Mexico City: Why Didn't the Soviets Expose the Alleged Impersonation of Oswald?

[Dan O'meara]

Not aware of anyone arguing that Oswald's visit exonerates him from a conspiracy.  The point was that there was no logical reason to fake Oswald's presence in Mexico City.  The rest is just more of the same CTer nonsense.  Oswald was acting like such a not that he couldn't be a nut etc.   What links Oswald to the crime is none of this but the evidence he left behind.  His rifle was found at the crime scene.  Oswald provides no explanation for this.  Instead he lies to the authorities.  He has no credile alibi, flees the scene and murders a police officer.  It's as stone cold a case of guilt as possible absent a time machine.

 

I agree Oswald flees the scene and kills Tippit as he was heading for the border.
But I don't agree that Oswald took the shots.
That's why three of the five eye-witnesses who saw a man on the 6th floor describe the man wearing clothes Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own.
That's why no-one saw Oswald descending from the 6th floor - Dougherty stood next to the area where Oswald would have to walk across the 5th floor to get to the next staircase, Garner and others on the 4th floor stood in the same kind of area.
That's why Oswald is reported as seeing Junior Jarman and Harold Norman which he could only have done when they entered the first floor by the back door on their way up to the 5th floor.
The way to frame Oswald is to leave his rifle there. That way people can put two and two together.
Isn't it funny that such a "stone cold" case won't go away.

To imagine Oswald isn't the kind of guy who would possibly be involved in some kind of conspiracy is ridiculous.
Given the brief history I outlined there could hardly be anyone more suited.
He could hardly be more involved in intrigue if he tried.
Oswald isn't some everyday guy who's lost it.

He has no credile alibi,

You're not wrong there.
He uses Bill Shelley as part of his alibi. He fully expects Shelley to back him up that he didn't flee the scene but was advised he could go home by his foreman.
Why would he expect such a thing if it didn't actually happen?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Not aware of anyone arguing that Oswald's visit exonerates him from a conspiracy.  The point was that there was no logical reason to fake Oswald's presence in Mexico City.  The rest is just more of the same CTer nonsense.  Oswald was acting like such a not that he couldn't be a nut etc.   What links Oswald to the crime is none of this but the evidence he left behind.  His rifle was found at the crime scene.  Oswald provides no explanation for this.  Instead he lies to the authorities.  He has no credile alibi, flees the scene and murders a police officer.  It's as stone cold a case of guilt as possible absent a time machine.

I certainly didn't claim that proving he went to Mexico City shows there was no conspiracy behind the assassination, one involving him or not. And I'm not aware of anyone making such a claim. If they did it's a foolish one. All I am addressing is the conspiracy claim - repeated above - that he was impersonated and that the impersonation was part of a covert "false flag" type plan to frame him for the assassination and then connect Cuba or Moscow with the assassination. Conspiracists cite Operation Northwoods as the blue print for this. If he did go to Mexico City, then this scenario falls apart. And if he did then lots of other claims about him are weakened, e.g., he was a CIA asset, he was pretending to hold radical views, he really wasn't an unstable angry person, et cetera.

As to the visit: if the Soviets or Cubans give him a visa he's gone, he defects and leaves the US. Again (he didn't like it here <g>). JFK isn't assassinated by him or as part of a conspiracy involving him (since he's not in Dallas). Moreover, how he behaved in Mexico City is a clue. He not only wants to leave the US - he thinks the FBI is ruining his life - he acts like, well, a nut when he's denied the visa. He's having a breakdown, weeping, yelling. The Cubans said this, the Soviets too. He's coming unglued.

This fits into the description of a desperate man, one whose life is falling apart and is capable of anything. It doesn't prove he shot JFK; but it shows a man who is emotionally capable of doing it.