SECOND OSWALD?
David Von Pein
Subject: Second Oswald
Date: 2/10/2010 11:30:09 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: Richard
To: David Von Pein
-------------------------
Dave, have you published your thoughts about the "second Oswald"
sightings (e.g. Sylvia Odio, Mexico, firing range in Dallas, auto
dealership in Dallas etc) prior to the JFK assassination?
What significance do you think they have? Do they suggest some govt
involvement in some sort of plot or plan -- not necessarily the JFK
assassination but perhaps some other significance?
I am interested in your thoughts about this issue.
Thanks.
Richard
========================================================
Subject: Re: Second Oswald
Date: 2/10/2010 4:30:30 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Richard
-------------------------
Hi Richard,
As you undoubtedly know, many times after a high-profile murder occurs
there are people who crawl out of the woodwork with stories of various
"sightings" of the killer, most of whom only saw someone who resembled
the murderer. And this could easily be the case with many of the
Oswald sightings, since LHO had fairly "average" looks and physical
features.
The Oswald sightings before the assassination do not indicate a
Government plot of some kind, nor do any of them even make any
cohesive SENSE at all, in my opinion. Take the "car lot" sighting of
Oswald, for example.
The conspiracy kooks want us to believe that somebody was
impersonating LHO at some car dealership a few weeks before November
22, and that this "other Oswald" tipped his hand and told Mr. Bogard
that he would be coming into some money in about three weeks.
Now, I ask: Why would any conspirators who were in the process of
trying to frame Oswald have any desire to ADVERTISE THEIR PLOT three
weeks in advance (even in a subtle manner, like this car dealership
example)? It's just silly.
And I think the same type of reasoning applies to the Dial Ryder
incident at the Irving Sports Shop, where Oswald (or an "imposter")
supposedly wanted a scope mounted on a gun that conspiracy theorists
say wasn't Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano at all (which, indeed, it
almost certainly wasn't, since the scope had already been mounted on
the rifle Oswald purchased from Klein's by mail order in March '63).
But for what logical reason would some plotters want to do this and
possibly blow a portion of the murder plan if they were to be exposed
after the assassination?
Apparently the planting of all the physical evidence at the murder
scene on November 22nd to implicate poor sap Lee Oswald (which is,
indeed, what many conspiracy theorists think occurred) wasn't nearly
enough for these gung-ho patsy framers. They wanted to run the risk of
exposure by having imposter Oswalds pop up all over the place in the
weeks and months prior to the assassination of the President.
The Garland Slack/rifle range incident and the Sylvia Odio incident
are not quite as easy to dismiss, however. I think it's quite possible
that Oswald was at Odio's door on 9/25/63 (although there's other
evidence to indicate he wasn't there, such as the tight timeline for
his being able to catch the various busses to Mexico and a phone call
he made to Horace Twiford that same night (probably from New Orleans
or Houston), which suggests he might not have been able to physically
be present at Odio's home at the time in question.
But Odio and her sister are two good reasons to consider the
possibility of Oswald actually having been at Odio's door that
September night. Their stories corroborate each other nicely. And the
fact that Sylvia Odio remembered the American being introduced to her
as a man named "Oswald" is another thing that leads toward him being
there.
But even if Oswald was at Odio's, it wouldn't be totally out of
character for LHO to be seen in the company of anti-Castro Cubans. He
pulled the same trick in New Orleans just one month earlier, in August
'63, when he went into Carlos Bringuier's clothing store, with
Bringuier being under the distinct impression that LHO was ANTI-Castro
(when, in fact, he certainly wasn't).
It was probably part of a game Oswald was playing that summer to
garner more attention (and sympathy from some quarters) for his one-
man FPCC chapter in New Orleans.
As for Mexico City, it couldn't be more obvious that the real Lee
Harvey Oswald travelled to Mexico City in late September of 1963. The
proof of that trip is several layers deep, starting with Oswald's very
own handwriting on the Mexico City hotel's register [as seen in Warren
Commission Exhibit No. 2480, line 18], plus Marina Oswald's testimony
regarding the Mexico excursion, plus the visa application with
Oswald's own PICTURE and SIGNATURE on it [CE2564], plus another SIGNED
document in Oswald's own handwriting (a letter he wrote to complain
about his treatment while in Mexico), plus the various witnesses who
saw and spoke to Lee Oswald while on the busses he took to and from
Mexico City.
CE2480:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0353b.htm
CE2564:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0422b.htm
So, since we know beyond ALL doubt that the real Lee Harvey Oswald
went to Mexico City in late 1963, the question must then be asked: Why
would somebody ALSO be impersonating Oswald in Mexico AT THE SAME
TIME? Vince Bugliosi has a few (humorous) thoughts on that silly
theory:
"It's always assumed, of course, that the imposter would
impersonate Oswald [in Mexico City] without his knowledge, that he
would be someone Oswald did not know. But [HSCA investigator Edwin]
Lopez raises the possibility--are you seated?--that maybe the
impersonator was "one of his [Oswald's] companions" in Mexico City. To
think that our tax money went into the preparation of the Lopez
Report. ....
"Shouldn't an impersonator at least resemble the man he's
standing in for? .... 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." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
Vincent's last comment above was referring to this picture of the so-
called "Oswald imposter":
-----------------
ADDENDUM:
Jean Davison does a terrific job of dissecting and analyzing this
strange bird known as Lee Harvey Oswald in her 1983 book "OSWALD'S
GAME":
http://Oswalds-Game.blogspot.com
And Vincent Bugliosi also has an excellent biography of Oswald in his
2007 book "RECLAIMING HISTORY":
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/reclaiming-history.html
Thanks for writing.
Best regards,
David Von Pein
========================================================
David Von Pein
Subject: Re: Second Oswald
Date: 2/12/2010 1:31:14 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Richard
To: David Von Pein
----------------------
I must say that this Mexico incident at the Soviet Embassy and the
Odio incident shortly before Oswald entered Mexico still cause me to
scratch my head a bit. How is it that the "picture of Oswald" that
turned out to be clearly someone else outside the Embassy survived,
while no pictures of the real Oswald at the Embassy survived?
If the real Oswald was there at the same time as the photo was taken
of the "second Oswald", this does seem to raise questions about why no
photos of the real Oswald were ever produced. Why would the real
Oswald photos have been destroyed while the fake Oswald photos taken
in the same time frame were not?
Was there any attempt to obtain pictures of the real Oswald from the
Russians after the assassination? Wouldn't the Russians have pictures
of persons entering the Embassy as well? Did the FBI continue to
believe there was a "second Oswald" in Mexico for many years after the
assassination? Is there any FBI documentation clearing up the issue
and indicating that the explanation by Hosty [at the 1986 TV docu-
trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"] had solved the mix-up?
Did James Hosty later claim in a 2003 book that Oswald had offered to
kill JFK to the Cubans? Does this raise a question about whether Hosty
can be believed in his explanation about the second Oswald?
What are your thoughts about the letter sent to the Russian Embassy in
Washington purportedly from Oswald dated November 9, 1963 referencing
Oswald's inability to to reach the Soviet Embassy in Havana and
containing the phrase "there would have been time to complete our
business." Is this a genuine letter? If so, what do you think Oswald
is referring to? If the letter is a fake, does this provide some
further issue about the "second Oswald"?
In his recent book "JFK and the Unspeakable," James Douglass suggests
that the Soviet Embassy received the letter 4 days before the
assassination and that the Soviets considered the letter to be
"clearly a provocation" by those who were involved in the
assassination so as to place blame on the Soviets and that perhaps the
letter was a forgery. (See pages 229 et seq of the Douglass book)
I certainly don't intend to vouch for the credibility of Mr. Douglass
and I have many questions about his book and the conclusions he
reaches, but I wanted to get your thoughts about all of this.
If Oswald did actually visit Sylvia Odio on the way to Mexico City
with 2 other men who were anti Castro, and one of them called Odio the
following day to say the Oswald said JFK should have been killed
because of failure to provide support for the Bay of Pigs invasion in
1961, there seems to confusion about what Oswald was up to. He is both
"pro Castro" and "anti Castro" within a very short period of time
prior to the assassination.
Of course none of us can know with certainty what Oswald was thinking,
but all of this (Odio visit, trip to Mexico, letter to Russian Embassy
in D.C., etc) lead me to wonder just where Oswald was coming from and
what his motives were in portraying himself as both pro and anti
Castro shortly before the assassination.
I am completely satisfied that Oswald was the lone gunman who killed
JFK, but the entire "second Oswald" issue does make me wonder what
Oswald was thinking and what his motives were for the assassination.
I apologize for the rambling nature of the e-mail, but I have great
respect for your views and extensive knowledge about the JFK
assassination and am interested in trying to understand it all.
Many Thanks.
Richard
================================================
Subject: Re: Second Oswald
Date: 2/12/2010 6:27:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Richard
----------------------
Hi,
The Mexico City/Oswald/Odio/Second Oswald stuff is riddled with
possibilities, no doubt about that. And it's a confusing and sometimes
contradictory morass that can probably never be solved to everyone's
satisfaction.
But just giving you my "gut" feelings (and interjecting some common
sense into the feelings), I feel very confident in saying the
following things:
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald positively shot and killed President Kennedy
(and Officer Tippit).
2.) Nobody else but Oswald fired any shots at President Kennedy (or
Officer Tippit).
3.) Oswald positively made a trip to Mexico City in September 1963 and
visited both the Cuban and Russian embassies while he was there (the
witnesses are a half-mile deep to support this conclusion).
4.) Number 3 above is true EVEN IF THE FBI OR THE CIA OR ANYONE ELSE
DECIDED TO HIDE ANY INFORMATION (OR PHOTOS) CONCERNING OSWALD'S TRIP
TO MEXICO CITY IN LATE 1963.
There can be NO DOUBT whatsoever that Oswald did go to Mexico City two
months prior to the assassination. Oswald, in effect, TOLD US that he
went there, via his signature on various documents and the letter he
would later write to the Soviet Embassy in Washington in November
1963.
And since we know beyond any doubt that the REAL Lee Harvey Oswald
travelled to Mexico in late '63, then the theory about a "second
Oswald" or an "imposter Oswald" ALSO being in Mexico at the very same
time the REAL Oswald was there just simply makes no sense whatsoever.
5.) No "Cuban connection" to Lee Harvey Oswald has ever been confirmed
or proven with regard to Oswald's murder of JFK.
6.) The best place to turn if you have questions about virtually any
aspect of the JFK assassination is Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book
"Reclaiming History", which is a book that contains large quantities
of solid, common-sense-based information (always backed up by numerous
sources and citations), such as the excerpt shown below (re: Oswald's
alleged threat against JFK while LHO was in Mexico):
"In a June 17, 1964, letter to Warren Commission general counsel
J. Lee Rankin, J. Edgar Hoover said a "confidential source" who had
"furnished reliable information in the past" reported that Castro had
"recently said" that "our people in Mexico gave us the details" of
Oswald 's visit to the Mexican consulate, and when his request for a
visa "was refused him, he headed out saying 'I'm going to kill Kennedy
for this'."
"The story doesn't make sense. Why would Oswald threaten to kill
Kennedy because the Cuban consulate turned down his request for a
visa? What's the connection? Silvia Duran, the secretary at the
consulate who dealt with Oswald and was present at the time of
Oswald's outburst when his request for a visa was denied, said she
heard no such threat by Oswald against Kennedy. And the Cuban consul,
Eusebio Azcue, who was also present, also said no such threat by
Oswald was made, adding that if it had, he would "have passed this
information to Fidel."
"It should be noted that the Warren Commission should have
included in its report Oswald' s alleged threat to kill Kennedy at the
Cuban consulate in Mexico City, but it did not, and I have not been
able to find Hoover's letter to Rankin in any of the Commission's
volumes of exhibits." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 1285-1286 of
"Reclaiming History"
-------------
REGARDING OSWALD'S 11/9/63 LETTER:
The November 9, 1963, letter that Oswald wrote to the Soviet Embassy
in Washington, D.C. [Warren Commission Exhibit No. 15, linked below],
is most definitely a letter that was written by Lee Harvey Oswald
himself. It is certainly not a "fake" (i.e., it wasn't written by a
"second Oswald").
COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 15:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0029a.htm
The letter seen in CE15 was signed by Oswald, and that signature was
determined to be the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald. Making that
important determination for the HSCA were three handwriting experts
from the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners.
Those experts examined 63 documents purportedly written by Lee Oswald
during the last seven years of his life, one of which was the November
9, 1963, letter to the Soviet Embassy in Washington:
"48. November 9, 1963. Photomechanical (halftone) reproduction
of a typewritten letter to the Consular Division, Embassy, U.S.S.R.,
Washington, D.C., signed Lee H. Oswald. Location: Archives.
(Photomechanical reproduction-CE 15; JFK F-500.)" -- HSCA Volume #8,
Page 231
8 HSCA 231:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0118a.htm
The HSCA's exhibit marked F-500, which is a handwritten draft of
Oswald's 11/9/63 letter, is the same as Warren Commission Exhibit No.
103.
CE103:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0234a.htm
The House Select Committee on Assassinations said this on page 233 of
HSCA Volume #8 (with respect to the more than sixty "Oswald" documents
that were examined):
"SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS -- The signatures and handwriting
purported to be by Oswald are consistently that of one person."
8 HSCA 233:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0119a.htm
As to the specific reference in the November 9th letter about Oswald
not being able to "reach the Soviet embassy in Havana" and Oswald's
remark about the Havana embassy having "time to complete our
business":
Those comments don't seem overly suspicious to me. Oswald was
attempting to acquire an intransit visa to Cuba, which would have
permitted him a short stay in Cuba before going on to Russia.
Whether or not Oswald really intended to travel on to Russia after
getting to Cuba can never be known, of course. But from what Oswald
told his wife, Marina, it's very likely that Lee wanted to stay in
Cuba, versus continuing on to the Soviet Union.
So, I don't think the words Oswald used in his 11/9/63 letter ("time
to complete our business") necessarily mean anything other than
Oswald's "business" in trying to get permission to go back to Russia.
Although, as mentioned, the part about travelling all the way to
Russia was probably just a ruse on Oswald's part, in order to get his
visa quicker, because he likely had every intention of staying in Cuba
and fighting for Castro's "revolution" (if he could).
There is also this:
When comparing Oswald's final typewritten 11/9/63 letter to one of his
handwritten rough drafts, I noticed quite a few differences with
respect to the "time to complete our business" remark.
In Oswald's rough draft, he said this (and keep in mind, because of
all the cross-outs, it's a bit difficult to read every single word
accurately in this rough draft of Oswald's [Page 2 of CE103, linked
below], but I think this is what Oswald originally wrote):
"Had I been able to reach Havana as planned I could have
contacted the Soviet Embassy there for the completion of..."
[The sentence then breaks off and Oswald then writes:]
"...would have been able to get the necessary documents I
required [to] assist me."
CE103 (PAGE 2 OF ROUGH DRAFT):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0234b.htm
In Oswald's final typed version of the letter, the above verbiage was
changed to this:
"Had I been able to reach the Soviet Embassy in Havana as
planned, the embassy there would have had time to complete our
business."
So, it seems fairly obvious to me that the "business" Oswald was
talking about in his 11/9/63 letter was merely "red tape" (so to
speak), i.e., the acquisition of further visas and documents that
would aid Oswald in his travels.
---------
Here's another good passage from Mr. Bugliosi's book (relating to
James Hosty of the FBI). It's yet another example (among many) of the
"common sense" that appears throughout Vincent's "Reclaiming History":
"One other alleged attempt on the part of the FBI to withhold
key information from the Warren Commission comes not so much from the
conspiracy theorists but from a quasi-conspiracy soul mate of theirs,
former FBI agent James Hosty himself.
"In his book 'Assignment: Oswald', Hosty says that shortly
before his testimony before the Warren Commission, someone removed
"two key items" (both had been sent from FBI headquarters) from his
file on Oswald in his Dallas office. One was an October 18, 1963,
communique from the CIA to the FBI stating that while Oswald was in
Mexico City he was in contact with the Russian embassy and had
probably spoken to one Valeriy Kostikov at the embassy.
"The second document contained a reference to the November 9,
1963, letter Oswald had written to the Soviet embassy in Washington,
D.C., in which he refers to speaking to a "Comrade Kostin" (believed
to be Kostikov) at the Russian embassy in Mexico City.
"Based on these two documents, Hosty said he figured Kostikov
"was just a simple administrative officer at the Russian Embassy." But
Hosty says he later learned that Kostikov was a KGB agent in
Department 13, the department of the KGB that dealt in sabotage and
assassination.
"Hosty suggests that the reason the FBI (who he correctly
presumes knew this fact) kept this information from him is that the
bureau, in league with the CIA, the Warren Commission, and President
Johnson himself, didn't want him to introduce this information into
the public record when he testified before the Warren Commission, for
fear, Hosty says, that it could precipitate a nuclear war with the
Soviet Union.
"One immediate problem with Hosty's thinking is this: Hosty said
he read both documents before they disappeared from his files.
Obviously, neither contained a reference to Kostikov being a KGB
agent. Indeed, this is the predicate for Hosty's whole argument. Since
the documents did not contain a reference to Kostikov being a KGB
agent, how in the world would their removal from his file, which he
felt was highly suspicious, prevent him from knowing Kostikov was a
KGB agent? It obviously makes no sense at all.
"Moreover, if the documents had contained a reference to
Kostikov's KGB status, since Hosty had already read both documents, he
could have testified to their essential content before the Warren
Commission even if he did not have them in his physical possession.
"It is also noteworthy that unlike his published book, his
earlier 1986 manuscript of the book pointed out (page 20) that right
after the assassination, when he located his Oswald file, the two
subject documents were "right on top" of the file. Obviously, they
were important, and just as obviously, his supervising agents had a
right, without his permission, to look into the file (and remove any
documents they deemed important) on someone who had just been
identified as the president's assassin.
"Indeed, one such supervising agent, Kenneth Howe, testified to
this being routine procedure in ANY case." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages
1338-1339 of "Reclaiming History"
-------------
Thanks for the e-mails, Richard. I don't know if I have helped you at
all with your questions about Oswald and Mexico, etc., but I've
enjoyed our conversations nonetheless.
Furthermore, your recent e-mails and the questions you have raised
about certain aspects of the JFK assassination and its investigation
have provided the impetus for me to look a little more deeply into
those specific matters being discussed. And for providing that
additional incentive, I am grateful.
Regards,
David Von Pein
http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
================================================
David Von Pein
Subject: Re: Second Oswald
Date: 2/13/2010 1:37:27 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Richard
To: David Von Pein
-------------------------
Dave, thanks so much for the generosity of your time in responding to
my inquiries. I will look over the cites you provided me in your
emails. I certainly agree with the numbered list of points you made in
your initial response yesterday. Oswald did the shooting that day and
no one else fired a shot. But why?
With regard to point 5 about the lack of a Cuban connection to the
assassination, do you know what basis Hosty claimed to have for his
allegation that Oswald offered to kill JFK to the Cubans?
Without the benefit of having read 'Oswald's Game' and 'Reclaiming
History' I am at some disadvantage in speculating about Oswald and his
motives. It would appear to me that since at least March 1963 when he
purchased the rifle under a false name, he had some nefarious plan in
mind. Whether that involved the assassination of JFK at that time, I
certainly don't know, but it looks like he was planning to shoot
somebody or somebodies.
Oswald strikes me as the type of person who wanted to be recognized as
"somebody" of importance. What continues to baffle me is why he
apparently engaged in the game of being both anti Castro and pro
Castro within a matter of days in connection with the trip to Mexico
City in September/October 1963.
[...]
I may do a little additional digging and get back in touch with you
for some more sound advice. I hope you will forgive these perhaps
baseless musings. Many thanks.
Richard
=====================================================
Subject: Re: Second Oswald
Date: 2/13/2010 4:58:47 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Richard
-------------------------
Hi again Richard,
Re: James Hosty.....
I haven't read Hosty's book, so I don't know everything that he might
have heard or theorized about certain aspects of the JFK case. But
it's very likely that Hosty heard about Lee Harvey Oswald's alleged
threat against President Kennedy via this method (as explained here by
Vincent Bugliosi):
"British tabloid journalist Comer Clark...in an October 1967
edition of the National Enquirer...wrote that on July 15, 1967, he had
an exclusive interview with [Fidel] Castro late one night in a Havana
pizzeria. He quotes Castro as saying, "Lee Oswald came to the Cuban
Embassy in Mexico City twice. The first time, I was told, he wanted to
work for us. He was asked to explain, but he wouldn't. He wouldn't go
into details. The second time he said something like: 'Someone ought
to shoot that President Kennedy.' Then Oswald said--and this was
exactly how it was reported to me--'Maybe I'll try to do it.' This was
less than two months before the U.S. President was assassinated...Yes,
I heard of Lee Harvey Oswald's plan to kill President Kennedy. It's
possible I could have saved him. I might have been able to, but I
didn't. I never believed the plan would be put into effect."
"The HSCA learned that Clark, who died in 1972, "wrote
extensively for the sensationalist press in England. His articles
include such items as 'British Girls as Nazi Sex Slaves' [and] 'I Was
Hitler's Secret Love'."
"When the HSCA asked Castro on April 3, 1978, about Clark's
allegation, he responded in a blizzard of denunciatory words. Among
them: "This is absurd. I didn't say that. It has been invented from
the beginning until the end. It's a lie from head to toe. If this man
[Oswald] would have done something like that, it would have been our
moral duty to inform the United States."
"Denying that he had ever met Clark or been interviewed by him,
[Castro] said, "How could [this man] interview me in a pizzeria? I
never go to public restaurants...I would never have given a journalist
an interview in a pizzeria...What is the job of that journalist? What
is he engaged in? ... You should...find [out] who he is and why he
wrote it."" -- Page 1285 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
--------
Re: Oswald's Mindset In Late 1963.....
I really have no idea what Oswald was "up to" in the months leading up
to the assassination with respect to his seemingly "flipping sides"
from pro-Castro to anti-Castro at the drop of a hat. But he did seem
to like to play games sometimes.
As for Oswald's reason for buying the rifle in March of 1963 -- that
one is easy:
He bought the rifle so he could kill Retired General Edwin Walker with
it. Oswald's attempted murder of Walker occurred only a couple of
weeks (approximately) after he received his rifle in the mail.
The Walker shooting is something that most conspiracy theorists want
to totally ignore, or they want to pretend that Oswald, himself,
didn't really shoot at Walker in April, which is nonsense, of course,
based on his paper trail that he left behind for Marina and Marina's
own testimony concerning the matter.
But it's easy to see WHY those conspiracy promoters want to deny that
Oswald shot at Walker....because if they were to admit to themselves
that Sweet Lee Harvey HAD IT IN HIM TO KILL A HUMAN BEING (and a
political figure at that!), then it would be much more difficult to
paint Oswald as the completely innocent "patsy" when it comes to John
F. Kennedy's murder.
The Walker shooting, IMO, has always been a vital key to understanding
OSWALD HIMSELF. Because when Oswald took that gun and fired a shot at
General Edwin Walker's head on April 10, 1963, it forever proved that
the man who was charged seven months later with the murder of the
President of the United States positively had it WITHIN HIMSELF the
willingness to kill a human being.
In other words -- Oswald was, in effect, a POLITICAL ASSASSIN many
months prior to November 22, 1963.
And, in my view, that's a very important thing to know about Lee
Harvey Oswald. And it's a part of Oswald's inner character that
conspiracy theorists SHOULD (but don't) pay a lot more attention to,
particularly the large number of conspiracists who currently reside in
the silly "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity.
Thanks again for writing.
David Von Pein
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
=====================================================
gggg gggg
David Healy
gggg gggg
Hank Sienzant
Instead of citing a YouTube claim backed by no evidence, why don't you link to the memo that Hoover put out that Oswald was being impersonated in New Orleans.
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Or let's see if any other conspiracy theorist will correct or even question this claim made in the YouTube video you posted.
Hank Sienzant
You may reach the right conclusion, but it's unlikely.
Maybe Hoover didn't say what the man in the video claims about Oswald being impersonated in New Orleans.
Have you considered that possibility or do you accept everything on the internet as the gospel truth? If you do, read this: https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report
It's on the internet, too.
If you don't accept everything on the internet as true, did you validate this man’s claim or did you just accept it as true without researching it further? (it sure reads that way).
Sky Throne 19efppp
Ben Holmes
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>If you start with erroneous data, you will generally reach erroneous conclusions.
belief that the "A.B.C.D." of the Autopsy Report describe the location
of the large wound.
But you won't... you're a coward, and will, as always, run...
As you do...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
Ben Holmes
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>Anybody can say anything, especially if they are not familiar with the evidence.
Can you cite for your claim?
>Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Go ahead, we'll wait.
I reject your silly notion that a troll is a Critic.
Hank Sienzant
Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Anybody can say anything, especially if they are not familiar with the evidence.
> Such as your claim that the throat wound was dissected?
>
> Can you cite for your claim?
> >Go ahead, we’ll wait.
>
>
> >Or let's see if any other conspiracy theorist...
>
>
> I reject your silly notion that a troll is a Critic.
What I said:
“Or let's see if any other conspiracy theorist will correct or even question this claim made in the YouTube video“.
Clearly, he's a conspiracy theorist.
Hank Sienzant
Ben knows this, but curiously, he remains silent and would rather argue with me than correct a statement he knows is false.
It’s just a random guy on the internet making a claim and butchering the details.
Nothing to see here.
Sky Throne 19efppp
Ben Holmes
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME.
What a coward!!!
Ben Holmes
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 7:01:19?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 14:00:11 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Anybody can say anything, especially if they are not familiar with the evidence.
>> Such as your claim that the throat wound was dissected?
>>
>> Can you cite for your claim?
>>>Go ahead, we’ll wait.
>
>Ben tries to change the subject rather than correct a false statement he knows is false.
you?
>> Go ahead, we'll wait.
cowards like Huckster think if they ignore it, it will go away...
>>>Or let's see if any other conspiracy theorist...
>>
>>
>> I reject your silly notion that a troll is a Critic.
>
Yes, I do.
And unlike you, I can reason - and answer honestly.
Ben Holmes
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>Ben knows this, but curiously, he remains silent and would rather argue with me than correct a statement he knows is false.
answer would indict him as a fool.
So he runs.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
Hank Sienzant
You say you can reason, but if so, why do you evade answering any questions and employ so many logical fałacies? Above you changed the subject, and in the other two posts, you employed ad hominem logical fallacies. You won't correct a CT even when you know what he’s spouting is wrong. And you know Hoover wasn't talking about an Oswald impersonator in the late 1950s.
Ben Holmes
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:35:20?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 19:22:32 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 7:01:19?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 14:00:11 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Anybody can say anything, especially if they are not familiar with the evidence.
>>>> Such as your claim that the throat wound was dissected?
>>>>
>>>> Can you cite for your claim?
>>>>>Go ahead, we’ll wait.
>>>
>>>Ben tries to change the subject rather than correct a false statement he knows is false.
>> You've **NEVER** answered this question. Quite the coward, aren't
>> you?
>>>> Go ahead, we'll wait.
>> I have the rest of my life, and I'll never get the answer... because
>> cowards like Huckster think if they ignore it, it will go away...
>>>>>Or let's see if any other conspiracy theorist...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I reject your silly notion that a troll is a Critic.
>>>
>>>So you think ...
>>
>> Yes, I do.
>>
>> And unlike you, I can reason - and answer honestly.
>
>Except you changed the subject and didn't answer to the point raised.
your PROVEN cowardice.
Hank Sienzant
Hoover wrote in June of 1960 (after Oswald was in Russia), that “since there is a possibility that an impostor is using Oswald's birth certificate, any current information the department of state may have concerning subject will be appreciated.”
This was after numerous letters to the State Department starting in March of 1960 inquiring as to her son’s whereabouts in Russia, which you can read starting here:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0309b.htm
Hoover’s memo has nothing to do with New Orleans and wasn't written in 1958 or 1959, contrary to the claims of the YouTube person. He butchered it entirely.
It was written in June of 1960. It's not about the Bolton Ford supposed incident you mention that occurred on the same day JFK was being inaugurated in Washington (1/20/1961) either.
Like I said, “Hoover was talking about a different time and place. Ben knows this, but curiously, he remains silent and would rather argue with me than correct a statement he knows is false. It’s just a random guy on the internet making a claim and butchering the details. Nothing to see here.”
I'm waiting for gggg… to show up and apologize for wasting everyone’s time on an obviously false claim, but I'm not holding my breath, either.
Hank Sienzant
Such irony in Ben’s posts.
Hank Sienzant
Because he knows the evidence won't support his beliefs, so he RUNS to change the subject, inflame the dialog (by calliing people names) and thereby hopes to avoid revealing the dearth of vidence supporting CT contentions.
Ben Holmes
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:35:20?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 19:22:32 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 7:01:19?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 14:00:11 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Anybody can say anything, especially if they are not familiar with the evidence.
>>>> Such as your claim that the throat wound was dissected?
>>>>
>>>> Can you cite for your claim?
>>>>>Go ahead, we’ll wait.
>>>
>>>Ben tries to change the subject rather than correct a false statement he knows is false.
>> You've **NEVER** answered this question. Quite the coward, aren't
>> you?
>>>> Go ahead, we'll wait.
>> I have the rest of my life, and I'll never get the answer... because
>> cowards like Huckster think if they ignore it, it will go away...
>>>>>Or let's see if any other conspiracy theorist...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I reject your silly notion that a troll is a Critic.
>>>
>>>So you think ...
>>
>> Yes, I do.
>>
>> And unlike you, I can reason - and answer honestly.
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Ben Holmes
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:35:20?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 21:12:49 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Ben knows this, but curiously, he remains silent and would rather argue with me than correct a statement he knows is false.
>> Huckster knows the answer to the questions I raise, but the correct
>> answer would indict him as a fool.
>>
>> So he runs.
>>
>> EVERY
>>
>> SINGLE
>>
>> TIME!
Ben Holmes
Ben Holmes
Ben Holmes
Ben Holmes
Hank Sienzant
Why does Ben RUN so much?
Another thread where he is doing precisely the same thing:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/w9ZjBAL5AgAJ
Sky Throne 19efppp
Ben Holmes
Hank Sienzant
Ben Holmes
Sky Throne 19efppp
Hank Sienzant
What part of the below post confused you as to what my conclusion was?
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/1yZ8hOJsB_Q/m/g9Yv3jc2CAAJ
Sky Throne 19efppp
Ben Holmes
Hank Sienzant
1. Because ‘somebody’ (I.e., Oswald) used Oswald’s birth certificate to establish themselves as Oswald. Hoover didn't know Oswald from a hill of beans, so he thought that was worth checking into?
2. Because something got lost in translation between Hoover and the people reporting to him. Hoover is reporting what he was told, or what he thought he was told, neither of which may be the precise truth?
I'm sure I'm overlooking some possibilities that don't involve a conspiracy to kill JFK and frame Oswald.
Ben Holmes
Sky Throne 19efppp
Hank Sienzant
You are confusing two separate items. Oswald takes his birth certificate to establish his identity when he attempts to defect, not eight months later.
Months later, Hoover memo questioning whether someone is masquerading as Oswald is spurred by Marguerite Oswald’s complaints to the State Department that she hasn’t been in contact with her son since his defection. She even travelled to Washington to complain in person about not knowing where her son was.
Sky Throne 19efppp
Steven Galbraith
The memo from Good is here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=117797#relPageId=248
Steven Galbraith
Oswald's birth certificate was, it appears, found among his possessions: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339664/m1/1/
Sky Throne 19efppp
Ben Holmes
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It seems the idea/suggestion that an impostor may try using Oswald's
> birth certificate first came from FBI Special Agent Harry Good.
pointing out that your speculation isn't evidence of anything... other
than your wild imagination...
Ben Holmes
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>John Newman has a few more details in his book ...
Who cares? Can you CITE the evidence?
Ben Holmes
Steven Galbraith
Here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=117797#relPageId=146&search=certificate
As a sidebar to this, when Marina and Oswald wanted to marry the Soviet officials said they needed to see a birth certificate from Marina. But apparently not Oswald? When Marina finally find hers she was shocked to learn that she had been abandoned by her father and adopted when her mother re-married.
Sound and fury......
Ben Holmes
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Complicating this further...
I deleted the nonsense.
You *need* to support your faith.
Steven Galbraith
From "Marina and Lee": "Not only had she been abandoned by her own father, she had also been repudiated by the man who had taken his place. It was a cruel blow. To this day Marina refuses to accept it fully clinging to the idea that she was, in fact, Alexander's adopted child, that he we was lying when he denied it, and that he had merely hidden the documents of adoption."
When she learned that her real last/birth name was Prusakova and not Medvedea she had to change all of her documents accordingly. And the new passport she needed left the name of her father blank, indicating that she was illegitimate.
This will be on the final.
Ben Holmes
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Even worse...
Completely unrelated nonsense that fails to prove the WCR's theory...
Sky Throne 19efppp
Hank Sienzant
Ben Holmes
Sky Throne 19efppp
Hank Sienzant
Sky Throne 19efppp
gggg gggg
(2023 Youtube upload):
"Michael Beschloss: FBI Knew ‘Exactly’ Who Oswald Was, But ‘Never Bothered’ To Warn Secret Service"
Ben Holmes
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>You know what they say about leading a horse to water...
Here's an example: