The KGB Impersonated Oswald in Mexico to Connect Castro to the Assassination

[Tom Scully]

This is a great documentary.  The Mexico City talk begins at 1:01:30

Good things on the menu... waiter, I'll have the "mumbo"? Small, sir? No, jumbo!

http://www.jfk-info.com/pjm-3.htm
... A large number of questions related to Marina's ongoing association with Priscilla Johnson McMillan, who herself had testified in closed session the previous year. Mrs. Porter began by describing how she first met Miss Johnson after rejecting a written request to coauthor a book, when the writer arrived at her doorstep (despite the fact that Marina was under Secret Service protection and FBI scrutiny.) Through her business manager, James Martin (whom she later fired), Marina had received numerous offers, but until she met Miss Johnson, felt uneasy about the idea of the "shameful position" she was in. She indicated to the committee that she liked Miss Johnson because of "her intelligence," along with "the way she spoke Russian beautifully," and the fact that she had lived in the Soviet Union. She was asked if Miss Johnson had mentioned having worked for the CIA, or if the CIA was ever discussed such as in connection with Lee, but Marina could not recall any reference having been made. Marina also couldn't remember any details about the bus ticket found in 1964 during Miss Johnson's interviews, verifying Oswald's bus trip to Mexico City (which James Hosty later described having looked at while at Dallas police headquarters on Monday, Nov. 25, 1963.)(5)

Mrs. Porter was asked if she and Priscilla were still close friends; she not only answered "yes" but revealed that she had seen Mrs. McMillan as recently as the night before her testimony, certainly suggesting the possibility that Marina had been "coached" in preparation for her testimony. ..

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22davenport+was+a+former+cia+man%22&safe=off&biw=794&bih=401&tbm=bks&ei=yv61YKHTBJSJ-gSNqYjABA&oq=%22davenport+was+a+former+cia+man%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...5498.18306.0.18561.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.N_z-t97iDYA

...When Priscilla asked what was of interest , I implied that I had some explosive documents on the Oppenheimer affair and was searching for an honest journalist to complete the investigation and let the chips fall where they may . “ Well , Sam , I ..."

[Jerry Freeman]

What happened to the ticket stub? Anyone?

[Tom Scully]

What happened to the ticket stub? Anyone?

http://www.jfk-info.com/pjm-3.htm#5.
.....
5. In Clarence M. Kelley, Kelley: The Story of an FBI Director, p. 295: "Note" - I wrote to Hosty in regard to his comment in a chapter which he basically put together. In his reply of Dec. 11, 1990, Hosty indicated that "The carbon of the round trip ticket was found with Oswald's things by the police department. The carbon is not the ticket." ..

[Anthony Frank]

And as for no photographs of Oswald during his alleged visits to the two embassies on Saturday, September 28, the CIA claimed, “Both the Cuban and Soviet Embassies were closed to the public on Saturdays,” and “photographic coverage was normally suspended” on Saturdays. How could Oswald have visited either embassy on Saturday, September 28, if both embassies were closed to the public that day?

That question has been and will continue to remain ignored.

The CIA made their “closed embassies” claim in 1975, but in 1978, the CIA came up with a new story in a memorandum to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, stating, “There were two separate bases which covered the Soviet gate,” and one camera base “was not working on September 28, 1963, a Saturday, although it did work four out of the eight Saturdays in September and October 1963 . . . . Coverage for the Soviet gate on Saturdays was standard operating procedure.”

So, the new story is that photographic coverage was not suspended on Saturdays, but they had no photograph of Oswald coming and going from the Soviet Embassy due to one of the two cameras not working on some Saturdays, whereas their previous story was that the camera covering the Cuban Embassy was not working on Friday, September 27.

Again, there had been no mention of a malfunctioning camera when the CIA’s Mexico station did the “complete recheck” of all visitors to the Soviet and Cuban Embassies from September 1 through the first half of November. And since they were specifically looking for photographs of Oswald on September 27 and 28, it certainly would have been important to say something about cameras not functioning on those two particular days.

The CIA’s 1978 story continues by stating the other camera base covering the Soviet Embassy “would have been working on the afternoon of the 27th and on Saturday the 28th,” but it is “the base whose production is unaccountably missing. The Agency has not as yet offered any explanation as to why the production is ‘missing.’”

[Steve M. Galbraith]

That question has been and will continue to remain ignored.

The Soviets/KGB officers explained this in their interviews. One of them, Oleg Nechiporenko, went into greater detail in his book. So did the Cuban consuls Azcue and Mirabal. Yes, Duran said that Oswald only came in on Friday and not Saturday.  But Azcue, the consul, said Oswald came in on Saturday (and again, yes, he says the man didn't look to him like Oswald). The building were closed to the public but Oswald requested to be allowed in and was let in (since they had met him the day before).

The Cuban consul Azcue explained (HSCA testimony):

Mr. CORNWELL. September 27, 1963, was a Friday. Does that mean that the third visit [by Oswald/the impostor] could have occurred on the following Saturday?
Senor AZCUE. On Saturday, exactly.
Mr. CORNWELL. The consulate was open on Saturday.
Senor AZCUE. Saturday morning--not open to the public.
Mr. CORNWELL. Would you tell us how the conversation on the third visit ended.

So the consulate was conducting business but not to the general public.

The KGB agents said they were at the Soviet Embassy on Saturday preparing to play their weekly volleyball game with the Embassy guards. Oswald showed up and they were informed by the Embassy guard about his appearance and request to see them (they had talked to him on Friday). They went to talk with him, to see what he wanted. This is when he pulled out his revolver and waved it around and generally acted crazy. This is all in Necihiporenko's book.

[Paul May]

58 year old crap regurgitated once again. To sell a book. Save your money. Keep your dignity.

[Tyler Powell]

I don't know the significance of supposing that Oswald's visits to the embassy/consulate (or to Mexico) was faked. But I think that the speculation persists, in part, because the CIA was photographing people upon exit and entrance, yet failed (apparently, supposedly) to photograph Oswald.

Yet they did photograph this other person, whoever he is, and attempted to associate the photos with Oswald. It is an oddity.

When you're looking for evidence of a conspiracy or a cover-up, or to disprove the same, you have to probe such oddities. (Because, to the extent that a cover-up is successful, all that will be left are such apparent incongruities; the actual evidence is meant to be suppressed -- that's what it means to cover-up.) Why was this man's photo identified as Oswald? Why weren't there photos of the real man? There are claims that Oswald's phone conversations were recorded, so what became of the recordings?

Anthony Summers (who may or may not be reliable) quotes an FBI report as stating, re: Oswald's visit to the Soviet Embassy, "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." And then he goes on to quote J. Edgar Hoover in conversation with President Johnson, saying, "That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears there was a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there."

There could be any number of reasons for these "oddities," including innocent error, but surely it's worthwhile to question them? I don't know that Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy, though I highly suspect that he was; I don't know what role Oswald played, before, during or after the assassination. I do know that the CIA specifically got into all sorts of monkey business throughout the sixties and beyond. Their behavior with respect to Oswald's visit to Mexico is suspect at least, whatever it means for broader questions about the assassination, and I think it's worth investigating for that reason alone.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I don't know the significance of supposing that Oswald's visits to the embassy/consulate (or to Mexico) was faked. But I think that the speculation persists, in part, because the CIA was photographing people upon exit and entrance, yet failed (apparently, supposedly) to photograph Oswald.

Yet they did photograph this other person, whoever he is, and attempted to associate the photos with Oswald. It is an oddity.

When you're looking for evidence of a conspiracy or a cover-up, or to disprove the same, you have to probe such oddities. (Because, to the extent that a cover-up is successful, all that will be left are such apparent incongruities; the actual evidence is meant to be suppressed -- that's what it means to cover-up.) Why was this man's photo identified as Oswald? Why weren't there photos of the real man? There are claims that Oswald's phone conversations were recorded, so what became of the recordings?

Anthony Summers (who may or may not be reliable) quotes an FBI report as stating, re: Oswald's visit to the Soviet Embassy, "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." And then he goes on to quote J. Edgar Hoover in conversation with President Johnson, saying, "That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears there was a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there."

There could be any number of reasons for these "oddities," including innocent error, but surely it's worthwhile to question them? I don't know that Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy, though I highly suspect that he was; I don't know what role Oswald played, before, during or after the assassination. I do know that the CIA specifically got into all sorts of monkey business throughout the sixties and beyond. Their behavior with respect to Oswald's visit to Mexico is suspect at least, whatever it means for broader questions about the assassination, and I think it's worth investigating for that reason alone.

The photo of the "other person" - shown below - was simply a mistake by the Mexico City CIA station that released photos of people who entered the Soviet Embassy on Monday. They thought this man looked American and they simply sent it out. They had no idea what the real Oswald looked like. The knew that a person identifying himself as Oswald phone the Soviet Embassy on Monday and thought he had visited it that same day. So they went through the photos taken that day and sent it out.

Nobody, including the CIA, said the person said or identified himself as Oswald. And the Soviet Embassy officials - all KGB agents - were shown the photo and they all said the man did not identify himself as Oswald. One of the agents, Oleg Nechiporenko, said he recognized the man as an American who had visited the Embassy before in search of a visa.

Again, nobody identified the man as Oswald. How could the CIA know that that man identified himself to the Soviets as Oswald? Did they hear him say that? Again, the Soviet Embassy officials/KGB agents were shown the photo and they all said the man was not the Oswald they met. And they all insisted the man they met was Lee Oswald.

The HSCA investigated this matter and determined that the "pulse" cameras that the CIA used were down on that Friday. And the CIA did not have camera coverage on weekdays (unbelievable).

There's a long list of evidence that, for me, shows that Oswald did go to Mexico City. We have multiple eyewitness accounts, physical evidence and circumstantial. I'm not sure that if the CIA did have photos that the same people who reject all of this evidence would be persuaded by such photos.