Oswald in Mexico City... someone impersonated him and tapes existed
WBurg...@aol.com
[See RIF# 180-10131-10330, HSCA agency file # 014728. This is a 193 page
document from the HSCA's Security Classified testimony of "John Scelso". ]
( page 76, Mr. Goldsmith, an HSCA investigator ask, "The third paragraph
of this letter asks, this cable asks, whether the original tapes were
available. What was the response to that?) And he said, "I do not
remember. Well, the response was they sent in a lot of transcripts, I do
not know whether-- they probably transcribed them then.
Mr. Goldsmith: Were they able to locate the original tapes?
Mr. Scelso: I think so.
(Later in the transcript p. 77)
Mr. Goldsmith: On what basis do you say that the original tapes were
found?
Mr. Scelso: I had the impression that after the assassination they did
a lot of transcribing. I may be wrong.
Mr. Goldsmith: When you say "they did a lot of transcribing" who are
you referring to?
Mr. Scelso: Both the staff of the envoy and our Soviet transcriber, our
Russian transcriber. However, I am not at all sure of that. I was not
looking for things like this at this time. We were rushing ahead, being
flooded with cables from all over the world.
Mr. Goldsmith: Let's look at CIA 208. Paragraph four there, which
indicates that the person who did the transcript, and says, 'Oswald is
identical with the person in an earlier paragraph who spoke broken Russian
and called on 28 September.'
That indicates that some sort of voice comparison was made.
Mr. Scelso: Yes. Tapes were probably still in existence.'
"That's 'John Scelso'
WBurg...@aol.com
Q. I just wanted to ask about the Mexican files, some of the Russian
files have come out, what is the status of the Gobernacion? You
mentioned Echevarria, before Sedia for about two or three decades who
became president was the head of the FBI in Mexico-
John, "Everybody hear the question being asked, all the way in the
back? We have had a lot of stuff come out on this case, we've even had
KGB files come out, what about files down there from Mexico City? Did
the Review Board look at this? Yes, they did. They were very
interested in this issue. Do we have anything? Almost nothing. Why?
For the very reason you said, it is an extremely sensitive subject.
"Let me give you some background on this. I was invited to the first
'Expert's conference.' I remember that. And we had there besides Mr.
Blakey, Mr. Slawson of the Warren Commission, one of the lawyers, and
the question was asked at the table, 'Did you listen to the Mexico
City tapes?' Because I don't know whether many of you realize it or
not actually Mr. Coleman, his partner, had told Tony Summers, sort of
off the record, in his suite room one time, actually I don't know if
I'm even supposed to be saying this, but anyway I had heard this 3rd
or 4th hand that they had listened to them. And so the question was
put to him at the table, and he said, just as cute as he could be,
'I'm sorry, I'm not at liberty to discuss that.' And the Board said,
'Excuse me, we have the authority now, the JFK Records Act was passed.
We are the authority.' And he just sat there and repeated himself,
'I'm sorry, I'm not at liberty to discuss this.'
Q. - "By who's order?"
John, "You'll have to ask Mr. Slawson yourself. But, I think it
illustrates extreme sensitivity of the tapes question. And I think
it's very possible, and I can share this, this is okay we were sitting
at the COPA conference way back at the Shoreham Hotel, I don't know if
you had come on board then or not at that time, maybe, in any event I
was sitting with Peter Dale Scott and Jeremy Gunn, the three of us,
and Peter Scott looked right at Jeremy and said, 'Jeremy, do the
Mexicans have any of those tapes?' And Jeremy just, ...nothing, there
was nothing there. And so I think it's not just the tapes it's the
whole relationship of the DFS, the Mexican intelligence, the FBI, the
CIA, and how much control, and how much manipulation the United States
has had in Mexican politics and one of the problems associated with
getting documents down there is its going to turn on too much light,
and it's going to be very embarrassing to senior officials, which was
implied in the way you asked your question. And I think you are right.
And it could damage U.S. relations with Mexico. Now, I don't know that
that is what the Board thought, I am just speculating that this is a
very big consideration. The Board took this question very seriously
and decided if we blow U.S. Mexican relations it may harm, cause this
happened early on, it may harm our ability to do our job and get all
these records out. So I think they just said, 'Hmm, this is a little
bit too hot to handle.' But, I don't know that for a fact.
Q. - Is there any evidence or indication what the military leaders
were up to this whole week, and what was Curtis LeMay doing on the
24th?
"I don't know and it's something that should be looked into. I mean
you can see how interesting it is. You go anywhere, whether it's the
Dallas police building, or inside the CIA it's a terrifically
interesting story and I think that we have an ability to do that, and
I think that might be a little harder. But what I did do is I went to
a place called flag plot, the Navy op center inside the Pentagon, I've
got three or four, in fact, Zumwald (sp?) is in charge, he mentions
that, and I've got the Navy memoranda, by the way there are three
boxes from ONI, and there should be a lot more, you're right, but at
least they are nice boxes, DIA only gave us like (indicating, a small
amount) that, but hey talk, the first thing you can see in the Navy
memoranda, they reference the 10/10 Teletype from CIA, it's like 'READ
THIS CABLE' cause its to Navy, and the FBI, and the State Department,
but I think that it's an area that you know it's possible to do
research on, but I don't have any answers for you.
John McAdams
<WBurg...@aol.com> wrote:
The problem is you folks are reduced to quoting people who where just
speculating, and actually had no first-hand knowledge of the things
they were talking about.
That's thin gruel, historically.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Oh, you mean like Slawson? You think he had no first-hand knowledge?
This is like many of your cover-ups. You may get away with denying
things for 25-40 years and then accidentally we stumble upon the
evidence and you are caught flatfooted.
claviger
If someone was impersonating LHO in Mexico City he must have known
about it and did his part to convince Marina. Why? How did he know
about it and why did he go along with it?
WBurg...@aol.com
> On 3 Mar 2011 23:04:30 -0500, "WBurgha...@aol.com"
What makes you the master sheriff of what's "thin gruel" historically and
what is not? Do you have a crown? Or a sash? Do you sit on a throne? Was
there some kind of vote? Who are you? What are you doing? What are you
working on?
WBurg...@aol.com
He was in on the "plot." He thought he was being a patriot. Not that
JFK would be killed...... but they gave him another inconsequential
role that died with him.
Sandy McCroskey
Competent historians distinguish mere speculation from verifiable
fact.
/sm
claviger
"Thin gruel" is an old expression that anyone is entitled to use. You
are showing your ignorance by responding with such indignation.
claviger
Interesting hypothesis. Please give us more details on your personal
theory.
claviger
Well said.
WBurg...@aol.com
Well Sandy, if someone asks a "what if" question you get a "what if"
answer.
curtjester1
They all knew, and it was their job for their uppers to manuver their
politics under secrecy and if necessary a buffer of accountability.
They all received a lot of perks and accomodations along the way to
really care....well until one was caught in the game instead of being
a game player. Time to make a few phone calls to find out what was
going on....
CJ
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Apparently not.
JB
Jean Davison
<WBurg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5d35e442-19c2-45a1...@c8g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
>
> [See RIF# 180-10131-10330, HSCA agency file # 014728. This is a 193 page
> document from the HSCA's Security Classified testimony of "John Scelso". ]
>
> ( page 76, Mr. Goldsmith, an HSCA investigator ask, "The third paragraph
> of this letter asks, this cable asks, whether the original tapes were
> available. What was the response to that?) And he said, "I do not
> remember. Well, the response was they sent in a lot of transcripts, I do
> not know whether-- they probably transcribed them then.
"I do not remember" and "probably" are not a good start. On page 62
Goldsmith says, "My questions are asking you to testify about things that
you do not have direct knowledge about." Scelso was not in Mexico City at
the time. He was trying to recall things he didn't witness, 15 years later.
>
> Mr. Goldsmith: Were they able to locate the original tapes?
>
> Mr. Scelso: I think so.
>
> (Later in the transcript p. 77)
>
> Mr. Goldsmith: On what basis do you say that the original tapes were
> found?
>
> Mr. Scelso: I had the impression that after the assassination they did
> a lot of transcribing. I may be wrong.
>
> Mr. Goldsmith: When you say "they did a lot of transcribing" who are
> you referring to?
>
> Mr. Scelso: Both the staff of the envoy and our Soviet transcriber, our
> Russian transcriber. However, I am not at all sure of that. I was not
> looking for things like this at this time. We were rushing ahead, being
> flooded with cables from all over the world.
"A lot of transcribing" doesn't mean they still had tapes of
Oswald. They would surely be interested in knowing what the Russians and
Cubans were saying about the assassination, wouldn't you agree?
>
> Mr. Goldsmith: Let's look at CIA 208. Paragraph four there, which
> indicates that the person who did the transcript, and says, 'Oswald is
> identical with the person in an earlier paragraph who spoke broken Russian
> and called on 28 September.'
>
> That indicates that some sort of voice comparison was made.
>
> Mr. Scelso: Yes. Tapes were probably still in existence.'
>
"Probably" again, and it isn't clear from this quote just when
the person who did the transcript wrote this. However, the statement that
Oswald "spoke broken Russian" was cabled to Washington on October 9:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=251&relPageId=66
> "That's 'John Scelso'
Jean
Sandy McCroskey
>
> JB
So John Blubaugh says *competent* historians "apparently [do] not"
distinguish speculation from verifiable fact.
I see.
/sm
John McAdams
<WBurg...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Mar 4, 1:14=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 3 Mar 2011 23:04:30 -0500, "WBurgha...@aol.com"
>>
>
>What makes you the master sheriff of what's "thin gruel" historically and
>what is not? Do you have a crown? Or a sash? Do you sit on a throne? Was
>there some kind of vote? Who are you? What are you doing? What are you
>working on?
>
Well if something like this were submitted to a political science
journal, I might be one of the referees. Of course, nobody submits
anything like this to political science journals, so the only kind of
stuff I've refereed is voter behavior and (on an occasion or two)
public policy.
Anthony Marsh
> On 4 Mar 2011 20:14:36 -0500, "WBurg...@aol.com"
> <WBurg...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 4, 1:14=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>>> On 3 Mar 2011 23:04:30 -0500, "WBurgha...@aol.com"
>>>
>>
>> What makes you the master sheriff of what's "thin gruel" historically and
>> what is not? Do you have a crown? Or a sash? Do you sit on a throne? Was
>> there some kind of vote? Who are you? What are you doing? What are you
>> working on?
>>
>
> Well if something like this were submitted to a political science
> journal, I might be one of the referees. Of course, nobody submits
> anything like this to political science journals, so the only kind of
> stuff I've refereed is voter behavior and (on an occasion or two)
> public policy.
>
Oh please. You would never be the referee of anything. A referee is
supposed to be impartial and fair. You are biased. That would be like
letting the editor of JAMA referee a conspiracy article or Robert Artwohl
referee a conspiracy article.
Anthony Marsh
Apparently you are not aware that some break the rules.
> /sm
>
Anthony Marsh
How many times do you have to see evasive answers like this before you
catch on to the fact that there is a cover-up? Did you watch the Watergate
hearings live on TV? Did you think the WH staff were always telling the
whole truth?
John Blubaugh
I used McAdams as my example.
JB
Anthony Marsh
That does not follow logically. If someone is on the phone saying he is
Oswald while Oswald is not there how would Oswald know about it?
Sandy McCroskey
No, by definition, *competent* historians do not "break the rules."
That would be a sign of incompetence.
But I am all too aware that some *in*competent historians (not to
mention would-be "researchers") do *not* distinguish mere speculation
from verifiable fact.
That was, indeed, my point. We were talking about "thin gruel."
/sm
I merely stated a characteristic of a competent historian.
Those who break the rules are, by definition, incompetent.
claviger
"On 1 October 1963 Oswald telephoned the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City
and said, "Hello, this is Lee Oswald speaking." He asked if anything
new had been heard from Washington, and he asked to be given the name
of the Soviet Consul to whom he had spoken previously."
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.dr18.html
This sounds like the local CIA trying to do their job. I think LHO
would remember the name of the Consul he had previously spoke to.
Sandy McCroskey
If you had managed to write what you really wanted to say, which is
that you don't believe McAdams is a competent historian, I would have
told you that this is a nonsensical comment to make about the current
thread, where McAdams is being rightly skeptical and asking for proof
and his interlocutors are speculating and repeating other people's
speculations.
/sm
claviger
no clue he was a victim of identity theft in Mexico City and never set
foot in the town? If so, then where was he for 10 days between Sep 23
- Oct 3? Did he stay in NO to romance Judyth Vary Baker? Did he go
somewhere and practice his rifle? Why did he tell Marina he was in
Mexico City and bring her a trinket hecho en mexico and why did he
make her write a letter about how rudely he was treated by the Russian
Embassy? Why did he brag about how cheap it was to make this trip?
Did the CIA know he was shacking up with Baker the whole time in NO?
Was Baker a CIA sex agent to keep him occupied while his double had
fun in Mexico City doing the horizontal mambo with Silvia Duran? And
what exactly did all these efforts accomplish in Mexico City?
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
I'm sure editors of political science journals will readily accept
your opinion on that, Tony.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
It's not evasive to sound vague when you really don't remember very
well and didn't actually know in the first place.
You can't win an argument with spin like this, Tony.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Tony, Jean has made it clear that Slawson probably just confused a
tape of a Cuban diplomat with a tape of Oswald.
You haven't "caught" anybody, Tony.
You folks will never "catch" anybody. You have no evidence, and you
can't spin your thin gruel into real evidence.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Jean is wrong. Slawson was told it was a phone call from Oswald. Explain
your theory of a tape of a phone call from a Cuban diplomat to the Soviet
embassy saying his name is Oswald.
Oh, I get it now. You have a counter impersonator theory.
In your impersonator theory a Cuban diplomat calls the Soviet embassy
pretending to be Oswald to implicate the KGB in the assassination.
Brilliant.
> You haven't "caught" anybody, Tony.
>
I have a wide net. Wide enough for you too.
> You folks will never "catch" anybody. You have no evidence, and you
> can't spin your thin gruel into real evidence.
>
Seems I was the one posting Jean's book, not you.
Did you even bother reading her book?
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
That's not my point. I don't mind if someone is truly ignorant or never
heard of something before. I just think it is funny when people who know
the facts pretend to be naive and not know anything.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Your problem, Tony, is that you have your own version of "the facts,"
and when anything conflicts with your version, you start shouting
"liar, liar!" and "coverup."
The Scelso testimony you posted is terribly weak as evidence.
I don't know why you can't see that.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Ok, so that's one tape when we know Oswald was in Mexico. Which one was
the call where he did not give his name?
Anthony Marsh
>
> and said, "Hello, this is Lee Oswald speaking." He asked if anything
> new had been heard from Washington, and he asked to be given the name
> of the Soviet Consul to whom he had spoken previously."
> http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.dr18.html
>
That is only a summary. Why not take a look at the actual cable and see
what MEXI was telling HQ?
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/CI74673A.GIF
They didn't say in this memo that Oswald was asking for the name of the
consul. It was just a general request.
Anthony Marsh
By definition **competent** historians do not plagiarize, until we learn
that they did.
> But I am all too aware that some *in*competent historians (not to
> mention would-be "researchers") do *not* distinguish mere speculation
> from verifiable fact.
> That was, indeed, my point. We were talking about "thin gruel."
>
>
> /sm
>
>
> I merely stated a characteristic of a competent historian.
>
> Those who break the rules are, by definition, incompetent.
>
You assume they are competent until you learn that they are incompetent.
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Mar 5, 10:14 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 3/4/2011 8:13 PM, claviger wrote:
>>
>>> WBurghardt,
>>
>>> If someone was impersonating LHO in Mexico City he must have known
>>> about it and did his part to convince Marina. Why? How did he know
>>> about it and why did he go along with it?
>>
>> That does not follow logically. If someone is on the phone saying he is
>> Oswald while Oswald is not there how would Oswald know about it?
> I can't believe you would ask this question! Are you saying LHO had
> no clue he was a victim of identity theft in Mexico City and never set
> foot in the town? If so, then where was he for 10 days between Sep 23
No, Mr. Straw Man. I have always said that Oswald was in Mexico City
visiting the embassies.
> - Oct 3? Did he stay in NO to romance Judyth Vary Baker? Did he go
> somewhere and practice his rifle? Why did he tell Marina he was in
> Mexico City and bring her a trinket hecho en mexico and why did he
> make her write a letter about how rudely he was treated by the Russian
> Embassy? Why did he brag about how cheap it was to make this trip?
All of the things you mention could have been fabricated by Oswald to
produce a legend or cover story. Maybe your theory about shacking up with
Judyth is correct and he made up the Mexico trip to cover his absence.
> Did the CIA know he was shacking up with Baker the whole time in NO?
> Was Baker a CIA sex agent to keep him occupied while his double had
> fun in Mexico City doing the horizontal mambo with Silvia Duran? And
> what exactly did all these efforts accomplish in Mexico City?
>
>
To link Oswald to the KGB assassination squad.
Anthony Marsh
The problem is that I have my own version of the facts. It's called
primary documents.
> The Scelso testimony you posted is terribly weak as evidence.
>
That *I* posted? You got me confused with some other poster. You said you
would ban posters who made false claims about what other posters said and
falsely attribute statements to the wrong poster. Have a nice vacation. Do
some fishing.
> I don't know why you can't see that.
>
See what? You mean which things Scelso was lying about and when he really
couldn't remember or when he was just being evasive? Yes, the official CIA
lie is terribly weak, but it was only needed to last a few years. No need
to keep it going now.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Sandy McCroskey
Another response? Ha ha.
You will even try to find some way to argue with a tautology.
/sm