000 a month in cash for what he described as 'intelligence collection' and 'propaganda.'" (Morley, The Man Who Didn't Talk and Other Tales from the New Kennedy Assassination Files.) The DRE was known to have had contact with Oswald during the summer of 1963. Within hours of his arrest on November 22, a representative of the group telephoned Clair Booth Luce (wife of TIME magazine publisher, Henry Luce), to tell her that Oswald was part of a hit team organized by Castro. The DRE then assembled a package for the media which included photographs of Oswald and Castro under the heading "Presumed Assassins." Thus, as Mark Lane noted, "it was the CIA and Joannides that paid for, organized and published the very first conspiracy theory about the assassination" (Lane, Last Word, p. 234).
Having planted a seed in the press, the CIA turned its attention to the White House. On Saturday, November 23, LBJ met twice with CIA director John McCone who briefed him about Oswald's alleged visit to Mexico City two months earlier. Based on information sent to headquarters by the CIA's Mexico City station, McCone reported that Oswald had been in contact with Soviet consular Valery Kostikov, whom, it was alleged, was an expert in assassinations. Shaking Johnson up some more, the CIA followed this up on Monday, November 25, with a cablegram from Mexico City Station Chief Winston Scott, who claimed to have uncovered evidence that Castro, with Soviet support, had paid Oswald to kill Kennedy. (McKnight, p. 24 & 66-67) The effect these stories from the CIA had on Johnson cannot be overstated since he was already of a paranoid disposition. According to Kennedy military aide, General Godfrey McHugh, LBJ was already crying about a plot to "get us all" before Air Force One had even left Dallas on the afternoon of the assassination. And there seems little doubt that Johnson was convinced by the CIA reports, because years later, he said to ABC News anchorman Thomas K. Smith, "I'll tell you something that will rock you. Kennedy was trying to get to Castro, but Castro got to him first." (Shenon, p. 526)
When we take all of the information above and put it together, it paints a fairly clear picture. The CIA fed false information to the press and the White House, blaming Castro for the assassination. A terrified Johnson balked at the idea of retaliation that might lead to a nuclear confrontation with the Soviets and so appointed Earl Warren to chair a Commission that would ensure the blame rested squarely on Oswald's shoulders. Warren, in turn, tacitly explained to the Commission's staff at its very first meeting the perceived severity of the situation and just what was expected of them. Consequently, as McKnight puts it, "the Warren Commission went through the motions of an investigation that was little more than an improvised exercise in public relations." (McKnight, p. 361) Little wonder, then, that Willens leaves all of these details out of his book.
Albert Rossi- Posts : 417
Join date : 2013-08-29
Age : 69
Location : Naperville, IL USA
Re: The Mexico City Files: Criticism and Advocacy
Mon 03 Feb 2014, 4:07 am
To understand Mexico City, which more and more I have come to believe is the key to the Dallas plot, you have to look at the entire picture of what is going on in September 1963, both at Mexico City station AND in Langley. There is good reason to believe that the Kostikov-Cuba story was prepared and then buried in order for it to explode on 11/22, and that the principal intention here was to force a National Security shutdown of the investigation via threat of nuclear war. Among the existing treatments of this episode, two basic ways of reading this have come to the fore. Peter Dale Scott and Bill Simpich after him see it in terms of a counterintelligence operation using Oswald being co-opted (via an imposter and phoneyed surveillance intercepts). This was actually an idea John Newman had in his 1995 edition of Oswald and the CIA as well, but Newman moved on in his 2008 epilogue to propose a different hypothesis: that the counterintelligence operation, purportedly an anti-FPCC campaign in foreign countries, was really a cover operation for the assassination plot itself, the whole thing being controlled out of Angleton's office (there were close connections between CI/SIG and Staff D). I won't try to reproduce here the entirety of the arguments or the various points of evidence used to support them. But it seems extremely likely that one of these two scenarios or some variant thereof was the case (I personally propend toward the latter).
As for John Armstrong's treatment, it is unfortunate that his review of this material, in which there is much of value, gets clouded over by its being hitched onto his main thesis, of which I also am skeptical.
Two other Mexico City treatments I recommend are Destiny Betrayed, chpt. 16, and the excised material from Reclaiming Parkland (Oswald in Mexico, http://feralhouse.com/the-assassinations).
As for John Armstrong's treatment, it is unfortunate that his review of this material, in which there is much of value, gets clouded over by its being hitched onto his main thesis, of which I also am skeptical.
Two other Mexico City treatments I recommend are Destiny Betrayed, chpt. 16, and the excised material from Reclaiming Parkland (Oswald in Mexico, http://feralhouse.com/the-assassinations).
- James DiEugenio
- Posts : 213
Join date : 2013-08-01
Re: The Mexico City Files: Criticism and Advocacy
Mon 03 Feb 2014, 5:45 am
In my opinion, the mystery man photo was not a mistake.
If one carefully reads the Lopez Report, which surprisingly few people have done, it is very hard I think to pass off what Anne Goodpasture did with that photo as an error.
But even if one gives her the benefit of the doubt--which I do not--then its simply not possible to believe that the error could have stood uncorrected for the many months leading up to the publication of the report and volumes.
As Lopez and Hardway note, it is much more likely that Goodpasture's alleged error was deliberate when she found out that there was no picture of Oswald in CIA custody. My view is this was likely deliberate, but meant to be passed off as an error: the implication being the CIA did have a photo all along.
This ploy worked. In Destiny Betrayed, I showed that no early critic seriously questioned whether or not Oswald was in Mexico. When, in fact, from just the material in the volumes, there were indications he was not. It was not until Jim Garrison came along in 1967-68 that anyone began to seriously wonder whether or not Oswald was there. For if he was there, why could the CIA produce no photo of him?
And sorry, but I do not buy the Nechiporenko stuff either. Brian Litman, former ABC producer, is the guy who made that deal for that book. If you have seen this guy speak at the Wecht Conference, or in Dallas this year, he is a Bugliosi/Posner clone.
To me, the fact there is no photo is simply not an easily surmountable lacuna. The whole opening 20 or so pages of the Lopez Report is pretty dull and technical stuff. And it discourages many from reading it. But Ed and Dan are laying the groundwork there. They are describing all the cameras, and types of cameras used in the surveillance of the two consulates. Once that demonstration is over it is very hard to comprehend why there is no photo of Oswald. But further, Phillips understood this was a problem. And he made excuses as to why it did not exist. These ended up being deceptions on his part, just one of several. When people lie under oath, as Phillips did on this point, its usually to cover up something even worse.
If one carefully reads the Lopez Report, which surprisingly few people have done, it is very hard I think to pass off what Anne Goodpasture did with that photo as an error.
But even if one gives her the benefit of the doubt--which I do not--then its simply not possible to believe that the error could have stood uncorrected for the many months leading up to the publication of the report and volumes.
As Lopez and Hardway note, it is much more likely that Goodpasture's alleged error was deliberate when she found out that there was no picture of Oswald in CIA custody. My view is this was likely deliberate, but meant to be passed off as an error: the implication being the CIA did have a photo all along.
This ploy worked. In Destiny Betrayed, I showed that no early critic seriously questioned whether or not Oswald was in Mexico. When, in fact, from just the material in the volumes, there were indications he was not. It was not until Jim Garrison came along in 1967-68 that anyone began to seriously wonder whether or not Oswald was there. For if he was there, why could the CIA produce no photo of him?
And sorry, but I do not buy the Nechiporenko stuff either. Brian Litman, former ABC producer, is the guy who made that deal for that book. If you have seen this guy speak at the Wecht Conference, or in Dallas this year, he is a Bugliosi/Posner clone.
To me, the fact there is no photo is simply not an easily surmountable lacuna. The whole opening 20 or so pages of the Lopez Report is pretty dull and technical stuff. And it discourages many from reading it. But Ed and Dan are laying the groundwork there. They are describing all the cameras, and types of cameras used in the surveillance of the two consulates. Once that demonstration is over it is very hard to comprehend why there is no photo of Oswald. But further, Phillips understood this was a problem. And he made excuses as to why it did not exist. These ended up being deceptions on his part, just one of several. When people lie under oath, as Phillips did on this point, its usually to cover up something even worse.
- Albert Rossi
- Posts : 417
Join date : 2013-08-29
Age : 69
Location : Naperville, IL USA
Re: The Mexico City Files: Criticism and Advocacy
Mon 03 Feb 2014, 7:18 am
Calling the photo a simple error also overlooks the fact that the information sent from the Mexico City desk to FBI, State and Navy on October 10 matched the mystery man photo and the description sent from Mexico City station on 10/9 [APPARENT AGE 35, ATHLETIC BUILD, CIRCA 6 FEET, RECEDING HAIRLINE, BALDING TOP], but not the description, based on Oswald's 201 file, which went back to Mexico City station from Langley on 10/10 [FIVE FEET TEN INCHES, ONE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE POUNDS, LIGHT BROWN WAVY HAIR, BLUE EYES]. In other words, to put it benignly, no effort was taken to "correct" this mistaken identification coming out of Mexico City station when the substance of the cable was relayed to other agencies. On the other hand, what HQ sends back to its own Mexico City station is also misleading, because, despite the corrected physical description, it claims they have no information on Oswald more recent than May 5, 1962. I recall here CIA Officer Jane Roman's 1995 interview with Jeff Morley and John Newman, where she stated, "Yeah, I mean I'm signing off on something that I know isn't true."
- James DiEugenio
- Posts : 213
Join date : 2013-08-01
Re: The Mexico City Files: Criticism and Advocacy
Mon 03 Feb 2014, 7:34 am
That is the other point I made in Destiny Betrayed.
That wrong description does seem to fit the so called Mystery Man photo.
And BTW, its not a mystery either. He is identified in the Lopez Report.
And Dan and Ed make the case that Goodpasture knew who he was before the publication of the Warren Report.
This was just one of her many lies that are exposed in the Lopez Report.
As I said in my Dallas presentation, both her and Phillips were recommended for indictments. Phillips on two counts of perjury. Did the MSM say anything about this during the 50th?
Nope.
The Lopez Report is just a treasure trove of startling information.
That wrong description does seem to fit the so called Mystery Man photo.
And BTW, its not a mystery either. He is identified in the Lopez Report.
And Dan and Ed make the case that Goodpasture knew who he was before the publication of the Warren Report.
This was just one of her many lies that are exposed in the Lopez Report.
As I said in my Dallas presentation, both her and Phillips were recommended for indictments. Phillips on two counts of perjury. Did the MSM say anything about this during the 50th?
Nope.
The Lopez Report is just a treasure trove of startling information.
- Robert Charles-Dunne
- Posts : 107
Join date : 2011-08-10
Re: The Mexico City Files: Criticism and Advocacy
Mon 03 Feb 2014, 7:50 am
James DiEugenio wrote:In my opinion, the mystery man photo was not a mistake.
Irrespective of whether it was Oswald, a photo of somebody had to be floated, if only to scuttle questions that would otherwise be raised by persons familiar with the photo coverage of enemy installations in Mexico City. (Which would include the FBI legate, various DFS personnel, other CIA personnel unwitting of who “Oswald” was.) If the station was going to allege that Oswald entered either the Cuban or Soviet installation, a photo must have been taken. Hence, one was needed, even if it wasn’t of “Oswald.” It was a minimal requirement.
If one carefully reads the Lopez Report, which surprisingly few people have done, it is very hard I think to pass off what Anne Goodpasture did with that photo as an error.
But even if one gives her the benefit of the doubt--which I do not--then its simply not possible to believe that the error could have stood uncorrected for the many months leading up to the publication of the report and volumes.
As Lopez and Hardway note, it is much more likely that Goodpasture's alleged error was deliberate when she found out that there was no picture of Oswald in CIA custody. My view is this was likely deliberate, but meant to be passed off as an error: the implication being the CIA did have a photo all along.
Dick Russell quotes several former MC staffers as saying Scott had a photo of “Oswald” and an acetate recording of “Oswald” speaking, which he kept in his safe. If that was true, one wonders why Scott kept these to himself, particularly as he felt highly burned by depictions of MC station having been negligent in this regard. It’s been speculated that Scott thought of it as some kind of insurance, but against what threat? Are these among the items removed from Scott’s safe immediately after his death by Angleton?
This ploy worked. In Destiny Betrayed, I showed that no early critic seriously questioned whether or not Oswald was in Mexico. When, in fact, from just the material in the volumes, there were indications he was not. It was not until Jim Garrison came along in 1967-68 that anyone began to seriously wonder whether or not Oswald was there. For if he was there, why could the CIA produce no photo of him?
And sorry, but I do not buy the Nechiporenko stuff either. Brian Litman, former ABC producer, is the guy who made that deal for that book. If you have seen this guy speak at the Wecht Conference, or in Dallas this year, he is a Bugliosi/Posner clone.
The Nechiporenko narrative is melodrama that would make Chekhov blush. As you allude to, it was part and parcel of a rear guard action designed to resurrect interest in Oswald’s ties to Communists sponsors. It’s a recurring Agency tic, and every time one of their paid disseminators is proved a liar, they simply find a fresh liar to tell the same spurious tale. They’ve been trying the same losing gambit since they replaced Alvarado with Pedro Gutierrez to serve corked wine from a new bottle in November/December ‘63. The Agency is nothing if not consistent.
To me, the fact there is no photo is simply not an easily surmountable lacuna. The whole opening 20 or so pages of the Lopez Report is pretty dull and technical stuff. And it discourages many from reading it. But Ed and Dan are laying the groundwork there. They are describing all the cameras, and types of cameras used in the surveillance of the two consulates. Once that demonstration is over it is very hard to comprehend why there is no photo of Oswald. But further, Phillips understood this was a problem. And he made excuses as to why it did not exist. These ended up being deceptions on his part, just one of several. When people lie under oath, as Phillips did on this point, its usually to cover up something even worse.
- James DiEugenio
- Posts : 213
Join date : 2013-08-01
Re: The Mexico City Files: Criticism and Advocacy
Mon 03 Feb 2014, 8:01 am
"That would make Chekhov blush."
LOL
LOL
- Albert Rossi
- Posts : 417
Join date : 2013-08-29
Age : 69
Location : Naperville, IL USA
Re: The Mexico City Files: Criticism and Advocacy
Mon 03 Feb 2014, 8:10 am
Double LOL!
- GuestGuest
Re: The Mexico City Files: Criticism and Advocacy
Mon 03 Feb 2014, 9:19 am
Thanks to all for the comments. Thanks to Greg for the compliments.
Indeed Greg, after previously looking through the Lopez Report, and most of the Mexico City documents, I do believe WC Exhibit 237 is feasibly an intentional false trail. One that has convinced many intelligent and well read people. While the gentleman does match all the descriptions and has primary documents to support a visit on Oct 1 the Lopez Report proved it was October 2. The Lopez report states nearly a dozen UAM (Unknown American Males) were photographed at both the Cuban and Soviet Embassies. Additionally we have the Blonde gentleman Duran states she encountered. Then we have the short busy haired man who appears in testimony as well. However the most well known and cited possible impostor is the man in WC exhibit 237.
As some have previously stated, the Agency officers involved in spreading this misinformation was Anne Goodpasture. It may have originated with Winston Scott or even David Atlee Phillips. However, the only reason the man in 237 appears is because someone in the Mexico City station combined the photo with the October 1 transcripts. So the photo and the many documents he appears in are transformed into partial misinformation. However the facts of his repeated visits are true, the Agency tried to protect him in repeated documents sent to Rankin and the Commission. So he was likely an intelligence asset worth protecting. While this trail of misinformation combined with facts is often confusing, it does reveal something I find important.
Consider the related telephone conversation in which Hoover tells Johnson about this impostor based on the incorrect Agency reports. They and other officials continued to suppress the information believing it could be true. Thus, not only did they protect obvious evidentiary defects, but also gave credence to the impostor hypothesis. By trying to hide the facts, the Agency unwittingly convinced their own leaders of a possible conspiracy. Officials further incriminate themselves in seeking to conceal the inconclusive evidence they perceived to be damning.
Indeed Greg, after previously looking through the Lopez Report, and most of the Mexico City documents, I do believe WC Exhibit 237 is feasibly an intentional false trail. One that has convinced many intelligent and well read people. While the gentleman does match all the descriptions and has primary documents to support a visit on Oct 1 the Lopez Report proved it was October 2. The Lopez report states nearly a dozen UAM (Unknown American Males) were photographed at both the Cuban and Soviet Embassies. Additionally we have the Blonde gentleman Duran states she encountered. Then we have the short busy haired man who appears in testimony as well. However the most well known and cited possible impostor is the man in WC exhibit 237.
As some have previously stated, the Agency officers involved in spreading this misinformation was Anne Goodpasture. It may have originated with Winston Scott or even David Atlee Phillips. However, the only reason the man in 237 appears is because someone in the Mexico City station combined the photo with the October 1 transcripts. So the photo and the many documents he appears in are transformed into partial misinformation. However the facts of his repeated visits are true, the Agency tried to protect him in repeated documents sent to Rankin and the Commission. So he was likely an intelligence asset worth protecting. While this trail of misinformation combined with facts is often confusing, it does reveal something I find important.
Consider the related telephone conversation in which Hoover tells Johnson about this impostor based on the incorrect Agency reports. They and other officials continued to suppress the information believing it could be true. Thus, not only did they protect obvious evidentiary defects, but also gave credence to the impostor hypothesis. By trying to hide the facts, the Agency unwittingly convinced their own leaders of a possible conspiracy. Officials further incriminate themselves in seeking to conceal the inconclusive evidence they perceived to be damning.
- Albert Rossi
- Posts : 417
Join date : 2013-08-29
Age : 69
Location : Naperville, IL USA
Re: The Mexico City Files: Criticism and Advocacy
Mon 03 Feb 2014, 10:32 am
For the sake of completeness, any argument about impersonation of course cannot exclude the problem of the tapes of the phone intercepts.
Whatever was going on with the photo that became WCE 237, the issue of how and why the tape of the Oct 1 caller got out is even more murky (the FBI in Dallas reportedly heard it on the evening of 11/22, and Hoover alludes to it in the above-cited phone conversation with LBJ). The voice of someone pretending to be Oswald who obviously isn't the man arrested in Dallas, unlike a photo mismatch, cannot be a simple error of false association. Whether a mistake or not that this tape leaked, the subsequent cover story that was erected -- that it actually had been erased before 11/22 and that only the transcripts existed -- was a forced move.
This does raise a question about what precisely was going through Hoover's and Johnson's mind at that point. I don't think there is any doubt that they both realized that the tape implied an impersonator and that this pointed to a domestic plot. But Johnson acted nevertheless as if the story of Oswald meeting with the KGB, which the impersonated phone call was meant to prove, were true, despite his knowledge to the contrary.
Whatever was going on with the photo that became WCE 237, the issue of how and why the tape of the Oct 1 caller got out is even more murky (the FBI in Dallas reportedly heard it on the evening of 11/22, and Hoover alludes to it in the above-cited phone conversation with LBJ). The voice of someone pretending to be Oswald who obviously isn't the man arrested in Dallas, unlike a photo mismatch, cannot be a simple error of false association. Whether a mistake or not that this tape leaked, the subsequent cover story that was erected -- that it actually had been erased before 11/22 and that only the transcripts existed -- was a forced move.
This does raise a question about what precisely was going through Hoover's and Johnson's mind at that point. I don't think there is any doubt that they both realized that the tape implied an impersonator and that this pointed to a domestic plot. But Johnson acted nevertheless as if the story of Oswald meeting with the KGB, which the impersonated phone call was meant to prove, were true, despite his knowledge to the contrary.
- GuestGuest
Re: The Mexico City Files: Criticism and Advocacy
Mon 03 Feb 2014, 12:29 pm
Agreed Albert. The original missing intercepts, the additional missing message and transcript from the Lopez report, and the HSCA found the first Oswald message was destroyed 4 days after it was received, instead of the standard two week period. The improbable chance of Oswald never appearing on a single photograph or a minority of messages essentially meant the Agency has no substantial evidence to support their claims. The lack of physical conformity in some the cited Oswald appearances is also telling. The repeated Agency mistakes in my view additionally offer reasonable doubts. While I know this evidence offers substantial corroboration of suppression and the incompetence or intent of some officials, it is not conclusive yet. We have possible impostors based on some primary evidence and testimony. Despite my rebuttal of Mr. Armstrong's overall thesis of Harvey and Lee, he did some good work regarding the photography and possible impostor identities regarding Mexico City. However without a clear association in the primary evidence I cannot state there was an impostor. A high probability? Most definitely. Yet not a certainty.
- GuestGuest
Mexico City Files
Fri 14 Feb 2014, 6:38 pm
from: david t. krall
from my research it is my opinion that at some point early on, a specific & specialized counter-intelligence operation (CIA/ONI, Army Intel, AirForce Intell, etc...)
was created using several individuals with similar appearance/background to infiltrate left and right wing groups, and was a continuation and/or spin-off of the "false defector" op/program...and was subsequently incorporated into the assassination plot...
either LHO was in Mexico City with another (obviously unknown to him{we assume})
intell agent or was somewhere else is quite possible based on the documented "trail".
either way, it appears to be an "inveretd" operation that served a deeper agenda
than to just gather info and penetrate Cuban and Soviet circles in Mexico City...
but to attempt to lay the ground work and foundation for final chapter of the
false legend that would become known as LEE HARVEY OSWALD , as that applied
to any intel agent, The REAL LHO, or any agent using the assigned legend/cover/ID
known as Lee Harvey Oswald...The false defector... a false defector became the
the false shooter aka the fall-guy...
from my research it is my opinion that at some point early on, a specific & specialized counter-intelligence operation (CIA/ONI, Army Intel, AirForce Intell, etc...)
was created using several individuals with similar appearance/background to infiltrate left and right wing groups, and was a continuation and/or spin-off of the "false defector" op/program...and was subsequently incorporated into the assassination plot...
either LHO was in Mexico City with another (obviously unknown to him{we assume})
intell agent or was somewhere else is quite possible based on the documented "trail".
either way, it appears to be an "inveretd" operation that served a deeper agenda
than to just gather info and penetrate Cuban and Soviet circles in Mexico City...
but to attempt to lay the ground work and foundation for final chapter of the
false legend that would become known as LEE HARVEY OSWALD , as that applied
to any intel agent, The REAL LHO, or any agent using the assigned legend/cover/ID
known as Lee Harvey Oswald...The false defector... a false defector became the
the false shooter aka the fall-guy...
- GuestGuest
Mexico City Files
Fri 14 Feb 2014, 6:39 pm
from: david t. krall
from my research it is my opinion that at some point early on, a specific & specialized counter-intelligence operation (CIA/ONI, Army Intel, AirForce Intell, etc...)
was created using several individuals with similar appearance/background to infiltrate left and right wing groups, and was a continuation and/or spin-off of the "false defector" op/program...and was subsequently incorporated into the assassination plot...
either LHO was in Mexico City with another (obviously unknown to him{we assume})
intell agent or was somewhere else is quite possible based on the documented "trail".
either way, it appears to be an "inveretd" operation that served a deeper agenda
than to just gather info and penetrate Cuban and Soviet circles in Mexico City...
but to attempt to lay the ground work and foundation for final chapter of the
false legend that would become known as LEE HARVEY OSWALD , as that applied
to any intel agent, The REAL LHO, or any agent using the assigned legend/cover/ID
known as Lee Harvey Oswald...The false defector... a false defector became the
the false shooter aka the fall-guy...
from my research it is my opinion that at some point early on, a specific & specialized counter-intelligence operation (CIA/ONI, Army Intel, AirForce Intell, etc...)
was created using several individuals with similar appearance/background to infiltrate left and right wing groups, and was a continuation and/or spin-off of the "false defector" op/program...and was subsequently incorporated into the assassination plot...
either LHO was in Mexico City with another (obviously unknown to him{we assume})
intell agent or was somewhere else is quite possible based on the documented "trail".
either way, it appears to be an "inveretd" operation that served a deeper agenda
than to just gather info and penetrate Cuban and Soviet circles in Mexico City...
but to attempt to lay the ground work and foundation for final chapter of the
false legend that would become known as LEE HARVEY OSWALD , as that applied
to any intel agent, The REAL LHO, or any agent using the assigned legend/cover/ID
known as Lee Harvey Oswald...The false defector... a false defector became the
the false shooter aka the fall-guy...
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum