Oswald In Mexico City (From The Lips Of Marina)
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/review/R1S95P93PLA7OF/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=9&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx2KL5NPERE2QYI#Mx2KL5NPERE2QYI
ON JANUARY 22, 2008, A CONSPIRACY THEORIST NAMED RANDALL SELLERS SAID:
>>> "It's not that Warren Commission evidence lacks credibility across the board; it's just that, between their CIA man (Dulles, then unemployed and hence available for more sessions than most of the others) and their FBI man (Ford), their investigation was steered around the trouble spots, and when the dodgy evidence for Oswald in Mexico City came up (audio tape, photo), both had already been determined by the FBI to NOT be Oswald, so when the WC asked to see the audio tape, the CIA said it had been destroyed (confirmed lie), and the WC accepted an affadavit on behalf of the photo, which they never saw. But the Warren Report would have the reader believe that this stuff established Oswald in Mexico City. As I said before, the Warren case would not convince a real jury, and in fact did not convince the American people." <<<
DVP THEN SAID:
Now is a good time to repeat the previously-mentioned motto of a CTer
the likes of Randall Sellers:
Accuse Now; Prove Never!
Randall can't provide a stitch of proof for the anti-WC accusations he
directly implies above....but that won't stop him from writing them
out on a public forum here at Amazon.com.
Randall surely also knows that Lee Harvey Oswald's trip to Mexico City
in late September of 1963 is WELL DOCUMENTED from start to finish,
with a paper trail of hotel records (with Oswald's OWN SIGNATURE ON
THEM) and eyewitnesses who saw and TALKED TO Oswald on the bus on the
way down to Mexico City.
The photographs and taped recordings of Oswald at the Embassies aren't
even needed to establish the provable and undeniable FACT that Lee
Harvey Oswald travelled to Mexico City in September of '63.
Oswald's own wife, Marina, also provided a large wealth of testimony
in front of the Warren Commission, detailing her husband's trip to
Mexico (at some length too) and about how she and Lee DISCUSSED IT
TOGETHER after his return to Texas in early October. Via Marina's
words ALONE, we can know that Lee Oswald went to Mexico City in late
September '63.*
* = Of course, since the testimony in question was being conducted by
the Warren Commission, an organization that Randall hates and
distrusts so much, I suppose it's useless and worthless testimony as
far as Mr. Sellers is concerned.
That's another typical CTer ploy -- distrust EVERYONE in "officialdom"
for the most part. Unless, of course, it suits the "pro-conspiracy"
needs of a particular theorist, then that CTer will almost certainly
latch onto those parts of the Government's story in a heartbeat.
Anyway, a CTer's distrust of all Government entities notwithstanding,
here's a hefty portion of what Marina Oswald had to say with respect
to LHO's 1963 Mexico City excursion (via Marina's WC session on
February 3, 1964):
MARINA OSWALD -- "I wrote a letter to Mrs. Paine telling her that Lee
was out of work, and they invited me to come and stay with her. And
when I left her, I knew that Lee would go to Mexico City. But, of
course, I didn't tell Mrs. Paine about it."
J. LEE RANKIN -- "Had he discussed with you the idea of going to
Mexico City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes."
MR. RANKIN -- "When did he first discuss that?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "I think it was in August."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you why he wanted to go to Mexico City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "From Mexico City he wanted to go to Cuba--perhaps
through the Russian Embassy in Mexico somehow he would be able to get
to Cuba."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he say anything about going to Russia by way of
Cuba?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "I know that he said that in the embassy. But he only
said so. I know that he had no intention of going to Russia then."
MR. RANKIN -- "How do you know that?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "He told me. I know Lee fairly well--well enough from
that point of view."
[Later....]
MR. RANKIN -- "When your husband talked about going to Mexico City,
did he say where he was going to go there, who he would visit?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes. He said that he would go to the Soviet Embassy
and to the Cuban Embassy and would do everything he could in order to
get to Cuba."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you where he would stay in Mexico City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "In a hotel."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you the name?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "No, he didn't know where he would stop."
MR. RANKIN -- "Was there any discussion about the expense of making
the trip?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes. But we always lived very modestly, and Lee always
had some savings. Therefore, he had the money for it."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he say how much it would cost?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "He had a little over $100 and he said that that would
be sufficient."
[Later....]
MR. RANKIN -- "Do you know how he got to Mexico City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "By bus."
MR. RANKIN -- "And did he return by bus also?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "It seems, yes. Yes, he told me that a round-trip
ticket was cheaper than two one-way tickets."
[Later....]
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you anything about his trip to Mexico
City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, he told me that he had visited the two embassies,
that he had received nothing, that the people who are there are too
much---too bureaucratic. He said that he has spent the time pretty
well. And I had told him that if he doesn't accomplish anything to at
least take a good rest. I was hoping that the climate, if nothing
else, would be beneficial to him."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did you ask him what he did the rest of the time?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, I think he said that he visited a bull fight,
that he spent most of his time in museums, and that he did some
sightseeing in the city."
[Later....]
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you what people he talked to?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "He said that he first visited the Soviet Embassy in
the hope that having been there first this would make it easier for
him at the Cuban Embassy. But there they refused to have anything to
do with him."
MR. RANKIN -- "And what did he say about the visit to the Cuban
Embassy or consulate?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "It was quite without results."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he complain about the consular or any of the
officials of the Cuban Embassy and the way they handled the matter?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, he called them bureaucrats. He said that the
Cubans seemed to have a system similar to the Russians--too much red
tape before you get through there."
[Later....]
MR. RANKIN -- "Mrs. Oswald, you told us about your knowledge about the
trip to Mexico and said that you were under oath and were going to
tell us all about what you knew. Did your husband ever ask you not to
disclose what you knew about the Mexican trip?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes."
MR. RANKIN -- "And when was that?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Before he left. I had remained and he was supposed to
leave on the next day, and he warned me not to tell anyone about it."
MR. RANKIN -- "After he returned to Dallas from his Mexico trip, did
he say anything to you then about not telling he had been to Mexico?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, he asked me whether I had told Ruth about it or
anyone else, and I told him no, and he said that I should keep quiet
about it."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm
==============
In short, the conspiracy theorists who still to this very day think
that Lee Harvey Oswald was not in Mexico City in late September and
early October of 1963 (and think that Oswald was merely being
"impersonated" down in Mexico) are just plain nuts.
It's as simple as that.
WBurg...@aol.com
> www.amazon.com/review/R1S95P93PLA7OF/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?%5Fencodi...
The question is not was he down there.... The question is who
impersonated him on the tape and who is the man in the photo? The
voice impersonation has been pretty well established by people who
have heard the tape... and Morley's book strongly implies these tapes
taken from Win Scott's safe by Angleton were sent to Washinton
following Scott's death.
This impersonation freaked out both Hoover and Johnson. They didn't
know what to make of it and neither does anyone else but it sure
implicates an outside conspiracy.
James K. Olmstead
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dd4e4acf-8899-48ca...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
DVP THEN SAID:
Accuse Now; Prove Never!
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes."
*****This is a key element of the Oswald trip to Mexico conflict. Many WC
supporters indicate that the goal was to go to
Russia via Cuba. However, the one person who knew him best clearly provides
information he had "no intent" of going
to Russia. Oswald's actions with the Cuban Consulte clearly show he never
really wanted to go to Cuba...you don't fight
with the guy in charge if you want them to foot your trip.
These two major considerations, Marina's knowledge and conversations with
Oswald and the testimony of the Cuban's
clearly show that Oswald's trip was NOT for the purposes presented by the
WC.
MR. RANKIN -- "How do you know that?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "He told me. I know Lee fairly well--well enough from
that point of view."
[Later....]
MR. RANKIN -- "When your husband talked about going to Mexico City,
did he say where he was going to go there, who he would visit?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes. He said that he would go to the Soviet Embassy
and to the Cuban Embassy and would do everything he could in order to
get to Cuba."
*********"do everything he could in order to get to Cuba.".........however,
his actions show he did just
the opposite.
jko
Anthony Marsh
> www.amazon.com/review/R1S95P93PLA7OF/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=9&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx2KL5NPERE2QYI#Mx2KL5NPERE2QYI
>
> ON JANUARY 22, 2008, A CONSPIRACY THEORIST NAMED RANDALL SELLERS SAID:
>
>
>>>> "It's not that Warren Commission evidence lacks credibility across the board; it's just that, between their CIA man (Dulles, then unemployed and hence available for more sessions than most of the others) and their FBI man (Ford), their investigation was steered around the trouble spots, and when the dodgy evidence for Oswald in Mexico City came up (audio tape, photo), both had already been determined by the FBI to NOT be Oswald, so when the WC asked to see the audio tape, the CIA said it had been destroyed (confirmed lie), and the WC accepted an affadavit on behalf of the photo, which they never saw. But the Warren Report would have the reader believe that this stuff established Oswald in Mexico City. As I said before, the Warren case would not convince a real jury, and in fact did not convince the American people." <<<
>
>
> DVP THEN SAID:
>
> Now is a good time to repeat the previously-mentioned motto of a CTer
> the likes of Randall Sellers:
>
> Accuse Now; Prove Never!
>
> Randall can't provide a stitch of proof for the anti-WC accusations he
> directly implies above....but that won't stop him from writing them
> out on a public forum here at Amazon.com.
>
All of that has already been proven. Even a WC defender like Belin has
complained about it. But of course the WC defenders here never admit
even the smallest fact.
Your motto is deny, deny, deny.
WBurg...@aol.com
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:dd4e4acf-8899-48ca...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> www.amazon.com/review/R1S95P93PLA7OF/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?%5Fencodi...
No it is not. Who is in the photo and who is on the tapes? And why?
Asked and unanswered.
David Von Pein
>>> "The question is not was he [LHO] down there [in Mexico City in
September 1963]...." <<<
Try telling that to Mark Lane and Jim DiEugenio and a boatload of other
conspiracy theorists who are certain that Lee Harvey Oswald never set foot
in Mexico City in 1963.
But, as I mentioned in my thread-opening post, such conspiracy theorists
are just simply dead-wrong when it comes to this Mexico City issue, as
Marina Oswald's detailed testimony concerning her husband's 1963 trip to
Mexico amply confirms:
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/9e3515e06e4e5f20
>>> "The question is who impersonated him [LHO] on the tape and who is the
man in the photo? .... This [alleged] impersonation freaked out both
Hoover and Johnson. They didn't know what to make of it and neither does
anyone else[,] but it sure implicates an outside conspiracy." <<<
How?
Can anybody PROVE that various people were "plotting" or "conspiring" to
kill President Kennedy down in Mexico City in late 1963? I know that
author Gus Russo thinks he has been able to prove that very thing (via his
2008 book, "Brothers In Arms"). But he hasn't. Because the bottom line is
still this (and always has been this since 1963):
Once the topic of the assassination returns to DALLAS and DEALEY PLAZA and
the ASSASSINATION ITSELF and the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in the case --- there
is NOBODY BUT OSWALD.
Period.
And nobody has ever come close to proving otherwise.
David Von Pein
October 8, 2009
www.Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
=================================================
RE: "BROTHERS IN ARMS: THE KENNEDYS, THE CASTROS, AND THE POLITICS OF
MURDER":
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/5cef6a9933179e8e
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/17699bb27eef2180
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/89beb4a4a515a1e7
=================================================
WBurg...@aol.com
The question still stands. If Oswald acted alone, why impersonate him on
the tape and who is the guy in the photo ID'ed as Oswald? Asked and
unanswered. Why did Hoover tell LBJ we have a photo and a tape but it's
not the same guy? And why did they react the way they did? Because they
believed something with the "lone assassin" theory didn't fit. And it
still doesn't. Period.
David Von Pein
>>> "The question still stands. If Oswald acted alone, why impersonate him on the tape and who is the guy in the photo ID'ed as Oswald?" <<<
Nobody was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City in September
of 1963. To believe there was someone impersonating him is just plain
silly. And if you ask me, such a thing doesn't really even make any
sense from a conspiracy theorist's point-of-view either.
Why?
Because even if somebody had been pretending to be Lee Oswald in
Mexico City, how in the world is such a ruse going to make Oswald
appear guilty of shooting President Kennedy in Dallas two months
later?
If anything, I can make a pretty strong case for such an impersonation
of Oswald actually making the real Oswald look LESS guilty of
murdering the President in November.
Why?
Because if the so-called Oswald "impersonator" was successful in his
quest to get to Cuba (and then, later, to Russia), then how is he
going to be in a position to kill Kennedy in Dallas on November 22nd
(or even earlier than November 22, if the plotters were aiming for a
"hit" on Kennedy in some other city prior to JFK's Dallas trip)?
I guess maybe the plan of the conspirators who cooked up this silly
cloak-and-dagger "Musical Oswalds" game was to have the LHO
impersonator, if he had actually been able to get a visa, stay in Cuba
(and/or Russia) for a short time and then turn around and come back to
Texas (or wherever) to asssassinate the President, and then pin the
whole thing on the real Lee Oswald. Was that the plan?
~shrug~
But, then too, why the hell was all of this mumbo-jumbo necessary at
all? Any plotters who would have been involved in such an elaborate
Mexico City scheme would have already known (or they should have
known, if they had done their homework on their "patsy") that Oswald
could already very easily be labelled "red" (due to the fact that
LHO's attempted defection to the USSR was widely known, via the
various pre-1963 newspaper articles that dealt with Oswald's three-
year stay in Russia).
Plus, weren't the so-called plotters/conspirators also aware of the
fact that the man they would be impersonating had already appeared on
radio and television in New Orleans just one month earlier (in August
1963), spouting off about his pro-Castro and pro-Cuba beliefs?
So, why was there any further need in September of '63 to paint Oswald
as a Commie or a Communist sympathizer or as a Castro supporter? It's
just plain silly, because Oswald HIMSELF had already painted himself
as "red" (or "red" enough anyway) and as an obvious supporter of Fidel
Castro and Castro's revolutionary causes.
Plus, apparently the goofballs who were in charge of this sloppy
"Oswald Impersonation" fiasco south of the border couldn't even manage
to pick out a guy to serve as their Oswald double who looked anything
like the real Lee Harvey Oswald at all.
In a couple of the Embassy photos, we see a man who is much older and
heavier than Oswald, and this is an "imposter" who is believed by many
conspiracy theorists to actually be a man who was supposed to be
impersonating 23-year-old Lee Harvey Oswald.
And then there's the hilarious allegation (via Silvia Duran's supposed
comments) of an Oswald lookalike who measures only about 5-feet, 3-
inches in height! I.E., six inches shorter than Lee Oswald!
You would think that the people setting up Oswald could have found a
"double" who was at least the same general height and looked a tad bit
like the guy he was supposed to be doubling for, wouldn't you?
In the final analysis, the "Oswald Imposter In Mexico City" theories
all fall flat for a variety of reasons. And mainly because they're all
so incredibly lame and stupid-sounding.
>>> "Why did Hoover tell LBJ we have a photo and a tape but it's not the same guy?" <<<
Fully explained by James Hosty at the 1986 TV docu-trial, "On Trial:
Lee Harvey Oswald".
Watch:
www.YouTube.com/watch?v=DLRlFkaErJM
www.RapidShare.com/files/241409125/TESTIMONY_OF_JAMES_HOSTY_AT_1986_TELEVISION_DOCU-TRIAL.wmv
>>> "And why did they react the way they did? Because they believed something with the "lone assassin" theory didn't fit. And it still doesn't. Period." <<<
Tell me this -- Do you really think that it is entirely necessary to
have every last question answered and every last discrepancy ironed
out in order to believe that Oswald acted alone?
Example: the Sylvia Odio incident can never really be fully explained,
but that doesn't mean we should just chuck all the physical and
circumstantial evidence of Lee Oswald's guilt out the nearest window.
Does it?
Jean Davison said it very nicely in her masterpiece of a book,
"Oswald's Game":
"When these men visited [Sylvia] Odio's apartment [in September
1963], Kennedy's trip to Dallas had not even been scheduled, let alone
announced. ... No one on earth could have known that Oswald would
ultimately land a job in a building that would overlook a Kennedy
motorcade. But the frame-up theory's ultimate weakness involves the
critics' conception of Lee Harvey Oswald.
"In every conspiracy book, Oswald is a piece of chaff blown
about by powerful, unseen forces -- he's a dumb and compliant puppet
with no volition of his own. If the man Odio saw was an impostor, how
could the plotters be certain no witnesses would be able to establish
Oswald's presence somewhere else that evening -- unless they ordered
the unsuspecting patsy to stay out of sight?
"And if the real Oswald was used, how did the anti-Castro
plotters get their Marxist enemy to stand at Odio's door to be
introduced as a friend of the Cuban exiles? No one has come up with a
plausible scenario that can answer those questions. ....
"The point to be stressed is this: Sylvia Odio gave testimony of
obvious, even crucial importance, and no one could explain what it
meant." -- Jean Davison; Pages 193-195 of "Oswald's Game" (c.1983)
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>Nobody was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City in September
>of 1963.
Correct, David VP.
Those KGB guys saw Oswald. It was him.
Waving around a revolver ... (or so they say!)
One of them took the bullets out ... and gave them back to him!
Can you imagine!
He said it was just the way things were done in Mexico.
By the way, what was the policy on bringing pistols into and out of
Mexico in 1963?
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
pamela
> www.amazon.com/review/R1S95P93PLA7OF/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?%5Fencodi...
they led to conspiracy. The fact is, we do not know exactly what
happened there and why. Anyone who tried to connect all the dots is
'just plain nuts'.
Anthony Marsh
In fact MC was the very reason that Johnson ordered the cover-up.
Anthony Marsh
The reason is to link Oswald to the Cubans and Soviets so that when the
assassination happens they can cut off an investigation on the grounds
of National Security.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "The question still stands. If Oswald acted alone, why impersonate him on the tape and who is the guy in the photo ID'ed as Oswald?" <<<
>
>
> Nobody was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City in September
> of 1963. To believe there was someone impersonating him is just plain
> silly. And if you ask me, such a thing doesn't really even make any
> sense from a conspiracy theorist's point-of-view either.
>
> Why?
>
> Because even if somebody had been pretending to be Lee Oswald in
> Mexico City, how in the world is such a ruse going to make Oswald
> appear guilty of shooting President Kennedy in Dallas two months
> later?
>
Straw man argument. The intent is to make Oswald look guilty and part of
a plot originating from Cuba. It's called an agent provocateur operation.
> If anything, I can make a pretty strong case for such an impersonation
> of Oswald actually making the real Oswald look LESS guilty of
> murdering the President in November.
>
No.
> Why?
>
> Because if the so-called Oswald "impersonator" was successful in his
> quest to get to Cuba (and then, later, to Russia), then how is he
> going to be in a position to kill Kennedy in Dallas on November 22nd
> (or even earlier than November 22, if the plotters were aiming for a
> "hit" on Kennedy in some other city prior to JFK's Dallas trip)?
>
Getting a visa does not specify WHEN the person will go.
> I guess maybe the plan of the conspirators who cooked up this silly
> cloak-and-dagger "Musical Oswalds" game was to have the LHO
> impersonator, if he had actually been able to get a visa, stay in Cuba
> (and/or Russia) for a short time and then turn around and come back to
> Texas (or wherever) to asssassinate the President, and then pin the
> whole thing on the real Lee Oswald. Was that the plan?
>
Silly straw man arguments are still straw man arguments.
Reasonable doubt.
WBurg...@aol.com
>
The proof of the impersonation is very solid. You can't just wave it away
Dave. It means something. You guys just can't sweep away the holes in your
theory of what happenned. If Oswald was set up and I believe he was none
of your arguments really ultimately matter. That's where we are at.
Period.
David Von Pein
>>> "The reason is to link Oswald to the Cubans and Soviets so that when
the assassination happens they can cut off an investigation on the grounds
of National Security." <<<
And you think that an Oswald impersonator was needed in Mexico City in
Sept. '63 in order to accomplish that "linking", Tony?
Come now, my good man. Oswald's Russian and Cuban/Castro leanings were
known and available to evaluate before LHO's Mexico excursion in
September.
So, WHY the need to "link" Oswald still further to the Cubans and the
Soviets via some silly imposter down in Mexico? Weren't the REAL Oswald's
OWN ACTIONS prior to Sept. '63 good enough to establish that "link"?
If not, why not?
WBurg...@aol.com
Dave you're talking about THEORY. I'm talking about FACTS. And you can do
everything you want to explain them away but the FACTS remain that Oswald
was impersonated twice on a phone call and a guy who was obviously not
Oswald id'ed himself as such at an embassy in Mexico City. The CIA had or
has this evidence, photos and on tape. Hoover knew it. LBJ knew it. Read
the transcript of their conversation on 11.23/63/ First day evidence is
the best and it is this that set the whole "cover up" in motion. What is
so hard about this to understand?
Sandy McCroskey
>
> The proof of the impersonation is very solid. You can't just wave it away
> Dave. It means something. You guys just can't sweep away the holes in your
> theory of what happenned. If Oswald was set up and I believe he was none
> of your arguments really ultimately matter. That's where we are at.
> Period.
"Proof of impersonation"?
We have no way of verifying what Odio remembered about that night, not if
one of her visitors really gave the name "Leon Oswald" and not something
vaguely similar nor if he really was the veritable spitting image of the
man whose face she later saw on television as implicated in the
assassination of the president. How would you propose that we go about
determining the truth here? A polygraph test would only indicate whether
Odio was telling what she remembered, in good faith; unassisted memory
can, and often does, deceive. But why not believe her? (If we don't,
there's nothing at all to talk about here.) Whence the assumption that
"Leon Oswald" wasn't indeed LHO? Vincent Bugliosi doesn't find that notion
at all implausible. (An entire chapter of "Reclaiming History" is devoted
to "The Odio Incident." Check it out!)
/sandy
John McAdams
>On Oct 9, 8:33=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "The reason is to link Oswald to the Cubans and Soviets so that when
>>
>> the assassination happens they can cut off an investigation on the ground=
>s
>> of National Security." <<<
>>
>> And you think that an Oswald impersonator was needed in Mexico City in
>> Sept. '63 in order to accomplish that "linking", Tony?
>>
>> Come now, my good man. Oswald's Russian and Cuban/Castro leanings were
>> known and available to evaluate before LHO's Mexico excursion in
>> September.
>>
>> So, WHY the need to "link" Oswald still further to the Cubans and the
>> Soviets via some silly imposter down in Mexico? Weren't the REAL Oswald's
>> OWN ACTIONS prior to Sept. '63 good enough to establish that "link"?
>>
>> If not, why not?
>
>Dave you're talking about THEORY. I'm talking about FACTS. And you can do
>everything you want to explain them away but the FACTS remain that Oswald
>was impersonated twice on a phone call and a guy who was obviously not
>Oswald id'ed himself as such at an embassy in Mexico City.
Those aren't facts. They aren't even true.
>The CIA had or
>has this evidence, photos and on tape. Hoover knew it. LBJ knew it. Read
>the transcript of their conversation on 11.23/63/
Hoover had misinformation.
>First day evidence is
>the best and it is this that set the whole "cover up" in motion. What is
>so hard about this to understand?
>
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless3.htm
It was really a matter of Belmont misunderstand what Gordon Shanklin
told him over the phone. *Nobody* in the Dallas FBI office said they
had any tapes.
And *everybody* in the Washington FBI had gotten the information,
directly or indirectly, via Belmont.
So plese quite calling things "facts" when they aren't true.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "The reason is to link Oswald to the Cubans and Soviets so that when
> the assassination happens they can cut off an investigation on the grounds
> of National Security." <<<
>
>
> And you think that an Oswald impersonator was needed in Mexico City in
> Sept. '63 in order to accomplish that "linking", Tony?
>
Not exactly my theory. My theory is that the CIA was running
infiltration attempts against the Cubans and Soviets in Mexico.
> Come now, my good man. Oswald's Russian and Cuban/Castro leanings were
> known and available to evaluate before LHO's Mexico excursion in
> September.
>
> So, WHY the need to "link" Oswald still further to the Cubans and the
> Soviets via some silly imposter down in Mexico? Weren't the REAL Oswald's
> OWN ACTIONS prior to Sept. '63 good enough to establish that "link"?
>
Leanings is not the same as threats and meeting with the head of the
assassination squad.
> If not, why not?
>
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
The facts are these. The translators of the tapes said the person on
the tapes spoke lousy Russian and his voice didn't match Oswald's.
There is testimony I have presented before that is a fact that the
tapes in Win Scott's safe were labeled "OSWALD" and sent to Washington
after his death. And we have the photo of the guy who looks like Mike
Ditka. You, John, always make a big thing out of Belmont being
mistaken by what Gordon Shanklin told him over the phone. This, I
assume, leads you to conclude that Hoover and LBJ were freaking out
over bogus information about the mistaken identity of who was on the
tapes and who was in the embassy. We need to be very clear here. The
sources you cite are Shanklin and the FBI and the HSCA investigation
which, I frankly, don't find credible. If Belmont was mistaken, why
wasn't this cleared up pronto rather than used as a reason to freak
out Earl Warren and the implied threat of 40 million dead Americans if
we don't support this memo by the Asst. Attorney General and do all we
can to form a commission to convince everyone Oswald did this alone?
You see what I'm saying? You can't have it both ways. If Belmont's
report is bogus, why the freak out by LBJ and Hoover?
From Morley's book page 208:
QUOTE ON
"Hoover was not the only one who spoke about the voice on the CIA
surveillance tape. Later that morning, Hoover's aid Clyde Belmont spoke to
Gordon Shanklin, special agent in charge in Dallas, who said the same
thing: "Inasmuch as the Dallas agents who listened to the tape of the
conversation allegedly from Oswald from the <deletion> and examined the
photographs of the visitor and were of the opinion that neither the tape
nor the photograph pertained to Oswald," Belmont reported.
Who in the FBI or the CIA actually listened to the tape that Win (Scott)
sent up from Mexico City has never been determined. But the apparent
discrepancy between the voice on the tape and the voice of the real Oswald
raised the disconcerting possibility that "a second person" --- as Hoover
put it -- had used Oswald's name in Mexico City, that Oswald had been
impersonated. At CIA headquarters, one prescient bureaucrat noted in a
memo that if there had been a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, Oswald's life
was in danger.
QUOTE OFF
Shanklin had no explanation for Belmont's memo, according to memos to
Sens. Schweiker and Hart.
Burgundy
John McAdams
The translators (I assume you are talking about Mexico City) would
have spoken fluent Russian, so their opinion about Oswald's "lousy"
Russian doesn't mean it wasn't Oswald.
Give me a cite for "voice didn't match Oswald's" (from the
translators).
But sure to make it about a call that the WC *did* believe came from
Oswald.
There is a call or two that may or may not have come from Oswald.
To make your point, you need to prove that a call in which the caller
*identified* himself as Oswald was not Oswald.
>There is testimony I have presented before that is a fact that the
>tapes in Win Scott's safe were labeled "OSWALD" and sent to Washington
>after his death.
Post a citation, if you don't mind.
And explain how you know these tapes (if they even exist) were the
tapes of Oswald in the embassies, as opposed to (say) Scotts dictation
of his own version of the Oswald affair.
>And we have the photo of the guy who looks like Mike
>Ditka.
So what?
>You, John, always make a big thing out of Belmont being
>mistaken by what Gordon Shanklin told him over the phone. This, I
>assume, leads you to conclude that Hoover and LBJ were freaking out
>over bogus information about the mistaken identity of who was on the
>tapes and who was in the embassy.
I wouldn't say freaking out, since both were sophisticated enough to
know that investigations always have false leads and loose ends.
Something that conspiracists need to learn.
>We need to be very clear here. The
>sources you cite are Shanklin and the FBI and the HSCA investigation
>which, I frankly, don't find credible.
How terribly convenient.
Did you read the HSCA link I posted? Here it is again.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless3.htm
Are you saying that *all* these agents were lying?
>If Belmont was mistaken, why
>wasn't this cleared up pronto rather than used as a reason to freak
>out Earl Warren and the implied threat of 40 million dead
It was. Shanklin told FBI HQ (SOG) about the mix-up late in the day
on November 23.
But bad information, once "out there," often is slow to be corrected.
This silly factoid is still going strong 46 years after the
assassination!
>Americans if
>we don't support this memo by the Asst. Attorney General and do all we
>can to form a commission to convince everyone Oswald did this alone?
>You see what I'm saying? You can't have it both ways. If Belmont's
>report is bogus, why the freak out by LBJ and Hoover?
>
There were not freaked out.
They, like all of official Washington, were worried about charges that
Communists were behind the assassination, for obvious reasons.
And a lot more was cropping up besides the non-existant "tapes."
By the way, if they had been freaking out, it would *still* be the
fault of Belmont!
>From Morley's book page 208:
>
>QUOTE ON
>
> "Hoover was not the only one who spoke about the voice on the CIA
>surveillance tape. Later that morning, Hoover's aid Clyde Belmont
What??!!!
Does he actually say "Clyde Belmont?"
>spoke to
>Gordon Shanklin, special agent in charge in Dallas, who said the same
>thing: "Inasmuch as the Dallas agents who listened to the tape of the
>conversation allegedly from Oswald from the <deletion> and examined the
>photographs of the visitor and were of the opinion that neither the tape
>nor the photograph pertained to Oswald," Belmont reported.
>
Note: "Belmont reported."
>Who in the FBI or the CIA actually listened to the tape that Win (Scott)
>sent up from Mexico City has never been determined.
He never sent one.
This is a classic example of how, if you believe one factoid, you can
get a lot of milage out of "has never been determined" kinds of
statements.
>But the apparent
>discrepancy between the voice on the tape and the voice of the real Oswald
>raised the disconcerting possibility that "a second person" --- as Hoover
>put it -- had used Oswald's name in Mexico City, that Oswald had been
>impersonated. At CIA headquarters, one prescient bureaucrat noted in a
>memo that if there had been a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, Oswald's life
>was in danger.
>
>QUOTE OFF
>
Morley has gone off the deep end.
>Shanklin had no explanation for Belmont's memo, according to memos to
>Sens. Schweiker and Hart.
>
How was he supposed to explain somebody *elses* mistake?
Those same memos say that Belmont was mistaken. Why don't you quote
that part?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why don't you admit the FBI was scared of Hoover and all these guys were
covering their backsides? If Hoover thought you screwed up, you were done.
Hosty proved that. That makes any FBI testimony tainted, eh?
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> covering their backsides? If Hoover thought you screwed up, you were done.
>
> - Show quoted text -
That the tapes were sent is according to Hartman's testimony I've given
you previously HSCA Security Classified testimony October 10, 1978, 29. He
says he received a pack of tapes. What was on them I don't know but I'm
sure somebody does.
The translators are Anna and Boris Tarasoff and it was Boris who picked up
the id of the voice as the same as the first call on 9/28. In the margin
of the transcript of Oswald's 10/1 call Tarasoff wrote: "The same person
who spoke a day or two ago and spoke in broken Russian." Most of this
comes from the Lopez-Hardway report, of which I know you are a big fan,
page 85 et seq.
THIS IS FROM JOHN NEWMAN PRESENTATION IF YOU'D LIKE MORE DETAIL
QUOTE ON:
The Mexico City CIA station was unable to compare the voices between the
September 28th call and the 1 October call because the 28 September tape
was erased before they got the 1 October call. So, that would mean it
would have had to have been erased within a few days. That doesn't make
sense. They don't erase things in a few days. They wait at least two weeks
before they start recycling tapes. But, that is not the only thing wrong
with this, even if they made an exception and somebody dropped the tape
into the degaussing pile by accident, this statement that station is
unable to compare voice is wrong. This, by the way, this particular cable
is written by Ann Goodpasture again. She is questioned about it under
oath. I'm going to show you why this doesn't work.
"In 1964, this little document pops into the record, in October, 1964.
It's actually a Washington Post article about CIA withholding intelligence
from the Warren Commission. And there's some handwriting. See? You know
who's handwriting that is? It's Ann Goodpasture's. Now isn't that
something? And when we blow it up what does it say? 'The caller from the
Cuban embassy was unidentified until headquarters sent traces on Oswald
and voices compared by Feinglass.' [See Document # 104-10125-10001 from
The Third Batch.]
"Thank you Ann. She just told us, let's go back. Why are we looking at
this? Here it says 'station unable to compare voices,' here it says
'voices compared.' Feinglass is actually the cover name for Mr. Tarasoff,
Mr and Mrs. Tarasoff are transcribers that work for the CIA station down
there. You will find them covered extensively in my book and also Eddie
Lopez ad nauseam interviewed both of these individuals about these tapes.
So, there was a voice comparison done, by the transcriber 'Feinglass,' Mr.
Tarasoff was the original transcriber at the time these things took place.
[Author's note, Mr and Mrs. Tarasoff are only identified as Mr and Mrs. T
in Oswald and the CIA, see pages 369-375. Their full name is given in
Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics II, see pages 98-99. Scott noticed, "Mr.
Tarasoff added the important and possibly relevant detail that the name of
Lee Oswald was known to the CIA station ("they were very hot about the
whole thing") before he transcribed the 1 October telephone conversation
of "someone who identified himself as Lee Oswald. (See Lopez Report, p.
85, Newman p. 371; quoted in Scott p. 99)]
"This is Eddie Lopez, who is very suspicious of that cable asking her, you
know, the transcript says, 'Oswald was identical to the person,' in other
words here he is asking, he is pointing out to her, this is in the Lopez
report, he is pointing out to Ann Goodpasture this business here and he
asks her whose handwriting is that?"
'It's mine,' [says Goodpasture]
Lopez, 'Oh, it indicates the caller; would you please read it.'
She read, 'the caller...' Anyway, the point of all of this is she admits
it, that the voices were compared and when, she gives a date. She says 18
October. It must have been on 10 October. Here she's under oath.
"So, where are we now? We now have an intrusion into the record alleging
that one tape had been erased. And the time is 11:59 in the morning on
Saturday. It is just about noon. We have gone almost 24 hours when the
first mention of any erasure enters the record. And as I've said it's not
credible for a lot of reasons. Number one, they would not have erased that
soon. Number two, the whole story about no voice comparisons does not
stack with her sworn testimony or with the other records.
"Furthermore, there is another document I may or may not show it later on
written on the 25th of November, 1963 from the DDP at CIA, the Deputy
Director for Plans to the FBI Director saying 'voices have been compared.'
So, we have other, you know, aspects of the record, as well as sworn
testimony from CIA people on this. So, what I am trying to do is to
impeach the first reference in the record to an erasure story here bearing
in mind of course that it's a technical one. We are saying one tape was
erased prior to the second call.
"In fact, here it is.
[See Document # 104-10004-10257 from the 5th batch.]
"Here is the 25 November, '63 a document that I'm talking about. I think I
blew it up. Yeah, here it is. And it talks about lots of tapes. They found
new phone calls of 27 September, that would have been Friday the day
Oswald arrived, there's the 1 October, and the 3 October, which can't
really be him. Anyway, 'voices compared indicated,' so on and so forth.
[In the actual document it reads, "voice comparisons indicated."]
QUOTE OFF
There's more there. I'm sure you're familiar with this stuff.
Burgundy
Anthony Marsh
YOU assume too much. Some of the conversation was in English and which
language was used has no bearing on the type of voice heard. And THE one
and only translator was not that fluent in Russian and they didn't even
translate the tape until after the assassination.
> Give me a cite for "voice didn't match Oswald's" (from the
> translators).
>
Not translators. FBI agents, CIA agents, WC lawyers.
> But sure to make it about a call that the WC *did* believe came from
> Oswald.
>
> There is a call or two that may or may not have come from Oswald.
>
Even the person says, "Hello, this is Lee Oswald"?
> To make your point, you need to prove that a call in which the caller
> *identified* himself as Oswald was not Oswald.
>
No, the CIA needs to come clean about the whole thing. They continue to
withhold evidence and destroy evidence.
>
>> There is testimony I have presented before that is a fact that the
>> tapes in Win Scott's safe were labeled "OSWALD" and sent to Washington
>> after his death.
>
> Post a citation, if you don't mind.
>
> And explain how you know these tapes (if they even exist) were the
> tapes of Oswald in the embassies, as opposed to (say) Scotts dictation
> of his own version of the Oswald affair.
>
Silly. Win Scott played them for the WC lawyers and told them they were
bugs from the embassies.
Sandy McCroskey
>
> > The proof of the impersonation is very solid. You can't just wave it away
> > Dave. It means something. You guys just can't sweep away the holes in your
> > theory of what happenned. If Oswald was set up and I believe he was none
> > of your arguments really ultimately matter. That's where we are at.
> > Period.
>
> "Proof of impersonation"?
>
> We have no way of verifying what Odio remembered about that night, not if
> one of her visitors really gave the name "Leon Oswald" and not something
> vaguely similar nor if he really was the veritable spitting image of the
> man whose face she later saw on television as implicated in the
> assassination of the president. How would you propose that we go about
> determining the truth here? A polygraph test would only indicate whether
> Odio was telling what she remembered, in good faith; unassisted memory
> can, and often does, deceive. But why not believe her? (If we don't,
> there's nothing at all to talk about here.) Whence the assumption that
> "Leon Oswald" wasn't indeed LHO? Vincent Bugliosi doesn't find that notion
> at all implausible. (An entire chapter of "Reclaiming History" is devoted
> to "The Odio Incident." Check it out!)
>
> /sandy
Oh, sorry, that was DVP who brought up the Odio incident. I just
jumped in at the bottom of the thread (on Google).
/sandy
Sandy McCroskey
You're still wondering about the "guy who looks like Mike Ditka" in
the photo?
That was explained a long time ago. See V. Bugliosi, "Reclaiming
History," pages 1054-56.
The person in the photo never identified himself as Oswald.
Here's what happened: On October 9, 1963, CIA in Mexico City reported
to Langley "that on September 28 and October 1, an 'American male who
spoke broken Russian' and who identified himself as Lee Oswald had
contacted the Soviet embassy." Embassy surveillance cameras, which
were working only sporadically at that time, had captured only one non-
Latin-looking male on film during that time; therefore, this (still
unidentified) gent was erroneously assumed to be Oswald by CIA staff,
who had no photo of him on file in Mexico City.
Bugliosi: "...even though someone attempting to impersonate Oswald
would have to bear at least some resemblance to him, several
conspiracy theorists aren't willing to accept the matter as a simple
case of mistaken identity... The conspiracy theorists are so unhinged
that they believe Oswald's framers would use an impersonator who looks
as much like Oswald as Danny DeVito does."
yeuhd
> The question still stands. If Oswald acted alone, why impersonate him on
> the tape and who is the guy in the photo ID'ed as Oswald?
Not identified as Oswald by the Warren Commission, not identified as
Oswald by the HSCA. The man apparently visited the Soviet Embassy in
Mexico City around the same time that Oswald did. Some CIA agents
thought he might be Oswald until they saw actual photographs of Oswald
on Nov. 23, 1963.
More here:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol11/html/HSCA_Vol11_0248b.htm
WBurg...@aol.com
WBurg...@aol.com
Yes we know it's not Oswald. But this is the most famous murder
investigation in history and at this time no one knows who this guy is?
Gotta be CIA, nothing else makes sense.
burgundy
Sandy McCroskey
I said "still unidentified." He was also photographed in front of the same
embassy on October 4 and in front of the Cuban embassy ten days later.
Since it is not Oswald, nor an Oswald impersonator, what difference does
it make?
Anthony Marsh
It's an understandable mistake. Supposedly he was the only non-Latin
caught on camera.
bigdog
> > would have to bear at least some resemblance to him, several
> > conspiracy theorists aren't willing to accept the matter as a simple
> > case of mistaken identity... The conspiracy theorists are so unhinged
> > that they believe Oswald's framers would use an impersonator who looks
> > as much like Oswald as Danny DeVito does."
>
> So who is he?
If you ever find out, then you can tell us why that is important.
WBurg...@aol.com
Because his photo has been on the world net for about 25 years and if
nobody comes forward and says "it's me," than I think it means something.
If you read how hard the CIA tried to keep that information from the
Warren Commission, it makes you wonder if the guy isn't somebody they
don't want us to know who it is. If it was a mistake, doesn't someone by
now know? "Oh yeah that was Joe Blow, he came into the embassy for this
and that." Plus, they have photos of that guy on a number of different
days. Somebody knows who he is; it's just like the tapes of the guy
impersonating Oswald. I'm sorry, you can say it's not important but then
id'ing him shopuld be no big deal.
WBurg...@aol.com
Look at the effort to id Billy Lovelady to prove LHO wasn't in the
doorway of the TSBD. Why isn't there that kind of fervor about id-ing
"Mike Ditka?"
yeuhd
> Look at the effort to id Billy Lovelady to prove LHO wasn't in the
> doorway of the TSBD. Why isn't there that kind of fervor about id-ing
> "Mike Ditka?"
Because a much more important issue was at stake. If that were Lee
Oswald in the Altgens photo taken during the assassination, Oswald
could not have been the sixth floor shooter. But whoever the man is in
the Soviet Embassy photo, the photo neither proves nor disproves that
Oswald visited the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City.
bigdog
>
> Look at the effort to id Billy Lovelady to prove LHO wasn't in the
> doorway of the TSBD. Why isn't there that kind of fervor about id-ing
> "Mike Ditka?"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ditka had an alibi. He was in his rookie year with the Chicago Bears
helping them win the World Championship.
bigdog
You keep wondering about that and then rest of us will worry about
important stuff.
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oswald was in MC and was impersonated in MC.
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 12, 6:07 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 2:21 pm, WBurgha...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Bugliosi: "...even though someone attempting to impersonate Oswald
>>>> would have to bear at least some resemblance to him, several
>>>> conspiracy theorists aren't willing to accept the matter as a simple
>>>> case of mistaken identity... The conspiracy theorists are so unhinged
>>>> that they believe Oswald's framers would use an impersonator who looks
>>>> as much like Oswald as Danny DeVito does."
>>> So who is he?
>> If you ever find out, then you can tell us why that is important.
>
> Because his photo has been on the world net for about 25 years and if
> nobody comes forward and says "it's me," than I think it means something.
If the CIA can't even get Osama bin Laden how do you expect them to
identify the mystery man? That would be like a real investigation.
> If you read how hard the CIA tried to keep that information from the
> Warren Commission, it makes you wonder if the guy isn't somebody they
> don't want us to know who it is. If it was a mistake, doesn't someone by
Does that guy look Latin to you? Have you seen ALL the other photos of
him? Maybe the one photo of Oswald they covered up was the two of them
kissing!
David Von Pein
>>> "Oswald was in MC and was impersonated in MC." <<<
LOL. Brilliant!
Oswald goes to Mexico City, but the "Never Leave A Stone Unturned"
plotters decided they wanted a SECOND Oswald to pop up in Mexico at
the very same time LHO was down there too.
Maybe they needed a fourth for a game of bridge at the Cuban Embassy
or something (and with John Armstrong's 2 additional Oswalds, they'd
have a foursome indeed).
Anthony Marsh
If you are going to penetrate an enemy position with an impersonation it
is better to impersonate someone who is expected to go there.
Sandy McCroskey
I can just see them running into each other at the door of one of the
embassies. "After you!" "No, after you!" Hahaha.
You'd think, wouldn't you, that the fact that the impersonator looked
nothing like Oswald might have been noticed by embassy staff, who
would have talked to both men?
That's some brilliant planning.
/sm
WBurg...@aol.com
The Lopez report proves he was impersonated. Maybe he was also down
there and knew all about it. Why is that so hard to fathom?
Anthony Marsh
Grasping at straws.
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 14, 11:12 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>> "Oswald was in MC and was impersonated in MC." <<<
>>> LOL. Brilliant!
>>> Oswald goes to Mexico City, but the "Never Leave A Stone Unturned"
>>> plotters decided they wanted a SECOND Oswald to pop up in Mexico at
>>> the very same time LHO was down there too.
>>> Maybe they needed a fourth for a game of bridge at the Cuban Embassy
>>> or something (and with John Armstrong's 2 additional Oswalds, they'd
>>> have a foursome indeed).
>> If you are going to penetrate an enemy position with an impersonation it
>> is better to impersonate someone who is expected to go there.
>
> I can just see them running into each other at the door of one of the
> embassies. "After you!" "No, after you!" Hahaha.
I'm not going to tell you how intelligence operations are actually run,
but a proper operation would know where the target is at all times and
not try to send an impostor when the target is actually there.
> You'd think, wouldn't you, that the fact that the impersonator looked
> nothing like Oswald might have been noticed by embassy staff, who
> would have talked to both men?
Or if they did say it wasn't the same man you'd say they were just
mistaken or lying.
Sandy McCroskey
But they didn't say anything of the sort.
Sandy McCroskey
> > On Oct 14, 11:12 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>>>> "Oswald was in MC and was impersonated in MC." <<<
> >>> LOL. Brilliant!
> >>> Oswald goes to Mexico City, but the "Never Leave A Stone Unturned"
> >>> plotters decided they wanted a SECOND Oswald to pop up in Mexico at
> >>> the very same time LHO was down there too.
> >>> Maybe they needed a fourth for a game of bridge at the Cuban Embassy
> >>> or something (and with John Armstrong's 2 additional Oswalds, they'd
> >>> have a foursome indeed).
> >> If you are going to penetrate an enemy position with an impersonation it
> >> is better to impersonate someone who is expected to go there.
>
> > I can just see them running into each other at the door of one of the
> > embassies. "After you!" "No, after you!" Hahaha.
>
> I'm not going to tell you how intelligence operations are actually run,
> but a proper operation would know where the target is at all times and
> not try to send an impostor when the target is actually there.
>
Yes, that was *slightly* exaggerated, for comic effect. Point is, it would
come to the same thing if you have this imposter show up the next day or
the next week (or the day before or the week before) the target.
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah maybe but would you not agree that there is ample evidence for
both to be true? In other words, Oswald may have been down there and
was in on the impersonation. Why? I don't know.
Anthony Marsh
Is this a silliness contest? Ok, my entry is yeah maybe Oswald framed
himself for the JFK assassination to protect the CIA.
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This seems a little simplistic to me as does the large amount of
Bugliosi's claims. I can't take this seriously
WBurg...@aol.com
>
No Tony he was in on it from the get go till he realized they framed him
and he freaked, I can see him being counseled by David Atlee Phillips,
who, by the way has a history of running these double operations, saying ,
"Look we have this guy impersonating you, it's all part of the grand
scheme. It's ok, it's good. Now, go seduce the Mexican embassy secretary."
I mean if he was a double agent, this is not that far-fetched.
Sandy McCroskey
It's obvious that you don't take it seriously and not surprising that
that's because it's not complicated enough for you.
I think you prefer a mystery that can never be untangled, if only because
the "questions" raised don't make any sense in the first place.
Perhaps the impersonator is an alien shape-shifter who turned into a
perfect replica of Oswald on the other side of the embassy door. That
would obviate the logical contradictions implied in having an
"impersonator" who doesn't look anything like the target. Now we're
getting somewhere, aren't we?
/sandy
WBurg...@aol.com
I'm insulted that you would infer what I prefer. You sound like you know
who I am but from your posts I don't think you know the specifics of the
case. Let me ask you straight out... are you one of McAdams' students? You
sound like you've been recuited. All this alien stuff... you sound very
young. You're not witty..... for the second time, it is very hard to take
you seriously.
Anthony Marsh
So, that's your only way out? You've never heard of any real life cases
of impersonation? Body doubles, infiltrating spies? Con men? Nothing?
Never happened even once in the universe?
Sandy McCroskey
You told me yourself you don't prefer the simplest, most obvious, logical
explanation. "Too simple," you said. It's gotta be complicated.
No, I'm not one of McAdams's students. I was born late in 1955 and I work
at The Nation.
/sm
Sandy McCroskey
I'm firmly of the opinion that a "body double" should look like the
person impersonated.
/sandy
Sandy McCroskey
Ha ha. My "way out" of **what** ?!
;-D
>You've never heard of any real life cases
> of impersonation? Body doubles, infiltrating spies? Con men? Nothing?
> Never happened even once in the universe?>
This, Marsh, is what is known as a "straw man argument." You know I said
nothing of the sort. I am addressing only the particular circumstances in
which CTs claim Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City.
While we're at it, I asked you what your proof is supposed to be that
those cameras caught anyone else during the times that the system was down
according to Bugliosi's account. Well?
/sm
WBurg...@aol.com
Well Sandy, it's like this. I like The Nation. And the fact that you work
there is very cool. I was born in 1953. I have been studying this case
since I was in seventh grade when it just flat out didn't make any sense.
And yes, I do think Oswald was working for the CIA, and was a dupe-patsy
and I believe he was probably in Mexico City in late September-early
October 1963 and I KNOW he was impersonated on the phone twice because the
Loren-Hardway report, which I suggest you read, proves that. I mean the
translator who heard the tape, Boris T., says so quite specifically. This
is not something someone makes up out of the blue. So, I think, if Oswald
was in MC and he is being impersonated, why do you think it's not worth
examining if that could happen. Yes I know it is a strange, wacko view of
things and I am quite ready to admit I got it wrong. But instead of some
other theory, you chime in with what I can only refer to as "smartass"
commentary about aliens. In other words, I may be very wrong about things
but if you are a person at The Nation and are of a mature age I would hope
your comments would rise above demeaning me as a person by infering what I
think and what kind of person I am. Yes you are right I think this is a
very complicated case and it appears you think it is cut and dried. So be
it. I would only ask that your responses be of a scholarly nature. And
that you don't button hole me.
Warmest personal regards,
burgundy
p.s. Say hello to Kristina Van H. I think she's awesome.
Sandy McCroskey
Hi, "burgundy." I've worked at The Nation since 1986 and I am glad to hear
you like the magazine. I do think the major questions of the assassination
have cut-and-dried, obvious answers and that a lot of people are wasting
their time on wild goose chases. But it's clearly useless to argue some
points with some people. You insist there is proof of impersonation,
whereas I just don't see any (and we've had the Loren-Hardway report for a
long time now). But not only that, I don't see how it would have made any
*sense* for the supposed conspirators to have an Oswald impersonator in
Mexico City at the same time he was actually there himself. And someone
who doesn't look remotely like him? Come on! Sorry, but that's my honest
opinion.
Now, the fact that you reject the obvious explanation as "too simplistic,"
as you have done, makes me wonder on what conceivable ground you have
decided the explanation must be more complicated.
Don't worry, I didn't for a minute think you really believe in shape-
shifting aliens. But if the more complicated "scenario" is preferred, why
not the *most* complicated (outlandish, unbelievable)? This just doesn't
seem to me a productive method of reasoning. Nothing personal.
I'll pass along your praise to Katrina (vanden Heuvel). She hears stuff
like that all the time these days! (And I won't mention that you got her
name wrong.)
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
No, you were trying to claim that impersonating someone is physically
impossible. Perhaps because you've never heard of any real life cases
where it has been done before.
> While we're at it, I asked you what your proof is supposed to be that
> those cameras caught anyone else during the times that the system was down
> according to Bugliosi's account. Well?
>
The very photos the CIA did release, many of which are on my web site.
> /sm
Anthony Marsh
Wonderful. Did I say they used a body double? No. Some people said that
Lovelady looked like Oswald. So, does that make him a body double?
WBurg...@aol.com
peace out sandy
Sandy McCroskey
I can't imagine how you got the impression that I said anything
remotely resembling that.
/sandy
> Perhaps because you've never heard of any real life cases
> where it has been done before.
>
Yeah, right, Marsh, I was born just yesterday. Amazing how quickly I
learned to type.
> > While we're at it, I asked you what your proof is supposed to be that
> > those cameras caught anyone else during the times that the system was down
> > according to Bugliosi's account. Well?
>
> The very photos the CIA did release, many of which are on my web site.> /sm
Oh, right: http://the-puzzle-palace.com/, "*The* place to find facts
and files about the JFK assassination & the intelligence community."
(Shouldn't that be "*a* place for..." I It's certainly not "one-stop
shopping for your JFK assassination needs.")
Well, this is just a horribly designed site, but under CIA/ Documents,
I did find some photos of anonymous individuals leaving the Cuban
Consulate, on entirely unspecified dates.
Feel free to post the right link where I can find that information!
/Sandy
Anthony Marsh
Your remark about an alien shape-shifter being the only way Oswald could
be impersonated.
> /sandy
>
>
>> Perhaps because you've never heard of any real life cases
>> where it has been done before.
>>
> Yeah, right, Marsh, I was born just yesterday. Amazing how quickly I
> learned to type.
>
Shakespeare - Hamlet - infinite number of monkeys.
>>> While we're at it, I asked you what your proof is supposed to be that
>>> those cameras caught anyone else during the times that the system was down
>>> according to Bugliosi's account. Well?
>> The very photos the CIA did release, many of which are on my web site.> /sm
>
>
> Oh, right: http://the-puzzle-palace.com/, "*The* place to find facts
> and files about the JFK assassination & the intelligence community."
> (Shouldn't that be "*a* place for..." I It's certainly not "one-stop
> shopping for your JFK assassination needs.")
> Well, this is just a horribly designed site, but under CIA/ Documents,
> I did find some photos of anonymous individuals leaving the Cuban
> Consulate, on entirely unspecified dates.
You could do that all on your own without any help? Most WC defenders
can't even find my web site.
WBurg...@aol.com
How would you relate David Hune and Gilles Deleuze to this scenario?
Sandy McCroskey
You missed the point: that's the only way Oswald could be impersonated by
someone who didn't look like him at *all* when photographed on the other
side of the embassy door!
/sm
> > /sandy
>
> >> Perhaps because you've never heard of any real life cases
> >> where it has been done before.
>
> > Yeah, right, Marsh, I was born just yesterday. Amazing how quickly I
> > learned to type.
>
> Shakespeare - Hamlet - infinite number of monkeys.
>
> >>> While we're at it, I asked you what your proof is supposed to be that
> >>> those cameras caught anyone else during the times that the system was down
> >>> according to Bugliosi's account. Well?
> >> The very photos the CIA did release, many of which are on my web site.> /sm
>
> > Oh, right:http://the-puzzle-palace.com/, "*The* place to find facts
> > and files about the JFK assassination & the intelligence community."
> > (Shouldn't that be "*a* place for..." I It's certainly not "one-stop
> > shopping for your JFK assassination needs.")
> > Well, this is just a horribly designed site, but under CIA/ Documents,
> > I did find some photos of anonymous individuals leaving the Cuban
> > Consulate, on entirely unspecified dates.
>
> You could do that all on your own without any help? Most WC defenders
> can't even find my web site.> Feel free to post the right link where I can find that information!
But you can't post a link to the documentation of the date(s) on which
those Cuban Consulate pictures were taken, right?
/sm
Sandy McCroskey
David *Hume* would tell us that "a wise man...proportions his belief
to the evidence."
Gilles Deleuze (whose first book, « Empirisme et subjectivité », was
about Hume) would similarly strive to put the investigation on solid
empirical grounds by stressing that our conclusions should not be
predetermined by ideology.
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
Photographed by whom. The Cubans and the Russians did not see the
photographs of the visitors. Those were taken by the CIA and Mexican
intelligence.
Sandy McCroskey
Irrelevant.
You're saying that the Cubans and Russians would not notice the many
differences between Oswald the imposter who looks nothing like him.
Apparently he looks one way on one side of the door and quite another
on the other.
It doesn't make any difference who took the photos!
/sm