Oswald And Mexico City
David Von Pein
Question for conspiracy theorists:
If Lee Harvey Oswald was not in Mexico between the dates of September
25 and October 3, 1963, then where was Lee Harvey Oswald during that
time period?
Nobody that I am aware of places Oswald anywhere EXCEPT in Mexico (or
on the busses going to and from Mexico) during that eight- to nine-day
period in question.
Marina Oswald certainly didn't say that her husband was with her
during that period of time. In fact, quite the opposite. Marina knew
darn well that Oswald was going to Mexico City at that time.
And Ruth Paine has never said she saw Oswald during that period just
prior to his returning to the Dallas/Irving area on October 3rd.
This might seem like a minor point to some people, but I think it
deserves some attention and is a valid and reasonable question that I
just asked. I mean, everybody's got to be SOMEWHERE.
So, if Lee Oswald didn't travel to Mexico from Sep. 25 to Oct. 3,
1963, then where the heck was he concealing himself for those eight or
nine days after he was last seen in New Orleans?
James K. Olmstead
eliminate the consideration that
Oswald "himself" used an imposter to make phone calls and visits (including
diners and partys) during the
period you mention, that is known he was in MC.
There is enough bona fide offical and record to validate the consideration
"another" was involved with
Oswald concerning meetings, calls and activity under someone's direction.
Since no offical USG agency
claims association, the "ONLY" valid consideration is that Oswald, himself
was the director of these
activities.
The key consideration avoided is "Where was the real Oswald" (on or around)
the 18th of September.
If the consideration is valid (and it is) that Oswald had another do
specific minor tasks, such as phone
calls, visits, job applications (without signing anything see Ron Carrie in
NO), returning library books
and even cashing checks, it would resolve alot of unsolved aspects of the
case. The USG failed to
establish during the Ugarte incident where Oswald was "exactly" during the
period.
Offical records validate Oswald was in MC.....no offical record exsist that
accounts for each and
every period of conflict in his life.
The above works both ways....it supports "Oswald Game" and his association
with the "ICC".
Neither side can claim validation over the other.
jko
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:91965778-08e7-4429...@c13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
greg
> Question for conspiracy theorists:
>
> If Lee Harvey Oswald was not in Mexico between the dates of September
> 25 and October 3, 1963, then where was Lee Harvey Oswald during that
> time period?
Houston.
> Nobody that I am aware of places Oswald anywhere EXCEPT in Mexico (or
> on the busses going to and from Mexico) during that eight- to nine-day
> period in question.
Marina and Ruth Paine both said multiple times he was going to Houston
or Philadelphia to look for work. Marina changed her story for the WC.
Ruth Paine stuck to it.
> Marina Oswald certainly didn't say that her husband was with her
> during that period of time. In fact, quite the opposite. Marina knew
> darn well that Oswald was going to Mexico City at that time.
So she said... after months of pressure and changing a story she had
told multiple times up until then.
> And Ruth Paine has never said she saw Oswald during that period just
> prior to his returning to the Dallas/Irving area on October 3rd.
Was Ruth Paine in Houston? If not, how would she see him?
> This might seem like a minor point to some people, but I think it
> deserves some attention and is a valid and reasonable question that I
> just asked. I mean, everybody's got to be SOMEWHERE.
> So, if Lee Oswald didn't travel to Mexico from Sep. 25 to Oct. 3,
> 1963, then where the heck was he concealing himself for those eight or
> nine days after he was last seen in New Orleans?
He wasn't concealing himself. He was looking for work.
You know. That thing he badly needed, given number two daughter was on
the way? It was the type of need that made it easy to get him to
accept a temp job on minimum wage in a book depository.
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/jfk-f1/the-houston-problem-pt-1-t6.htm
If you want to put him in Mexico City, what evidence do you have?
Let me spell it out for you.
1. You have the word of his wife whose testimony was littered with
provable lies and improbablities, on top of statements that
conbtradicted her earlier statements made to Federal Agents.
2. You have 4 bus witnesses - two of whom refused to be interviewed
outside of Great Britain for fear of reprisals (from the ghost of Lee
harvey Oswald, no doubt!) while the other 2 were Fijian born daughters
of British parents. Fiji was under British Colonial rule at that time,
and the majority of Brits there would have been British government
employees. I think those girls and their backgrounds warranted closer
scrutiny. What you DON'T have is the verification of the person who
allegedly sat next to him on that bus - he claimed the person next to
him was Mexican.
3. You have a hotel register sig purportedly in Oswald's handwriting.
4. You have the testimony of Sylvia Duran post-torture, and NOT
supported by Azcue.
Unless you can think of something else, that's all you have, and it
doesn't amount to pile of beans.
Here is what you asked for. Take the blinkers off before reading.
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/jfk-f1/the-houston-problem-pt-1-t6.htm
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/jfk-f1/the-houston-problem-pt-2-t7.htm
greg
claviger
David,
Excellent question and I asked it myself on another thread and no replies.
Here's some possible answers.
If LHO was having an affair with Judyth Vary Baker, who was an attractive
young woman, he may have stayed behind in NO making hot monkey love for a
week. After this long goodbye, he heads for Dallas.
There is also the apocryphal story of a strange odyssey across South
Texas, where a guy who looked like LHO tried to find a job in several
towns between Laredo and Corpus Christi. It would seem impossible for this
to be LHO but several witnesses immediately recognized LHO as the guy who
applied for a job in their town.
Then there is the rumor around Duval County that LHO spent a week
practicing with his rifle at the large ranch owned by George Parr, the
notorious "Duke of Duval County".
There is no reason LHO could not have made this trip to Mexico City as a
true believer in the Cuban Revolution. Somewhere I read he bragged about
how he did it on such a small budget.
John Fiorentino
Of course, I'm not a CT, but if you have ever read the Lopez report you
just might have a different take on things.
I just recently, (several months ago) concluded my review of the MC visit.
I posted much of that here.
There's some loose ends and inconsistencies, but nothing you can put your
finger on. Personally, I think most of it was simple incompetence, much
like the Shanklin/Hosty mess.
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:91965778-08e7-4429...@c13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
tomnln
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4c953a66$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> David:
>
> Of course, I'm not a CT, but if you have ever read the Lopez report you
> just might have a different take on things.
>
> I just recently, (several months ago) concluded my review of the MC visit.
> I posted much of that here.
>
> There's some loose ends and inconsistencies, but nothing you can put your
> finger on. Personally, I think most of it was simple incompetence, much
> like the Shanklin/Hosty mess.
>
>
> John F.
otherwise known as the "Hosty/Shanklin FELONY ! ! !
------------------------------------------------------------------
WBurg...@aol.com
wrote:
> David:
>
> Of course, I'm not a CT, but if you have ever read the Lopez report you
> just might have a different take on things.
>
> I just recently, (several months ago) concluded my review of the MC visit.
> I posted much of that here.
>
> There's some loose ends and inconsistencies, but nothing you can put your
> finger on. Personally, I think most of it was simple incompetence, much
> like the Shanklin/Hosty mess.
>
> John F.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Question for conspiracy theorists:
>
> > If Lee Harvey Oswald was not in Mexico between the dates of September
> > 25 and October 3, 1963, then where was Lee Harvey Oswald during that
> > time period?
>
> > Nobody that I am aware of places Oswald anywhere EXCEPT in Mexico (or
> > on the busses going to and from Mexico) during that eight- to nine-day
> > period in question.
>
> > Marina Oswald certainly didn't say that her husband was with her
> > during that period of time. In fact, quite the opposite. Marina knew
> > darn well that Oswald was going to Mexico City at that time.
>
> > And Ruth Paine has never said she saw Oswald during that period just
> > prior to his returning to the Dallas/Irving area on October 3rd.
>
> > This might seem like a minor point to some people, but I think it
> > deserves some attention and is a valid and reasonable question that I
> > just asked. I mean, everybody's got to be SOMEWHERE.
>
> > So, if Lee Oswald didn't travel to Mexico from Sep. 25 to Oct. 3,
> > 1963, then where the heck was he concealing himself for those eight or
> > nine days after he was last seen in New Orleans?
Oswald could be in Mexico City and being impersonated -- of which there
can be no argument due to the phone call of the man using bad Russian and
the photos -- at the same time. These two are not mutually exclusive.
Burgundy
John McAdams
There can be plenty of argument.
It's absurd to think that the "mystery man" in the photos was an
Oswald impostor.
As for the calls: how bad a caller's Russian was was a matter or
opinion. A highly fluent CIA translator would be pretty picky.
Then there is the fact that in several of the "Oswald" calls
(including Saturday) the caller doesn't ID himself as Oswald. The
fact that the CIA thought or suspected it was Oswald proves nothing.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "The key consideration avoided is "Where was the real Oswald" (on or
around) the 18th of September." <<<
The key "Mexico" dates are Sep. 25-Oct. 3.
Why you think Sep. 18 is important is a mystery.
timstter
>
> If you want to put him in Mexico City, what evidence do you have?
>
> Let me spell it out for you.
>
> 1. You have the word of his wife whose testimony was littered with
> provable lies and improbablities, on top of statements that
> conbtradicted her earlier statements made to Federal Agents.
>
We also have his travel documents, show his entry into and his exit
from Mexico:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0352b.htm
> 2. You have 4 bus witnesses - two of whom refused to be interviewed
> outside of Great Britain for fear of reprisals (from the ghost of Lee
> harvey Oswald, no doubt!) while the other 2 were Fijian born daughters
> of British parents. Fiji was under British Colonial rule at that time,
> and the majority of Brits there would have been British government
> employees. I think those girls and their backgrounds warranted closer
> scrutiny. What you DON'T have is the verification of the person who
> allegedly sat next to him on that bus - he claimed the person next to
> him was Mexican.
>
Those Australian girls were certain it was Oswald they met.
> 3. You have a hotel register sig purportedly in Oswald's handwriting.
>
Which matches the Mexican visa he was issued with in the name of Mr
Lee.
> 4. You have the testimony of Sylvia Duran post-torture, and NOT
> supported by Azcue.
>
Hmm, not quite right. Mrs Duran says she saw Oswald's photo in the
newspaper El Dia the morning of 23 November and recognized him as the
man she had met in September. She went into work and found the file
copy of his visa application and it was the same man. Had his
signature on the application and his photo:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0422b.htm
Also Mirabal said it was Oswald.
> Unless you can think of something else, that's all you have, and it
> doesn't amount to pile of beans.
>
Well there is also Kostikov and the other two KGB agents who say it
was definitely Oswald they met. Also the version of his visa
application that made it to Cuba and was retrieved by the HSCA:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0067a.htm
Has Oswald's own signature on it and his photo, plus details his FPCC
activities in NOLA. He was required to personally complete the
application at the Cuban Consulate. How do you explain the existence
of his application if he never went to Mexico City, as you claim?
> Here is what you asked for. Take the blinkers off before reading.
>
Let's not forget Mrs Duran's phone number being found in his notebook
as well as the people who served him meals when he was staying at the
Comercio, his own letter stating he went to Mexico, souvenirs from his
trip etc etc.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
HistorianDetective
> The period in question is really not the period to question.
RE your: > Nobody can eliminate the consideration that
> Oswald "himself" used an imposter to make phone calls and visits (including
> diners and partys) during the
> period you mention, that is known he was in MC.
Well, consider this. After 40 some years goin' on 50, it is certainly
justifiable and reasonable
to conclude that, based on a total lack of evidence, Oswald did not
use an imposter to make phone
calls and visits (including diners and partys) during the period you
mention, that is known he was in MC.
> There is enough bona fide offical and record to validate the consideration
> "another" was involved with
> Oswald concerning meetings, calls and activity under someone's direction.
> Since no offical USG agency
> claims association,....
Please post, at your coinvenience, your sufficient amount of "bone
fide official and record"
to vaiidate your consideration noted above..
RE: the "ONLY" valid consideration is that Oswald, himself was the
director of these activities.
I agree. He was the director of his own activities, with assistance
from noone.
JM/HD
>
> The key consideration avoided is "Where was the real Oswald" (on or around)
> the 18th of September.
> If the consideration is valid (and it is) that Oswald had another do
> specific minor tasks, such as phone
> calls, visits, job applications (without signing anything see Ron Carrie in
> NO), returning library books
> and even cashing checks, it would resolve alot of unsolved aspects of the
> case. The USG failed to
> establish during the Ugarte incident where Oswald was "exactly" during the
> period.
>
> Offical records validate Oswald was in MC.....no offical record exsist that
> accounts for each and
> every period of conflict in his life.
>
> The above works both ways....it supports "Oswald Game" and his association
> with the "ICC".
> Neither side can claim validation over the other.
>
> jko
>
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:91965778-08e7-4429...@c13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Question for conspiracy theorists:
>
> > If Lee Harvey Oswald was not in Mexico between the dates of September
> > 25 and October 3, 1963, then where was Lee Harvey Oswald during that
> > time period?
>
> > Nobody that I am aware of places Oswald anywhere EXCEPT in Mexico (or
> > on the busses going to and from Mexico) during that eight- to nine-day
> > period in question.
>
> > Marina Oswald certainly didn't say that her husband was with her
> > during that period of time. In fact, quite the opposite. Marina knew
> > darn well that Oswald was going to Mexico City at that time.
>
> > And Ruth Paine has never said she saw Oswald during that period just
> > prior to his returning to the Dallas/Irving area on October 3rd.
>
> > This might seem like a minor point to some people, but I think it
> > deserves some attention and is a valid and reasonable question that I
> > just asked. I mean, everybody's got to be SOMEWHERE.
>
> > So, if Lee Oswald didn't travel to Mexico from Sep. 25 to Oct. 3,
> > 1963, then where the heck was he concealing himself for those eight or
> > nine days after he was last seen in New Orleans?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
James K. Olmstead
For several reasons..all dealing with aspects of conflicts in the
investigation and activities by Oswald and offical agencies.
These conflicts are directly related to Oswald either acting alone or as
part of a ICC (International Communist Conspiracy).
The period surrounding the 18th of September....(plus or minus a day or two)
in MC for example, has two major unresolved incidents
dealing with seeing Oswald. Two (non-Americans) mention seeing Oswald, to
officals, during this period.
The officals investigate the reports. Both are very similar in nature. One
individual tells his story and goes home, the other tells his story
and is arrested, tortured and deported, where he is propably again tortured
by his government, if not killed. His known associates are
involved in a June 64 assassination operation....other known associates are
still in Cuba. The WC and the HSCA avoid dealing with
the aspect of that June assassination operation. These are two examples of
"extreme" conflict in the investigation of Oswald's
activities. One individual cut a deal and went home, the other was "forced"
into claiming he was "mistaken". His reasoning behind
his "false claim" does not fit into the known actions. His known associates
are key individuals in relation to Oswald actions, or
suspected actions in MC, by Oswald, supported by offical remarks and
efforts.
As mentioned in the past dealing with Oswald sightings there is no way to
disprove that Oswald himself had "someone"
impersonate him, as part of his "game". See the work of Jean Davison
"Oswald's Game". If you or VB can prove that
Oswald did not have someone do specific tasks, motive and indent for the
action(s) is not neccessary to establish (per WC
conclusions), go for it, I would be very intersted in reading your or VB's
take.
You have to remember, that history has major examples of individuals "hiring
another" for fraudulant purposes....best example
is the American Civil War and indviduals hiring another to serve under their
name. Another is the Bay of Pigs, where "false names"
were used by members of the 2506th. Oswald is known to have used "false
names". If he used false name in his known actions,
it is logical to consider that he may have used others, willing to do tasks
under his name.
The record of conflict is established and supported with offical
investigation documents and concern is validated by the witholding
of key aspects of consideration.
jko
Anthony Marsh
No, it is not logical. It is silly speculation. The two are not the same
thing. You've probably seen too many Bourne movies and think that the CIA
always uses the same cover name regardless of which person it is.
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 18, 7:17 am, "James K. Olmstead"<jolmst...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>> The period in question is really not the period to question.
>
>
> RE your:> Nobody can eliminate the consideration that
>> Oswald "himself" used an imposter to make phone calls and visits (including
>> diners and partys) during the
>> period you mention, that is known he was in MC.
>
> Well, consider this. After 40 some years goin' on 50, it is certainly
> justifiable and reasonable
> to conclude that, based on a total lack of evidence, Oswald did not
> use an imposter to make phone
> calls and visits (including diners and partys) during the period you
> mention, that is known he was in MC.
>
Another straw man argument. That is not what is alleged. The idea is that
Oswald was impersonated without his knowledge by a CIA for some nefarious
purpose. Possibly to frame him. Possibly to compromise the embassy.
Possibly to try to turn an embassy official.
Anthony Marsh
It is not necessary to think that the "mystery man" in the photos was the
Oswald impostor on the phone. The only reason the "mystery man" is
interesting is in trying to figure out WHY the MEXI station thought he was
the real Oswald. Here's a hint for you. Because HQs and the NAVY refused
to send them a photo of the real Oswald. And the man was at the embassy at
the same time as the real Oswald.
> As for the calls: how bad a caller's Russian was was a matter or
> opinion. A highly fluent CIA translator would be pretty picky.
>
> Then there is the fact that in several of the "Oswald" calls
> (including Saturday) the caller doesn't ID himself as Oswald. The
> fact that the CIA thought or suspected it was Oswald proves nothing.
>
Doesn't it prove the incompetence of the CIA? Or do you always defend the
CIA no matter what? Even when they feed radioactive cereal to children or
kill Frank Olson?
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
James K. Olmstead
"HistorianDetective" <historian...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6d8774b1-148c-4003...@a19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 18, 7:17 am, "James K. Olmstead" <jolmst...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> The period in question is really not the period to question.
RE your: > Nobody can eliminate the consideration that
> Oswald "himself" used an imposter to make phone calls and visits
> (including
> diners and partys) during the
> period you mention, that is known he was in MC.
Well, consider this. After 40 some years goin' on 50, it is certainly
justifiable and reasonable to conclude that, based on a total lack of
evidence, Oswald did not use an imposter to make phone calls and visits
(including diners and partys) during the period you mention, that is known
he was in MC.
HD: Why and how can you conclude what the offical investigation could not
concerning these calls?
> There is enough bona fide offical and record to validate the consideration
> "another" was involved with
> Oswald concerning meetings, calls and activity under someone's direction.
> Since no offical USG agency
> claims association,....
Please post, at your coinvenience, your sufficient amount of "bone fide
official and record" to vaiidate your consideration noted above..
It would take months to do so. The facts are in the offical record and
supported by "supression" of key items of evidence, which was known to
exsist at the time yet is not available today.
RE: the "ONLY" valid consideration is that Oswald, himself was the
director of these activities.
I agree. He was the director of his own activities, with assistance from
noone.
You can't eliminate the consideration of assistance.....making a statement
of opinion does not overide anothers opinion unless supported by fact.
It is clear Oswald had "assistance" from a large number of
individuals.....for example. Ruth Paine took over the responsibilites of
support for his family, while he was engaged in travel to MC. Ruth's
motive and intent is really not clear on this, but without her assistance
he could not have done what he did during this period.
jko
HistorianDetective
> On 9/19/2010 11:36 AM, HistorianDetective wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 18, 7:17 am, "James K. Olmstead"<jolmst...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> >> The period in question is really not the period to question.
>
> > RE your:> Nobody can eliminate the consideration that
> >> Oswald "himself" used an imposter to make phone calls and visits (including
> >> diners and partys) during the
> >> period you mention, that is known he was in MC.
>
> > Well, consider this. After 40 some years goin' on 50, it is certainly
> > justifiable and reasonable
> > to conclude that, based on a total lack of evidence, Oswald did not
> > use an imposter to make phone
> > calls and visits (including diners and partys) during the period you
> > mention, that is known he was in MC.
>
Sometimes I wonder if you have any idea what a straw man argument is?
There is no misrepresentation by me concering what James posted.
RE: > That is not what is alleged.
I disagree. It most certainly is. I used his exact words. Can't get
much closer to what is alleged than that.
.
I'm stickin' to my conclusion based on the lack of evidence to support
otherwise, that Oswald did not "use an imposter to make phone calls and
visits (including diners and partys) during the period you mention, that
is known he was in MC."
RE: >The idea is that Oswald was impersonated without his knowledge by
a CIA for some nefarious
> purpose. Possibly to frame him. Possibly to compromise the embassy.
> Possibly to try to turn an embassy official.
None of the above are supportable, in any way, shape or form, that
Oswald was impersonated.
JM/HD
HistorianDetective
> "HistorianDetective" <historiandetect...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6d8774b1-148c-4003...@a19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 18, 7:17 am, "James K. Olmstead" <jolmst...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > The period in question is really not the period to question.
>
> RE your: > Nobody can eliminate the consideration that
>
> > Oswald "himself" used an imposter to make phone calls and visits
> > (including
> > diners and partys) during the
> > period you mention, that is known he was in MC.
>
> Well, consider this. After 40 some years goin' on 50, it is certainly
> justifiable and reasonable to conclude that, based on a total lack of
> evidence, Oswald did not use an imposter to make phone calls and visits
> (including diners and partys) during the period you mention, that is known
> he was in MC.
>
RE:
> HD: Why and how can you conclude what the offical investigation could not
> concerning these calls?
>
By simple and elementary deduction, my friend. No evidence exists after
40+ years goin' on 50 that Oswald received assistance from
anyone/anything, foreign or domestic. It doesn't get much simpler, my
friend.
> > There is enough bona fide offical and record to validate the consideration
> > "another" was involved with
> > Oswald concerning meetings, calls and activity under someone's direction.
> > Since no offical USG agency
> > claims association,....
>
> Please post, at your coinvenience, your sufficient amount of "bone fide
> official and record" to vaiidate your consideration noted above..
>
> It would take months to do so. The facts are in the offical record and
> supported by "supression" of key items of evidence, which was known to
> exsist at the time yet is not available today.
>
> RE: the "ONLY" valid consideration is that Oswald, himself was the
> director of these activities.
>
> I agree. He was the director of his own activities, with assistance from
> noone.
>
> You can't eliminate the consideration of assistance.....making a statement
> of opinion does not overide anothers opinion unless supported by fact.
> It is clear Oswald had "assistance" from a large number of
> individuals.....for example.
RE; Ruth Paine took over the responsibilites of
> support for his family, while he was engaged in travel to MC. Ruth's
> motive and intent is really not clear on this, but without her assistance
> he could not have done what he did during this period.
>
Ruth Paine helping Marina is not what I'd call assistance to LHO. She
certainly didn't do it for LHO's sake. At least, I don't recall her ever
saying she took Marina and the kids in order to be of assistance to HIM.
Her heart was directed at Marina and the kids. Not LHO. That is of course,
if you have testimony or a document from Ruth Paine stating otherwise.
JM/HD
James K. Olmstead
On Sep 19, 8:42 pm, "James K. Olmstead" <jolmst...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> "HistorianDetective" <historiandetect...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6d8774b1-148c-4003...@a19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 18, 7:17 am, "James K. Olmstead" <jolmst...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > The period in question is really not the period to question.
>
> RE your: > Nobody can eliminate the consideration that
>
> > Oswald "himself" used an imposter to make phone calls and visits
> > (including
> > diners and partys) during the
> > period you mention, that is known he was in MC.
>
> Well, consider this. After 40 some years goin' on 50, it is certainly
> justifiable and reasonable to conclude that, based on a total lack of
> evidence, Oswald did not use an imposter to make phone calls and visits
> (including diners and partys) during the period you mention, that is known
> he was in MC.
>
Just because the complete chain of evidence has not been established, does
not
mean that a case is closed due to lack of evidence. The Federal Government
agencies involved introduced the consideration of an imposter, they thought
it
was a valid consideration. Their investgation did not resolve the issue.
The way
"they" handled the investigation reporting along with the suppression of
related
documentation keeps this aspect of the case "open to consideration".
RE:
> HD: Why and how can you conclude what the offical investigation could not
> concerning these calls?
>
By simple and elementary deduction, my friend. No evidence exists after
40+ years goin' on 50 that Oswald received assistance from
anyone/anything, foreign or domestic. It doesn't get much simpler, my
friend.
Are you saying Oswald never received any assistance at all:
1. Towards his involvement in the assassination of JFK?
or
2. His troubled youth..ie schooling confinement in Youth House, legal
issues?
3. His fraudulent enlistment into the MC?
4. The training he received.....not being educated to the required math
level for the job?
5. His special treatment in the hospital concerning "The Gunshot
Incident"?
6. His two SCM's......ie officer giving false "favorable" statement?
7. His USMC job assignments?
8. His second and third required Security Clearance Investigations?
(required after conviction of SCM)
9. The removal of related documents from his 201 file...ie wavier of
Article 15?
10. His seperation from the USMC?
11. His defection.....assistance from both the US and USSR?
12. The failure to prosecute violation of Security Statement signed upon
seperation.....(5 years/$5,000 fine)
13. Allowing Marina to enter USA under the CIA Act of 1948....overriding
the objection of the State of Texas?
14. Help from various individuals in assisting Oswald to "settle in" back in
the US of A.?
The above are a few of the areas Oswald recieved "assistance" in, that
allowed him to do various things he is
known to have done that required some form of help. Now there are several
areas that may have "required"
assistance from others to accomplish some of his activities....however
nobody ever came forward and claimed
responsibilty....not wishing to become a "known accomplice" to the suspected
assassin of the President. That
consideration does not eliminate the consideration that he did in fact have
assistance in some areas of concern.
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.....the fact of the mater is
that
the cause and effect of RP's assistance allowed Oswald the freedom of
responsibility to accomplish his goals. As I recall she wanted to help
"them"
not just Marina. They (MP and RP) did a great deal that helped "them".
jko
JM/HD
HistorianDetective
RE:
>
> Are you saying Oswald never received any assistance at all:
>
> 1. Towards his involvement in the assassination of JFK?
Yes. He acted alone, save for the great assistance he received from
HAPPENSTANCE .
Regarding the rest of your items, I am not saying that he didn't receive
assistance at various times in his life. Of course he did. But the
assistance he received was not directly related with the assassination.
Again. There is no evidence to support a conclusion that he received
assistance in assassinating JFK.
Are the items you listed worth noting? Of course they are. They are a part
of Oswald's life. But, suspicion alone isn't enough.
JM/HD
Anthony Marsh
Hoover had worried that the Russians would send back an impostor instead
of the real Oswald.
James K. Olmstead
Well I'm glad you qualified your opinion. but we still disagree on
Oswald's role. I consider him involved however there are issues that I
consider exculpatory concerning the "assassin". Perhaps if the issues were
ever addressed I'd change my mind, but for now it remains open.
jko
WBurg...@aol.com
And Win Scott sent a communication about the mystery man to Langley as "a
person known to you." They knew who he was. And they knew he wasn't
Oswald...quickly. That's when the panic started.
Anthony Marsh
Maybe he really did think it was Oswald. Was this communication before
they had seen the real Oswald on TV?
claviger
> There is also the apocryphal story of a strange odyssey across South
> Texas, where a guy who looked like LHO tried to find a job in several
> towns between Laredo and Corpus Christi. It would seem impossible for this
> to be LHO but several witnesses immediately recognized LHO as the guy who
> applied for a job in their town.
>
> Then there is the rumor around Duval County that LHO spent a week
> practicing with his rifle at the large ranch owned by George Parr, the
> notorious "Duke of Duval County".
Oswald the Impostor
http://www.jfklancer.com/Page4.html
tommyo...@gmail.com
impersonated by a KGB agent in the 10/01/63 phone call to triple-agent
Ivan Obyedkov at the Soviet Embassy so that Obyedkov ("Byetkov*?" in
Angleton's June 19, 1975 Church Committee testimony) could plant a WWIII
Virus in Oswald's CIA file by "volunteering" the radioactive name
"Kostikov" to him.
There's a torn scrap of paper in CIA files that suggests that this
"Oswald" spoke bad *English* and Russian in an earlier phone call, and I
believe this can be explained by the Russian impersonator's being unable
the correctly pronounce the English words in his script, and his
concomitant inadvertently overdoing Oswald's supposed dificulties with the
Russian language.
Steve M. Galbraith
Russian was poor and broken.
As far as I know, neither of the CIA translators who listened to the call
- Boris Tarasoff and his wife - said he (or the caller) spoke broken
English. Boris did say that the Russian was poor and barely recognizable.
Can you cite/link/quote Angleton mentioning this Byetkov figure? I've done
a search of the Church Committee hearings and the name "Byetkov" doesn't
come up. Neither does Obyedkov.
Here's the testimony of the Tarasoff's re the calls:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=258&search=Tarasoff#relPageId=12&tab=page
Anthony Marsh
> I believe that, whether or not Oswald went to Mexico City, he was
City. Have YOU listened to the tape? Do you know his voice well enough to
be sure?
> impersonated by a KGB agent in the 10/01/63 phone call to triple-agent
> Ivan Obyedkov at the Soviet Embassy so that Obyedkov ("Byetkov*?" in
> Angleton's June 19, 1975 Church Committee testimony) could plant a WWIII
> Virus in Oswald's CIA file by "volunteering" the radioactive name
> "Kostikov" to him.
>
certainly most people did not know that he was head of the assassination
branch for the Western Hemisphere.
> There's a torn scrap of paper in CIA files that suggests that this
> "Oswald" spoke bad *English* and Russian in an earlier phone call, and I
> believe this can be explained by the Russian impersonator's being unable
> the correctly pronounce the English words in his script, and his
> concomitant inadvertently overdoing Oswald's supposed dificulties with the
> Russian language.
>
Anthony Marsh
tommyo...@gmail.com
Look at the very first word on this page.
The name "Obyedkov" (pronounced ah-be-ED-cough) does not appear in
Angleton's June 1975 or February 1976 Church Committee testimony
transcript.
Why?
Because Angleton evidently said (or tried to say) Obyedkov's name only
once (and that was in his June 19, 1975 testimony -- see link, below) and
it got written down as "Byetkov," instead.
He talks about this triple-agent for about five pages, though, in his
February 11, 1976 testimony, but unfortunately only refers to him there
not by name but as "another hangnail," or some-such thing.
It's interesting to note that Angleton and/or the transcriber also had a
devil of a time getting the last name of (my "Blond Oswald In Mexico
City"), Nikolai Leonov, correct throughout Angleton's testimony, so it's
not so surprising to me that they would stumble on Obyedkov's name, too.
Anthony Marsh
> Steve,
>
> Look at the very first word on this page.
>
> The name "Obyedkov" (pronounced ah-be-ED-cough) does not appear in
> Angleton's June 1975 or February 1976 Church Committee testimony
> transcript.
>
> Why?
>
> Because Angleton evidently said (or tried to say) Obyedkov's name only
> once (and that was in his June 19, 1975 testimony -- see link, below) and
> it got written down as "Byetkov," instead.
>