One more Doc on the Belmont Memo
Mitch Todd
Washington to Win Scott's outfit in MC. Note the absense of any mention of
tapes being sent to Dallas.
RIF# is 104-10015-10115
ORIG:
UNIT: C/WH 3
EXT: 5613
DATE: 23 NOVEMBER 1963 [stamped 23 Nov 63 1729z, 11:29 AM Dallas Time]
TO: MEXICO CITY
FROM: DIRECTOR
CONF: C/WH5
INFO: DCI, C/DCI, DDP, ADDP, C/CI, C/FI 2, C/SR 5, C/SAS 5, D/OS 2, VR
TO IMMEDIATE MEXI
ODENVY SAYS THAT PHOTOS OF MAN ENTERING SOVIET EMBASSY WHICH
MEXI SENT TO DALLAS WERE NOT OF OSWALD. PRESUME MEXI HAS DOUBLE
CHECKED DATES OF THESE PHOTOS AND IS CHECKING ALL PERTINENT OTHER
PHOTOS FOR POSSBILE SHOTS OF OSWALD
END OF MESSAGE
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1628&relPageId=2
John McAdams
wrote:
ODENVY = FBI
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/CIA_Cryptonyms
So at virtually the same time Belmont talked to Shanklin, and thought
he heard that "tapes" had gone to Dallas, the CIA had good
information.
But did the CIA have any source of information that did *not* go
through Belmont?
A liaison person in Dallas, for example?
Great find, BTW.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Mitch Todd
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:04b3j59ug66iq10uc...@4ax.com...
> On 23 Dec 2009 00:33:08 -0500, "Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Ran across this CIA memo lookng to fill in a hole. This is the CIA in
>>Washington to Win Scott's outfit in MC. Note the absense of any mention of
>>tapes being sent to Dallas.
>>
>>RIF# is 104-10015-10115
>>
>>
>>ORIG:
>>UNIT: C/WH 3
>>EXT: 5613
>>DATE: 23 NOVEMBER 1963 [stamped 23 Nov 63 1729z, 11:29 AM Dallas Time]
>>
>>TO: MEXICO CITY
>>FROM: DIRECTOR
>>CONF: C/WH5
>>INFO: DCI, C/DCI, DDP, ADDP, C/CI, C/FI 2, C/SR 5, C/SAS 5, D/OS 2, VR
>>
>>TO IMMEDIATE MEXI
>>
>>ODENVY SAYS THAT PHOTOS OF MAN ENTERING SOVIET EMBASSY WHICH
>>MEXI SENT TO DALLAS WERE NOT OF OSWALD. PRESUME MEXI HAS DOUBLE
>>CHECKED DATES OF THESE PHOTOS AND IS CHECKING ALL PERTINENT OTHER
>>PHOTOS FOR POSSBILE SHOTS OF OSWALD
>>
>>END OF MESSAGE
>>
>>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1628&relPageId=2
>>
>>
>
> ODENVY = FBI
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/CIA_Cryptonyms
Is it just me, or does anyone else crack a little smile seeing that the CIA code
name for
the FBI was ENVY?
> So at virtually the same time Belmont talked to Shanklin, and thought
> he heard that "tapes" had gone to Dallas, the CIA had good
> information.
>
> But did the CIA have any source of information that did *not* go
> through Belmont?
>
> A liaison person in Dallas, for example?
Possible, though not needed for Belmont to be wrong. It may just be
a case that Belmont assumed (for reasons I've already stated) that the
agents were listening to tapes. The CIA guys in Washington dealing
with the FBI knew that no tapes were sent, and wrote their memos
accordingly.
> Great find, BTW.
>
> .John
John Fiorentino
But WHY would the issue of tapes need to be mentioned in this cable? It's
obviously about the photos.
There were nine photos by the way. And ZERO of Oswald over several days.
John F.
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b31...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John Fiorentino
tapes were available.
BTW, not taking anything away from Mitch, but I already posted links to
all of these cables.
John F.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:04b3j59ug66iq10uc...@4ax.com...
John Fiorentino
Ms. Duran stated that Oswald's third and last visit occurred in the late
afternoon, after working hours on, the 27th. 1089/ This visit is confirmed
by the CIA's tap on the Soviet Consulate. 1090/ '
In addition to the alleged Oswald visits to the Consulates, there were
other telephonic contacts that may have been between Oswald, or an
imposter, and the Consulates. 1091/ Several details about Oswald's visits
to the Cuban Consulate, and telephonic contacts with both Consulates
suggest that the individual involved may not have been Oswald.
Silvia Duran's description of Oswald DID NOT resemble Oswald's true
physical appearance. 1092/ This description, which appeared: early in the
reporting of information obtained from Ms. Duran WAS DELETED from
subsequent reports and was NOT AT ALL MENTIONED IN THE WARREN REPORT.
Eusebio Azcue's description of Oswald was similar to Silvia Duran's, but
more detailed. 1094/ Perhaps the most remarkable thing about these
descriptions is their similarity to Elena Garra de Paz' description'of one
of Oswald's alleged companions. 1095/
Another possible indication that an imposter may also have visited the
Consulate is the 9/28/63 intercepted conversation. 1096/ Silvia Duran
adamantly DENIES that Oswald . or any other American visited the Cuban
Consulate on Saturday, September 28, 1963. 1097/ In light of the CIA
intercept of that date, Ms. Duran has either LIED to the Committee or the
individual who visited the Consulate on September 28 was NOT Oswald. 1098/
But there is a problem with attributing the first three calls on Sept. 27,
1963 to Oswald. The conversations are all in Spanish. With the exception
of the testimony of Delgado, the evidence indicates Oswald did not speak
Spanish. Hence, either the above detailed calls were not made by Oswald or
Oswald could speak Spanish.
(All of the above is from the formerly Secret "Lopez Report.")
Also note that the 3/Oct. call was also in Spanish, one of the reasons
used to subsequently ignore this call.
(Some emphasis to the above is mine)
John F.
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b31...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
The CIA guys in Washington were smart enough to figure out that there
was something that needed to be covered up.
>
>> Great find, BTW.
>>
>> .John
>
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
I don't think the CIA invented all those codes used in cables.
Mitch Todd
the Newman presentation, but the 10115 doc is not among them, for some
reason. 10114 and 10116 are, BTW. I can't remember or find in my artical
cache. Did I miss something?
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b3202a1$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Mitch Todd
difficult to believe that this message would not have included some
mention of them, especially if Hosty, et al, did not recognize the voice
as Oswald's
John Fiorentino
Where are the tapes Mitch?..............Or, Where is THE tape?
Anyway you slice it, something ain't right.
John F.
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b37...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John Fiorentino
Kreskin would be worried.
Is this really important?
John F.
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b379df9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
WBurg...@aol.com
> If the tapes were sent to Dallas along with the photos, then it is very
> difficult to believe that this message would not have included some
> mention of them, especially if Hosty, et al, did not recognize the voice
> as Oswald's
>
>
>
> "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > Nice Mitch:
>
> > But WHY would the issue of tapes need to be mentioned in this cable? It's
> > obviously about the photos.
>
> > There were nine photos by the way. And ZERO of Oswald over several days.
>
> > John F.
>
> >news:4b31...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >> Ran across this CIA memo lookng to fill in a hole. This is the CIA in
> >> Washington to Win Scott's outfit in MC. Note the absense of any mention of
> >> tapes being sent to Dallas.
>
> >> RIF# is 104-10015-10115
>
> >> ORIG:
> >> UNIT: C/WH 3
> >> EXT: 5613
> >> DATE: 23 NOVEMBER 1963 [stamped 23 Nov 63 1729z, 11:29 AM Dallas Time]
>
> >> TO: MEXICO CITY
> >> FROM: DIRECTOR
> >> CONF: C/WH5
> >> INFO: DCI, C/DCI, DDP, ADDP, C/CI, C/FI 2, C/SR 5, C/SAS 5, D/OS 2, VR
>
> >> TO IMMEDIATE MEXI
>
> >> ODENVY SAYS THAT PHOTOS OF MAN ENTERING SOVIET EMBASSY WHICH
> >> MEXI SENT TO DALLAS WERE NOT OF OSWALD. PRESUME MEXI HAS DOUBLE
> >> CHECKED DATES OF THESE PHOTOS AND IS CHECKING ALL PERTINENT OTHER
> >> PHOTOS FOR POSSBILE SHOTS OF OSWALD
>
> >> END OF MESSAGE
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why would they put that in writing?
WBurg...@aol.com
> difficult to believe that this message would not have included some
> mention of them, especially if Hosty, et al, did not recognize the voice
> as Oswald's
>
>
>
> "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > Nice Mitch:
>
> > But WHY would the issue of tapes need to be mentioned in this cable? It's
> > obviously about the photos.
>
> > There were nine photos by the way. And ZERO of Oswald over several days.
>
> > John F.
>
> >news:4b31...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >> Ran across this CIA memo lookng to fill in a hole. This is the CIA in
> >> Washington to Win Scott's outfit in MC. Note the absense of any mention of
> >> tapes being sent to Dallas.
>
> >> RIF# is 104-10015-10115
>
> >> ORIG:
> >> UNIT: C/WH 3
> >> EXT: 5613
> >> DATE: 23 NOVEMBER 1963 [stamped 23 Nov 63 1729z, 11:29 AM Dallas Time]
>
> >> TO: MEXICO CITY
> >> FROM: DIRECTOR
> >> CONF: C/WH5
> >> INFO: DCI, C/DCI, DDP, ADDP, C/CI, C/FI 2, C/SR 5, C/SAS 5, D/OS 2, VR
>
> >> TO IMMEDIATE MEXI
>
> >> ODENVY SAYS THAT PHOTOS OF MAN ENTERING SOVIET EMBASSY WHICH
> >> MEXI SENT TO DALLAS WERE NOT OF OSWALD. PRESUME MEXI HAS DOUBLE
> >> CHECKED DATES OF THESE PHOTOS AND IS CHECKING ALL PERTINENT OTHER
> >> PHOTOS FOR POSSBILE SHOTS OF OSWALD
>
> >> END OF MESSAGE
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Check 157-10014-10168
Burgundy
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Check 157-10014-10168
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Almost certainly this speaker was not the Lee Harvey Oswald who
visited the Soviet Union, and spoke relatively fluent Russian. No less
an authority than J. Edgar Hoover advised Lyndon Johnson of this by
telephone on the morning of November 23: "We have up here the tape and
the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using
Oswald's name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this
man's voice, nor to his appearance."[89] Audio tapes for these LBJ
phone calls have been preserved at the LBJ Library. However nothing of
this conversation can be heard on the relevant tape; it would appear
to have been erased.[90]
Hoover's reasons for saying this were laid out in a Letterhead
Memorandum sent out on the same day to the President and to the Secret
Service:
The Central Intelligence Agency advised that on October 1, 1963, an
extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual identified
himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City
inquiring as to any messages. Special Agents of this Bureau, who have
conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of
the individual referred to above and have listened to a recording of
his voice. These Special Agents are of the opinion that the above-
referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald."[91]
Other FBI cables and memoranda confirm that the tape was indeed flown
up on a US Navy plane from Mexico City to Dallas, where FBI agents
confirmed the voice was not Oswald's.
[91] Letterhead Memo from Hoover to James J. Rowley, Secret Service,
11/23/63; AR 249-50; cf. FBI #62-109060-1133, in Holmes papers at NARA
#104-10419-10022. (The drafter is SA Fletcher D. Thompson of Criminal
Division, who on the next day flew to Dallas with SA Richard Rogge, to
prepare memoranda on deaths of Kennedy and Oswald: 3 AH 465, 478,
479). Discussion below, pp. 11, 25; Scott, Deep Politics and the Death
of JFK, 41-45.
Mitch Todd
BTW, you are assuming that there was a surviving tape.
When the FBI-reviewed-the-tapes-in-Dallas bit falls flat,
it tears the heart of the case for a surviving tape.
Mitch Todd
>
>Why would they put that in writing?
Because it could be encrypted.
This message is CIA HQ essentially saying to MEXI, "the FBI says
that the man in the photos you sent to them is not Oswald,
pls double check you inventories for any possible photos of LHO"
Anthony Marsh
Maybe because someone at HQs wanted to go on record as pretending to be
confused about the incident.
How do you think double agents get away with hiding their identities?
John Fiorentino
You're not reading the documents (CIA) correctly. They indicate that at
the VERY least, 1 tape DID survive. That being 1/Oct.
Perhaps you should read them again.
Let's leave Dallas out of it for the moment.
CIA indicates the 28/Sept tape was erased *prior* to the receipt of the
1/Oct. call.
Review them again, Mitch.
I'm just going to repost some of my comments from the thread Re: Belmont
tape sent to Dallas. Now, if I must I'll repost the docs also.
Memo from Helms to Director FBI, attention BJ Papich: 23/Nov.
"VOICE COMPARISONS indicated that the "North American" who participated in
several of these conversations is probably the person who identified
himself as Lee Oswald on 1/Oct. 63."
CIA admits 23/Nov. That "Station unable to compare voice as FIRST TAPE
(28/Sept) - (emphasis mine) erased prior to receipt of second call
(1/Oct). *******Note this really doesn't make any sense, nor is it normal
procedure, which was to retain tapes min 2 weeks before erasure********
It also indicates that indeed the 1/Oct tape DID survive.
John F.
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b38f0ed$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
Yes, but he doesn't say that those agents were in Dallas when they
listened to the tape, just that they saw and heard Oswald in Dallas. How
many FBI agents other than Hosty conversed with Oswald in Dallas at any
time?
> Other FBI cables and memoranda confirm that the tape was indeed flown
> up on a US Navy plane from Mexico City to Dallas, where FBI agents
> confirmed the voice was not Oswald's.
>
Post Hoc Fallacy. Those FBI agents did not have to be in Dallas to
listen to the tape(s).
Mitch Todd
then maybe your conclusion isn't as well grounded as you might like.
You bring up the "voice comparisons" mentioned in the airtels, but when
did these comparisons happen? The airtels don't give any indication as to
date. I would suggest that these comparisons were most likely made in
October, either at the beginning of the month when transcriptions were
originally made, or after the Oct 10 request to MEXI from Washington for
more data on the Oswald calls. That would fit with the airtels referring
to voice comparisons, as well as the later messages from MC stating that
no tapes survived.
John Fiorentino
You're welcome to conclude whatever you want, but you didn't address the
points in my post.
CIA admits 23/Nov. That "Station unable to compare voice as FIRST TAPE
(28/Sept) - (emphasis mine) erased prior to receipt of second call (1/Oct).
Note they didn't say they couldn't compare because *the* tapes were
destroyed, but merely the FIRST TAPE was erased. So, they MUST have had AT
LEAST the 1/Oct. tape.
Where's that tape? Why was ANY tape erased after 3 days? Why do we now have
to accept that NO tapes survived? OR , let's say they were ALL erased -
WHY?Why does CIA blow off the 3/Oct call because it was in Spanish, when
they did no such thing re: the 27/Sept. calls, also in Spanish.
You should also review some of the HSCA stuff.
Also relevant:
Sorry Mitch, I have problems with this, and I'm a LN.
John F.
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b397408$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Mitch Todd
> Mitch:
>
> You're welcome to conclude whatever you want, but you didn't address the
> points in my post.
>
> CIA admits 23/Nov. That "Station unable to compare voice as FIRST TAPE
> (28/Sept) - (emphasis mine) erased prior to receipt of second call (1/Oct).
Actually, I think you totally missed my point. Let me ask you a question: which
is the correct reading of the sentence you quoted, and why? Is it:
"Station [is] unable to compare voice as first tape (28/Sept) erased prior to
receipt of second call (1/Oct)."
or
"Station [was] unable to compare voice as first tape (28/Sept) erased prior to
receipt of second call (1/Oct)."
By itself, the memo can be read either way; there is nothing in it to indicate a
time
frame.
> Note they didn't say they couldn't compare because *the* tapes were destroyed,
> but merely the FIRST TAPE was erased. So, they MUST have had AT LEAST the
> 1/Oct. tape.
It depends on when the tapes were compared. Was that on Nov 22/23, or in
October?
> Where's that tape?
...Assuming there is a tape...
> Why was ANY tape erased after 3 days?
Any number of reasons for that. Maybe the guys doing the taping needed
a reel, pulled the first one off of the stack of recently-transcribed tapes,
and recorded over it?
> Why do we now have to accept that NO tapes survived?
If no tapes survived, then it should be accepted because it is the truth.
Is that so hard?
> OR , let's say they were ALL erased - WHY?
Maybe because the CIA's operation in MC had a limited budget and
limited space to securely store stuff, and therefore reused what they
had?
>Why does CIA blow off the 3/Oct call because it was in Spanish, when they did
>no such thing re: the 27/Sept. calls, also in Spanish.
How is this relevant to determining whether the tapes were erased or not?
Or the rest below, for that matter?
WBurg...@aol.com
> >news:4b397408$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >> If I we have to "read the documents correctly" to come to your conclusion,
> >> then maybe your conclusion isn't as well grounded as you might like.
>
> >> You bring up the "voice comparisons" mentioned in the airtels, but when did
> >> these comparisons happen? The airtels don't give any indication as to date. I
> >> would suggest that these comparisons were most likely made in October, either
> >> at the beginning of the month when transcriptions were originally made, or
> >> after the Oct 10 request to MEXI from Washington for more data on the Oswald
> >> calls. That would fit with the airtels referring to voice comparisons, as
> >> well as the later messages from MC stating that no tapes survived.
>
> >>> Sorry, Mitch:
>
> >>> You're not reading the documents (CIA) correctly. They indicate that at the
> >>> VERY least, 1 tape DID survive. That being 1/Oct.
>
> >>> Perhaps you should read them again.
>
> >>> Let's leave Dallas out of it for the moment.
>
> >>> CIA indicates the 28/Sept tape was erased *prior* to the receipt of the
> >>> 1/Oct. call.
>
> >>> Review them again, Mitch.
>
> >>> I'm just going to repost some of my comments from the thread Re: Belmont
> >>> tape sent to Dallas. Now, if I must I'll repost the docs also.
>
> >>> Memo from Helms to Director FBI, attention BJ Papich: 23/Nov.
>
> >>> "VOICE COMPARISONS indicated that the "North American" who participated in
> >>> several of these conversations is probably the person who identified himself
> >>> as Lee Oswald on 1/Oct. 63."
>
> >>> CIA admits 23/Nov. That "Station unable to compare voice as FIRST TAPE
> >>> (28/Sept) - (emphasis mine) erased prior to receipt of second call (1/Oct).
> >>> *******Note this really doesn't make any sense, nor is it normal procedure,
> >>> which was to retain tapes min 2 weeks before erasure********
>
> >>> It also indicates that indeed the 1/Oct tape DID survive.
>
> >>> John F.
>
> >>>news:4b38f0ed$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>>>I can tell you where the putative tape wasn't: Dallas.
>
> >>>> BTW, you are assuming that there was a surviving tape.
> >>>> When the FBI-reviewed-the-tapes-in-Dallas bit falls flat,
> >>>> it tears the heart of the case for a surviving tape.
>
> >>>>> Well, let me just boil it down as to the way I see it.
>
> >>>>> Where are the tapes Mitch?..............Or, Where is THE tape?
>
> >>>>> Anyway you slice it, something ain't right.
>
> >>>>> John F.
>
> >>>>>news:4b37...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>>>>> If the tapes were sent to Dallas along with the photos, then it is very
> >>>>>> difficult to believe that this message would not have included some
> >>>>>> mention of them, especially if Hosty, et al, did not recognize the voice
> >>>>>> as Oswald's
>
> >>>>>>> Nice Mitch:
>
> >>>>>>> But WHY would the issue of tapes need to be mentioned in this cable?
> >>>>>>> It's obviously about the photos.
>
> >>>>>>> There were nine photos by the way. And ZERO of Oswald over several days.
>
> >>>>>>> John F.
>
> >>>>>>>news:4b31...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>>>>>>> Ran across this CIA memo lookng to fill in a hole. This is the CIA in
> >>>>>>>> Washington to Win Scott's outfit in MC. Note the absense of any mention
> >>>>>>>> of tapes being sent to Dallas.
>
> >>>>>>>> RIF# is 104-10015-10115
>
> >>>>>>>> ORIG:
> >>>>>>>> UNIT: C/WH 3
> >>>>>>>> EXT: 5613
> >>>>>>>> DATE: 23 NOVEMBER 1963 [stamped 23 Nov 63 1729z, 11:29 AM Dallas
> >>>>>>>> Time]
>
> >>>>>>>> TO: MEXICO CITY
> >>>>>>>> FROM: DIRECTOR
> >>>>>>>> CONF: C/WH5
> >>>>>>>> INFO: DCI, C/DCI, DDP, ADDP, C/CI, C/FI 2, C/SR 5, C/SAS 5, D/OS 2, VR
>
> >>>>>>>> TO IMMEDIATE MEXI
>
> >>>>>>>> ODENVY SAYS THAT PHOTOS OF MAN ENTERING SOVIET EMBASSY WHICH
> >>>>>>>> MEXI SENT TO DALLAS WERE NOT OF OSWALD. PRESUME MEXI HAS DOUBLE
> >>>>>>>> CHECKED DATES OF THESE PHOTOS AND IS CHECKING ALL PERTINENT OTHER
> >>>>>>>> PHOTOS FOR POSSBILE SHOTS OF OSWALD
>
> >>>>>>>> END OF MESSAGE
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anne Goodpasture had a backup tape.
John Fiorentino
have time for that. Some comments below...........
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b3a2da3$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> "John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> Mitch:
>>
>> You're welcome to conclude whatever you want, but you didn't address the
>> points in my post.
>>
>> CIA admits 23/Nov. That "Station unable to compare voice as FIRST TAPE
>> (28/Sept) - (emphasis mine) erased prior to receipt of second call
>> (1/Oct).
>
> Actually, I think you totally missed my point. Let me ask you a question:
> which
> is the correct reading of the sentence you quoted, and why? Is it:
>
> "Station [is] unable to compare voice as first tape (28/Sept) erased prior
> to
> receipt of second call (1/Oct)."
>
> or
>
> "Station [was] unable to compare voice as first tape (28/Sept) erased
> prior to
> receipt of second call (1/Oct)."
>
> By itself, the memo can be read either way; there is nothing in it to
> indicate a time
> frame.
Yes, (by itself) perhaps. But, we know we DID have voice comparisons right?
So, at SOME point we had not just A tape but *tapes*.
Also if you go with your "Station (was)" proposal, I should think I'd like
to see it as: "Station (was) unable to compare voices as all tapes erased."
Though you could STILL ask your time frame question........couldn't you?
The other problem I think we have, (and I'm going from memory here, so if I
screw up, just correct me) CIA indicated transcripts of the 28/Sept call
were completed by 9/Oct. Yet, if you go with that, then you might question
what happened BEFORE 1/Oct. when CIA claims the "first" (which it wasn't by
the way) tape was erased.
INO why did it take until 9/Oct. to produce transcripts of a 28/Sept. call
which CIA claims was erased PRIOR to 1/Oct.?
>
>
>> Note they didn't say they couldn't compare because *the* tapes were
>> destroyed, but merely the FIRST TAPE was erased. So, they MUST have had
>> AT LEAST the 1/Oct. tape.
>
> It depends on when the tapes were compared. Was that on Nov 22/23, or in
> October?
Good question............Do you have the answer?
>
>
>> Where's that tape?
>
> ...Assuming there is a tape...
That's not an answer Mitch.
>
>
>> Why was ANY tape erased after 3 days?
>
> Any number of reasons for that. Maybe the guys doing the taping needed
> a reel, pulled the first one off of the stack of recently-transcribed
> tapes,
> and recorded over it?
Yes, I suppose..............If you want to equate the CIA with the Keystone
cops.
>
>> Why do we now have to accept that NO tapes survived?
>
> If no tapes survived, then it should be accepted because it is the truth.
> Is that so hard?
I'm not going to entertain that type of debate. If you want to discuss this
honestly, that's fine. If you want to make smug remarks, try that on someone
else.
>
>
>> OR , let's say they were ALL erased - WHY?
>
> Maybe because the CIA's operation in MC had a limited budget and
> limited space to securely store stuff, and therefore reused what they
> had?
You mean like the FBI, which initially claimed it destroyed the
spectrographic analysis of the bullet evidence "to save space" They claimed
this in court by the way.
>
>
>>Why does CIA blow off the 3/Oct call because it was in Spanish, when they
>>did no such thing re: the 27/Sept. calls, also in Spanish.
>
> How is this relevant to determining whether the tapes were erased or not?
> Or the rest below, for that matter?
No relevance to the "erasures" But certainly relevant to 3/Oct. When, and by
whom was CIA advised Oswald didn't speak Spanish? When and by whom was CIA
advised Oswald spoke Russian?
WBurg...@aol.com
> >news:4b397408$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >> If I we have to "read the documents correctly" to come to your conclusion,
> >> then maybe your conclusion isn't as well grounded as you might like.
>
> >> You bring up the "voice comparisons" mentioned in the airtels, but when did
> >> these comparisons happen? The airtels don't give any indication as to date. I
> >> would suggest that these comparisons were most likely made in October, either
> >> at the beginning of the month when transcriptions were originally made, or
> >> after the Oct 10 request to MEXI from Washington for more data on the Oswald
> >> calls. That would fit with the airtels referring to voice comparisons, as
> >> well as the later messages from MC stating that no tapes survived.
>
> >>> Sorry, Mitch:
>
> >>> You're not reading the documents (CIA) correctly. They indicate that at the
> >>> VERY least, 1 tape DID survive. That being 1/Oct.
>
> >>> Perhaps you should read them again.
>
> >>> Let's leave Dallas out of it for the moment.
>
> >>> CIA indicates the 28/Sept tape was erased *prior* to the receipt of the
> >>> 1/Oct. call.
>
> >>> Review them again, Mitch.
>
> >>> I'm just going to repost some of my comments from the thread Re: Belmont
> >>> tape sent to Dallas. Now, if I must I'll repost the docs also.
>
> >>> Memo from Helms to Director FBI, attention BJ Papich: 23/Nov.
>
> >>> "VOICE COMPARISONS indicated that the "North American" who participated in
> >>> several of these conversations is probably the person who identified himself
> >>> as Lee Oswald on 1/Oct. 63."
>
> >>> CIA admits 23/Nov. That "Station unable to compare voice as FIRST TAPE
> >>> (28/Sept) - (emphasis mine) erased prior to receipt of second call (1/Oct).
> >>> *******Note this really doesn't make any sense, nor is it normal procedure,
> >>> which was to retain tapes min 2 weeks before erasure********
>
> >>> It also indicates that indeed the 1/Oct tape DID survive.
>
> >>> John F.
>
> >>>news:4b38f0ed$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>>>I can tell you where the putative tape wasn't: Dallas.
>
> >>>> BTW, you are assuming that there was a surviving tape.
> >>>> When the FBI-reviewed-the-tapes-in-Dallas bit falls flat,
> >>>> it tears the heart of the case for a surviving tape.
>
> >>>>> Well, let me just boil it down as to the way I see it.
>
> >>>>> Where are the tapes Mitch?..............Or, Where is THE tape?
>
> >>>>> Anyway you slice it, something ain't right.
>
> >>>>> John F.
>
> >>>>>news:4b37...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>>>>> If the tapes were sent to Dallas along with the photos, then it is very
> >>>>>> difficult to believe that this message would not have included some
> >>>>>> mention of them, especially if Hosty, et al, did not recognize the voice
> >>>>>> as Oswald's
>
> >>>>>>> Nice Mitch:
>
> >>>>>>> But WHY would the issue of tapes need to be mentioned in this cable?
> >>>>>>> It's obviously about the photos.
>
> >>>>>>> There were nine photos by the way. And ZERO of Oswald over several days.
>
> >>>>>>> John F.
>
> >>>>>>>news:4b31...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>>>>>>> Ran across this CIA memo lookng to fill in a hole. This is the CIA in
> >>>>>>>> Washington to Win Scott's outfit in MC. Note the absense of any mention
> >>>>>>>> of tapes being sent to Dallas.
>
> >>>>>>>> RIF# is 104-10015-10115
>
> >>>>>>>> ORIG:
> >>>>>>>> UNIT: C/WH 3
> >>>>>>>> EXT: 5613
> >>>>>>>> DATE: 23 NOVEMBER 1963 [stamped 23 Nov 63 1729z, 11:29 AM Dallas
> >>>>>>>> Time]
>
> >>>>>>>> TO: MEXICO CITY
> >>>>>>>> FROM: DIRECTOR
> >>>>>>>> CONF: C/WH5
> >>>>>>>> INFO: DCI, C/DCI, DDP, ADDP, C/CI, C/FI 2, C/SR 5, C/SAS 5, D/OS 2, VR
>
> >>>>>>>> TO IMMEDIATE MEXI
>
> >>>>>>>> ODENVY SAYS THAT PHOTOS OF MAN ENTERING SOVIET EMBASSY WHICH
> >>>>>>>> MEXI SENT TO DALLAS WERE NOT OF OSWALD. PRESUME MEXI HAS DOUBLE
> >>>>>>>> CHECKED DATES OF THESE PHOTOS AND IS CHECKING ALL PERTINENT OTHER
> >>>>>>>> PHOTOS FOR POSSBILE SHOTS OF OSWALD
>
> >>>>>>>> END OF MESSAGE
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Too many sources either heard the tape and there are many references
to voices compared.
Anthony Marsh
So what? They can just call them liars or hallucinating. A good cover-up
is ready for anything.
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Too many sources either heard the tape and there are many references
> > to voices compared.
>
> So what? They can just call them liars or hallucinating. A good cover-up
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah. Right. What the hell was I thinkin'. Yeah. Way to go. Can you
please respond to Harris?
Anthony Marsh
It is hard to respond to Harris when he doesn't make a point and refuses
to debate.