Peter Dale Scott The Mexico City Tape And Photographs

[Mitch Todd]

Hoover: "...photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald’s name."

The vague description Hoover uses, "the man" implies that Hoover didn't know who he was.

BTW, at the time, Hoover was 1500 miles away from Mexico City and 1200 miles away from Dallas, where the surveillance materials were being examined. How would he really know? After all, he was wrong about tapes being sent to Dallas.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The vague description Hoover uses, "the man" implies that Hoover didn't know who he was.

BTW, at the time, Hoover was 1500 miles away from Mexico City and 1200 miles away from Dallas, where the surveillance materials were being examined. How would he really know? After all, he was wrong about tapes being sent to Dallas.

All true - we can include the confusion by the CIA people at Mexico City - and relevant to a non-conspiracist view of information but irrelevant to conspiracists since everything is only understood through a conspiracy perspective. E.g., we see a goofball waving an umbrella; they see an operative coordinating the triangulated sniper fire.

Apparently (I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong) he thinks Hoover was lying about this on the call; Hoover was aware of the plan to send this person to impersonate Oswald. That is, Hoover knew who the person was and what the person was up to. So Hoover was dissembling about this in the call and pretending to be confused. That seems to be what he is suggesting.

Why Hoover would even discuss/reveal this supposed plot is not explained. By discussing it and then releasing the transcript later he is *revealing* the plan, this impersonation. Lose that transcript; or edit the part about the impersonator out. And why would the CIA release the photo of the man they supposedly sent (or knew about) to impersonate Oswald? This too exposes the plan. Burn that photo. None of this makes sense. Hell, why even use this person to imitate Oswald? The Soviets knew what Oswald looked like; and would after he's arrested for the assassination. This is the best person they could find to imitate Oswald? It's absurd.

Add to this that the Soviets never exposed this supposed impersonation - the man is clearly not Oswald. In fact they said the man they met *was* the real Oswald and that the man in the photo was another person who never identified himself as Oswald but was someone else.

But again if the only way you can interpret this information is through a conspiracy perspective then all of this is irrelevant.

[Fergus O'Brien]

hoover played no part in jfks assassination , the FBI did however play a part in concealing information . and that simply would never be done without his knowledge .

as for mexico , certainly at the cuban embassy two people who spoke to the man claiming to be Oswald claimed Oswald was not the man they spoke to . consul Azcue when asked he stated (not verbatim now from memory ) that he could not identify the man he saw shot in the DPD basement as the man he spoke to because the man he spoke to was blonde . and a second witness (duran ) description of the man was of a blonde man . i dont think i have  seen a single mention of this here by any of the LN posting . i appreciate most posts have been about the pulse cameras which were working , however we need to discuss the actual people who were there and spoke with or saw Oswald .


Mr. CORNWELL . Senor Azcue, the pictures on the upper lefthand
portion of each document would appear to be of the same individu-
al; is that correct?
Senor AzCUE. Yes, sir.
Mr. CORNWELL. Do those pictures of that individual appear to
you to be the same individual who visited the consulate in Mexico
City on the occasions you have previously described to us?
Senor AZCUE. Truly, this photograph is one that I saw for the
first time when the honorable U.S. committee members came to
Cuba in April of this year, and I was surprised that I believe that it
was not the same person. Fifteen years had gone by so it is very
difficult for me to be in a position to guarantee it in a categorical
form.
But my belief is that this gentleman was not, is not, the person
or the individual who went to the consulate .
Mr. CORNWELL. Directing your attention to the period of time
immediately after the assassination, the day of the assassination or
the day after the assassination, did you during that period of time
have an occasion to see pictures of the alleged assassin in the
newspapers or to observe on television the man identified at that
time as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Senor AZCUE. Yes, sir, not so close to the date, not in the first
few days, not immediately thereafter. Some time I calculate ap-
proximately-and I say this because I am not a great movie fan,
but it was in mid-December approximately-I saw at that time the
film in which Ruby appears assassinating the Oswald who was
there, and I was not able to identify him and only 2 months had
gone by since I had seen the Oswald who appeared at the consul-
ate . And I had a clear mental picture because we had had an
unpleasant discussion and he had not been very pleasant to me and
I did not recognize when I first saw him. I did not recognize
Oswald.
The man who went to the consulate was a man over 30 years of
age and very thin, very thin faced. And the individual I saw in the
movie was a young man, considerably younger, and a fuller face.
Mr. CORNWELL. What color hair did the individual have to the
best of your memory who visited the consulate?
Senor AZCUE. He was blond, dark blond.
Mr. CORNWELL. Did the individual you saw in the movie, the
person who was killed by Jack Ruby, resemble more closely the
individual in these photographs to your memory than the individu-
al who visited the consulate?
Senor AZCUE. I believe so.

duran also described the man she saw as blonde and short , all be it she would also say that Oswald was the man .  but then LN will of course dispute her description . but we have to consider that both she and azcue described a short blonde man of 5 feet 6 or under . Oswald was neither blonde , nor short at 5 feet 10 or 11 .

"Like Azcue, Contreras said the "Oswald" he met looked more than thirty years old. Like Sylvia Duran, he recalled very positively that Oswald was short-he too thought at most 5' 6". He said he would normally be reluctant to be so specific, but his recall on this point is persuasive. Contreras himself is only 5' 9" tall, and he clearly recalled looking down at the man he calls "Oswald the Rabbit." "

there is a lot of information to assert that a person / s was in some way pretending to be Oswald at different times . we must consider all of this .

[Steve M. Galbraith]

If they're framing him on a visit to the Cuban consulate they would simply say he admitted to going there during his interrogation. He's dead; they can say he admitted to it. Why would they say he denied it if they are trying to frame him for it? Just say he said he did. Again, he can't deny it since, y'know, he's dead.

As to Hoover: He was, as the record shows, a ruthless and powerful man but the idea that he would/could know everything about what his people did in the investigation, could control what they found and limit it, is conspiracy silliness at its finest. Conspiracists really believe that "the CIA" and "the FBI" and these bureaucracies can be completely controlled, and were. They can't. A Hitler or a Stalin couldn't control all of their people, their bureaucracies, their factions and personality conflicts. Read any history of their rule. Do you folks read anything other than conspiracy books?

As in: the FBI agents James Hosty and his superior Gordon Shanklin destroyed a note that Oswald left complaining about the FBI's treatment of his wife. Hoover knew nothing about it. If he had such control then how could that have happened? And after the assassination Hoover punished about a dozen agents (I think it was 17) for their failures to adequately monitor Oswald. He couldn't control everything his people did or didn't do. He was one person.

For a better and greater example read about Hoover and the FBI and the Hiss/Chambers investigation. Hoover was left out of the loop from his own people. He didn't know what was happening. He couldn't control all of it; hell, he couldn't control just about any of it. Besides, he died in 1972; how coulde he control what the FBI did in the HSCA investigation or what they knew later?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

From Cuban counterintelligence officer Fabian Escalante's book "The Cuba Files", pg. 130-132.

"Guillermo Ruiz was the translator in the conversation between Azcue and Oswald. He told Fabian Escalante that although he was not an expert in physiognomy, it was his opinion that the Oswald he saw on Mexican television was the one he saw in the consulate that day. Antonio Garcia Lara [who worked in the trade office at the Consulate] saw Oswald as he was leaving, and he had the same impression as Ruiz. Both of them disagreed with Azcue."

So we have two additional witnesses saying that they believed the man who visited the Cuban consulate *was* Oswald. Four in all: Mirabal, Duran, Ruiz and Garcia Lara. A problem with these later accounts, of course, is that Azcue never mentioned the two men, particularly Ruiz who supposedly helped translate for him. And Duran never mentioned them either. Very odd.

Again, the Cubans concluded it *was* Oswald who visited their consulate but they argue he was sent there by someone or some group - CIA or anti-Castro groups - to connect the assassination through him to Havana. Conspiracy believers gonna' conspiracy argue no matter what is presented.

More on the Cuban investigation can be read here: https://www.cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0027.html

So we have the Soviets saying it was Oswald, the Cubans saying it was Oswald and all sorts of other evidence but conspiracists ignore all of this and say it wasn't. Because of course.

[Fergus O'Brien]

If they're framing him on a visit to the Cuban consulate they would simply say he admitted to going there during his interrogation. He's dead; they can say he admitted to it. Why would they say he denied it if they are trying to frame him for it? Just say he said he did. Again, he can't deny it since, y'know, he's dead.

As to Hoover: He was, as the record shows, a ruthless and powerful man but the idea that he would/could know everything about what his people did in the investigation, could control what they found and limit it, is conspiracy silliness at its finest. Conspiracists really believe that "the CIA" and "the FBI" and these bureaucracies can be completely controlled, and were. They can't. A Hitler or a Stalin couldn't control all of their people, their bureaucracies, their factions and personality conflicts. Read any history of their rule. Do you folks read anything other than conspiracy books?

As in: the FBI agents James Hosty and his superior Gordon Shanklin destroyed a note that Oswald left complaining about the FBI's treatment of his wife. Hoover knew nothing about it. If he had such control then how could that have happened? And after the assassination Hoover punished about a dozen agents (I think it was 17) for their failures to adequately monitor Oswald. He couldn't control everything his people did or didn't do. He was one person.

For a better and greater example read about Hoover and the FBI and the Hiss/Chambers investigation. Hoover was left out of the loop from his own people. He didn't know what was happening. He couldn't control all of it; hell, he couldn't control just about any of it.

"As in: the FBI agents James Hosty and his superior Gordon Shanklin destroyed a note that Oswald left complaining about the FBI's treatment of his wife. Hoover knew nothing about it. If he had such control then how could that have happened? And after the assassination Hoover punished about a dozen agents (I think it was 17) for their failures to adequately monitor Oswald. He couldn't control everything his people did or didn't do. He was one person."

lets be clear here yes Hoover was a human and not super human , he cant know every single little thing . he certainly cant know about that which is intentionally kept from him . if he never knew about the Hosty note so far as i am aware , well at a later date yes im sure he did . Shanklyn and Hosty kept that information from him , what was so devastating to Shanklyn about a note from Oswald saying not to speak to his wife when he was not there ?. and why would Hoover who was aware of Oswald care about such a note ? . by the way certain LN but not all have tried to use that note to say Oswald  wrote a threat on it to blow up the building . leading to the question why would they not keep that note as evidence against him ? .they  base this claim on a woman (whos name eludes my memory now ) , Hosty was questioned about the note and her story . he replied and reiterated it merely was about Marina as above . he went further saying she gave 3 different stories about that note WHICH ONE WOULD YOU LIKE ?. but FBI agents did not go along with the official line at times , they did not necessarily go out of their way to dispute it but they shall we say stuck by what they said / reported even if it disputed the official narrative .

"If they're framing him on a visit to the Cuban consulate they would simply say he admitted to going there during his interrogation. He's dead; they can say he admitted to it. Why would they say he denied it if they are trying to frame him for it? Just say he said he did. Again, he can't deny it since, y'know, he's dead. "

the DPD had the case taken from them very quickly .it would seem if we can accept the late Jim leavelles word for it that the DPD did not care a lot about jfk and viewed getting Oswald for the Tippit killing as more important . i wont quote Jim here as he used racial terms . so i dont know just how much import if any at all they would have in Oswald visiting mexico or not .or to what if any extent that they would want to frame him using mexico  . but if we look at the arrest for example of duran we see that others did have an interest in mexico .

lets face it hoover would not need to know everything about everything , even about the assassination , just certain important aspects of it . many things were never questioned really . once the people were told Oswald who had been to russia went to mexico they would have believed and not questioned it . only in light of evidence that an imposter or imposters seem to have been active , and in light of the statements of Odio would people later question such things .and most people did not have that sort of info in 63 and 64 .

in regards mexico we are being asked it seems to believe that 3 people all saw the same WRONG THINGS , all made the same mistake , or well they all decided to invent the same BS . all 3 said the man was a short man , so short that one who was 5 feet 6 had to look down on the man .atleast two of them independently said the man they saw was blonde .

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt_2003/html/LopezRpt_0200a.htm

it is proposed that Oswald entered both consulates in mexico some 5 times each . so that means there were atleast 10 opportunities at each location (going in and going out ) to capture him on camera . yet we dont have a single photo . that baffles belief .