Why Didn't the Soviets and Cubans Expose the Alleged Fake Oswald Visits?

[Richard Smith]

Given that embassies are spy bases and they spy on each other 24-7, a better question is:

Why didn't ANY of the embassies in Mexico City photograph Lee Harvey Oswald entering or exiting?

Were all the cameras broken that weekend? Did all the embassy employees take the weekend off?

Why didn't the Warren Commission interview Sylvia Duran?

Everything from the fake FPCC chapter to the Mexico City story reeks of an intelligence operation. And it doesn't necessarily mean it was related to the JFK assassination. It's plausible that Oswald wittingly or unwittingly was an intelligence asset...

Speaking of Fabian Escalante, retired CIA agent, Felix Rodriguez recently named Escalante as a co-conspirator in JFK's assassination

(Discussion of Escalante beings at 21:14 in the video)

Retired CIA agents, for decades, have pointed the finger for Kennedy's murder at Castro. So Rodriguez's comments are not unusual. But it's the first time I've seen Escalante named as part of the Cuba-Oswald conspiracy.

What is the basis for the conclusion that every Russian/Cuban embassy around the world including those Mexico City was under 24/7 surveillance back in the early 60s?  Even if true, isn't it entirely possible that the CIA did capture an image or recording of Oswald and decide after his death that it wasn't worth revealing the extent of their surveillance methods to the Russian/Cubans?  These are very secretive paranoid types.  They are very rarely going to release any such information absent a very good reason.  With Oswald dead, his visit to Mexico City known, and all the evidence pointing toward his guilt, there would have been very little incentive to release any such photo or recording.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

What is the basis for the conclusion that every Russian/Cuban embassy around the world including those Mexico City was under 24/7 surveillance back in the early 60s?  Even if true, isn't it entirely possible that the CIA did capture an image or recording of Oswald and decide after his death that it wasn't worth revealing the extent of their surveillance methods to the Russian/Cubans?  These are very secretive paranoid types.  They are very rarely going to release any such information absent a very good reason.  With Oswald dead, his visit to Mexico City known, and all the evidence pointing toward his guilt, there would have been very little incentive to release any such photo or recording.

I don't know where this 24/7 coverage idea is coming from. From the Lopez Report: there was NO PHOTOGRAPHIC COVERAGE of the Cuban Embassy on weekends. The coverage was, as the report shows, "fairly consistent". Sometimes the cameras would break down, sometimes the manual coverage missed people. They didn't have coverage AFTER hours, during closing times.

The CIA is a bureaucracy just like every other government institution. Some people are very good, some very bad, some in between. Anyone reading about the assassination can quickly see how they and the FBI and Secret Service et cetera were bureaucracies with all of the problems that entails. As in: before the assassination Hosty had never met Oswald, didn't know what he looked like, never interviewed him even *after* Oswald came back from Mexico City. As he said, he was more worried about the far right wingers in Dallas and not this oddball Oswald. That's not 24/7 coverage; that's a bureaucracy at work. When Hoover found out about the failures of the agency he punished over a dozen agents, including Hosty, for their incompetence.

[Jon Banks]

What is the basis for the conclusion that every Russian/Cuban embassy around the world including those Mexico City was under 24/7 surveillance back in the early 60s? 

The open secret about embassies is that they're Spy bases. So it's reasonable to assume that they all document and photograph every person who visits their enemies as well as documenting visitors to the embassies of rival nations.

They're always being surveilled by someone and all diplomats know that.

With all that said, it's very telling that there are no photos of the real Lee Oswald visiting either the Soviet or Cuban embassy. It's shocking that even the Soviets and Cubans don't have surveillance photos of him.

The spy bases in Mexico City were all asleep that weekend I guess. Or maybe the real Oswald never visited them. We don't know enough unfortunately to conclusively say it was him.

Even if true, isn't it entirely possible that the CIA did capture an image or recording of Oswald and decide after his death that it wasn't worth revealing the extent of their surveillance methods to the Russian/Cubans? 

No, that's not a reasonable excuse. They didn't need to release the surveillance information or photos to the public. If they had photos of the real Oswald, they could've been shown to the President, J Edgar Hoover, and others with top secret security clearances. As far as we know, that didn't happen. In fact, Hoover implied that someone might've impersonated Oswald in Mexico City in one of his conversations with LBJ.

At 10:00 am on Saturday, November 23, President Johnson asked FBI Director Hoover if there was anything new concerning Oswald’s visit in Mexico City (it’s unclear when Johnson first had learned of the Mexico City visit). It was at this point – just 22 hours after the assassination– that Hoover told Johnson about the Kostikov link and that it was not Oswald’s voice on the tape; he had been impersonated.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/oswald-the-cia-and-mexico-city/

The Warren Report didn't take a deep dive into Oswald's activities in Mexico City. Much of what we know wasn't made public until the HSCA investigation.

These are very secretive paranoid types.  They are very rarely going to release any such information absent a very good reason.

I don't think covering up incompetence is a good reason. I don't think covering up a potential conspiracy is a good reason.

I don't assume good reasons for lies or intelligence coverups. That extends to stuff like the 2012 Benghazi attacks. Another CIA coverup.

With Oswald dead, his visit to Mexico City known, and all the evidence pointing toward his guilt, there would have been very little incentive to release any such photo or recording.

If there was a good faith effort to investigate a potential conspiracy, they wouldn't have covered that stuff up.

The truth is, Johnson and others didn't want to open a can of worms on the question of a potential conspiracy involving the Soviets or Cubans so they shut down inquiries into the Mexico City stuff.

Assuming Oswald was a lone assassin was the least geopolitically challenging explanation.

[Richard Smith]

No, that's not a reasonable excuse. They didn't need to release the surveillance information or photos to the public. If they had photos of the real Oswald, they could've been shown to the President, J Edgar Hoover, and others with top secret security clearances. As far as we know, that didn't happen. In fact, Hoover implied that someone might've impersonated Oswald in Mexico City in one of his conversations with LBJ.

So you don't know that they conducted 24/7 surveillance.  You just assume they would.  How would anyone know whether they ever provided LBJ or Hoover with the photos if they existed and asked them to keep that a secret?  The CIA would never reveal the extent and methods of any surveillance absent a very compelling reason to do so.  There is no basis to conclude that they must have taken photos of Oswald.   They either didn't or they did and decided it simply wasn't worth revealing them to the Russians and Cubans to take countermeasures.  For the reasons several others have pointed out, the evidence of Oswald's presence in Mexico City is overwhelming and there is no reason to have faked his presence there but many reasons not to have done so.

[Jon Banks]

So you don't know that they conducted 24/7 surveillance.  You just assume they would.

I don't know but I do understand the nature of espionage and I understand that embassies are under constant surveillance. How do you think the Turks knew about the Saudis killing a dissident in their embassy in Istanbul? Those types of places are always being surveilled.

It's simply difficult to believe that he visited two embassies and not a single photo of him physically visiting those embassies is known to exist.

We do have evidence that his alleged phone calls to the Soviet embassy were recorded so someone was conducting surveillance that weekend.

How would anyone know whether they ever provided LBJ or Hoover with the photos if they existed and asked them to keep that a secret?

We know about Hoover's conversations with LBJ in the aftermath of the assassination and their discussions about Mexico City. Is there more to know about that stuff in the still classified JFK files? Maybe.

We also know that Johnson didn't believe Oswald acted alone for what it's worth.

  The CIA would never reveal the extent and methods of any surveillance absent a very compelling reason to do so.

They've been compelled to do so on multiple occasions and have stonewalled every step of the way. They're not an honest organization but since the 1970s no one has tried to hold them accountable.

The CIA can lie as much as they want (even under oath) with impunity.

There is no basis to conclude that they must have taken photos of Oswald.   They either didn't or they did and decided it simply wasn't worth revealing them to the Russians and Cubans to take countermeasures.  For the reasons several others have pointed out, the evidence of Oswald's presence in Mexico City is overwhelming and there is no reason to have faked his presence there but many reasons not to have done so.

Hard disagree. If the evidence was overwhelming it would be easy to prove he was there. To date, it's still inconclusive.

There's evidence that Oswald might've visited Mexico City but no solid proof that he did.

As for the reasons for impersonating Oswald, I've already given you two possible explanations:

1 - it was part of the CIA's efforts to smear the Fair Play For Cuba organization prior to JFK's assassination (which ultimately led to the organization being disbanded)

or

2 - it was part of an effort to link JFK's assassination to the Soviets and Cubans


The first plausible explanation might've had nothing to do with a JFK conspiracy. The second requires a conspiracy in Kennedy's assassination in order to be plausible.

[Richard Smith]

I don't know but I do understand the nature of espionage and I understand that embassies are under constant surveillance. How do you think the Turks knew about the Saudis killing a dissident in their embassy in Istanbul? Those types of places are always being surveilled.

It's simply difficult to believe that he visited two embassies and not a single photo of him physically visiting those embassies is known to exist.

We do have evidence that his alleged phone calls to the Soviet embassy were recorded so someone was conducting surveillance that weekend.


We know about Hoover's conversations with LBJ in the aftermath of the assassination and their discussions about Mexico City. Is there more to know about that stuff in the still classified JFK files? Maybe.

We also know that Johnson didn't believe Oswald acted alone for what it's worth.


They've been compelled to do so on multiple occasions and have stonewalled every step of the way. They're not an honest organization but since the 1970s no one has tried to hold them accountable.

The CIA can lie as much as they want (even under oath) with impunity.



Hard disagree. If the evidence was overwhelming it would be easy to prove he was there. To date, it's still inconclusive.

There's evidence that Oswald might've visited Mexico City but no solid proof that he did.

As for the reasons for impersonating Oswald, I've already given you two possible explanations:

1 - it was part of the CIA's efforts to smear the Fair Play For Cuba organization prior to JFK's assassination (which ultimately led to the organization being disbanded)

or

2 - it was part of an effort to link JFK's assassination to the Soviets and Cubans


The first plausible explanation might've had nothing to do with a JFK conspiracy. The second requires a conspiracy in Kennedy's assassination in order to be plausible.

Comparing modern surveillance with whatever was going on in the early 1960s is not compelling.  To summarize:  there is no basis to conclude that the CIA MUST have photographed Oswald.  Even if they did, the CIA had incentives not to reveal their methods and extent of surveillance to the Russians and Cubans.   Multiple individuals including members of the Russian and Cuban embassy confirm Oswald's presence.  Oswald wrote a letter noting his presence.  He gave his wife gifts from the trip.  And on and on.  We have already discussed the explanation that Oswald's presence was faked to implicate Russia/Cuba in the assassination.  The facts demonstrate this didn't happen.  There was no effort on behalf of anyone after the assassination to promote this narrative.  If the entire plan dating back months or years and entailing great risk in assassinating the president was to implicate Russia/Cuba in the war, the conspirators would surely have made some effort to promote that effort after the assassination.  But no one did.  Instead CTers complain all the blame was put on Oswald.

[Jon Banks]

Comparing modern surveillance with whatever was going on in the early 1960s is not compelling.  To summarize:  there is no basis to conclude that the CIA MUST have photographed Oswald.  Even if they did, the CIA had incentives not to reveal their methods and extent of surveillance to the Russians and Cubans.

There's not an innocent explanation for why the CIA would have kept secrets from the President and the Warren Commission.

Keeping secrets from the public is understandable. Keeping secrets from the President is not a reasonable explanation.

 Multiple individuals including members of the Russian and Cuban embassy confirm Oswald's presence.

They confirm meeting someone who claimed to be Oswald. Their descriptions of Oswald don't all match his physical appearance. Some of their claims are inconsistent.

The Warren Commission never interviewed Sylvia Duran. Why is that given that she was allegedly seen several times with Oswald in Mexico City?

There was no effort on behalf of anyone after the assassination to promote this narrative.  If the entire plan dating back months or years and entailing great risk in assassinating the president was to implicate Russia/Cuba in the war, the conspirators would surely have made some effort to promote that effort after the assassination.  But no one did.

False. There were attempts by CIA-connected individuals to implicate Castro in in JFK's assassination immediately after 11/22/63. The DRE, the CIA-backed anti-Castro group that Oswald interacted with in New Orleans, published articles implicating Castro in the days following the assassination.

The efforts by former CIA agents and others to link Castro to the Kennedy assassination continue today.

Also see the Felix Rodriguez interview that I shared earlier for example. Like him, dozens of retired CIA officers have pushed the "Castro did it" theory since the 1960s.

It's not clear to me whether they really believe the theories implicating Castro, or if they're attempting to deflect attention away from the CIA.

[Richard Smith]

There's not an innocent explanation for why the CIA would have kept secrets from the President and the Warren Commission.

Keeping secrets from the public is understandable. Keeping secrets from the President is not a reasonable explanation.


They confirm meeting someone who claimed to be Oswald. Their descriptions of Oswald don't all match his physical appearance. Some of their claims are inconsistent.

The Warren Commission never interviewed Sylvia Duran. Why is that given that she was allegedly seen several times with Oswald in Mexico City?


False. There were attempts by CIA-connected individuals to implicate Castro in in JFK's assassination immediately after 11/22/63. The DRE, the CIA-backed anti-Castro group that Oswald interacted with in New Orleans, published articles implicating Castro in the days following the assassination.

The efforts by former CIA agents and others to link Castro to the Kennedy assassination continue today.

Also see the Felix Rodriguez interview that I shared earlier for example. Like him, dozens of retired CIA officers have pushed the "Castro did it" theory since the 1960s.

It's not clear to me whether they really believe the theories implicating Castro, or if they're attempting to deflect attention away from the CIA.

The people who would have been powerful enough to assassinate JFK, frame Oswald, fake a Mexico City trip, cover up the identity of the real murderer, and kill Oswald in order to implicate Russia/Cuba would certainly have made a more concerted effort in the immediate aftermath of the assassination to promote a connection with Cuba/Russia.  They could pull all that off but make an anemic effort to link Cuba after the fact?  The entire purpose of all these high stakes undertakings.  Not compelling.