Oswald In Helsinki

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Oswald certainly had a knack for bypassing red tape. Getting his Soviet tourist visa in record time seems par for the course:

"Colonel B. J. Kozak, a military officer with direct knowledge of dependency discharges, provided an even more specific timeframe: "It normally took between 3 to 6 months for a hardship discharge to be approved." (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed; p.136). Yet, for Oswald, all standard protocols were seemingly cast aside. He submitted his request on August 17, 1959—and by August 28, just eleven days later, the Dependency Discharge Board had already approved it.(WCR; p.688)"
[ https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-oswald-puzzle-the-pieces-that-won-t-fit-part-2 ]

Stranger and stranger.

Kozak explained that a "hardship discharge" took "3 to 6 months." Oswald requested and was given a "dependency discharge." Those are two different things.

The Marine review board decided that "for reasons of dependency" that Oswald be discharged early. His active duty obligations were scheduled to end in December 7th. So they let him out on August 26 or about three months early.

In fact, Oswald wrote to his mother about her situation in July and told her that an "early hardship discharge" was "rarely given" but "if they know you are unable to support yourself than they will release me from the USMC and I will be able to come home and help you." That's what happened.

Here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=743

Tracy Parnell goes into greater details about this here: https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/lee-harvey-oswald-us-marine-corps-1956.html

[Richard Smith]

I've already covered Golub in earlier posts and the significance of his ability to grant visas without prior approval from Moscow.
Have the manners to read the work you are critiquing.

You by no means "covered" what is cited in Bugliosi's book.  It explains that the visa could be granted immediately solving your "mystery." LOL.  In addition, instead of answering any questions, you revert to the petulant child not wanting to accept that there is no Santa Claus attitude.  How about you tell us why you falsely claimed that Rankin found the visa situation "significant"?  You took an unproven allegation (that Oswald's visa had been granted expeditiously) grafted a baseless implication to that (this lends itself to demonstrating the involvement of some intelligence agency) to reach a desired conclusion.   You have shown zero curiosity as to why any intelligence agency might need to expedite Oswald's visa as a possible means to validate your theory.  Oswald spent those days as a tourist in Moscow doing nothing of note.  There was no urgency for expediated treatment of his case. 

[Lance Payette]

If the point is that Oswald got his visa faster than others, but this is just a detail that has no larger implication, then it doesn't really matter why or how.  If the claim, however, is that Oswald getting expediated treatment is indicative of some involvement with the CIA or Russian intelligence, then it begs the question why did they need to expediate his visa in 1959?  Logically, someone would then look to how Oswald spent the two days or so afterward afforded by this expediated treatment.  Did anything significant or time sensitive happen in those two days?  If not, why not just process his visa in a normal manner?  Why any rush?  My experience here is that CTers like to point out real or imagined anomalies but then are uninterested in explaining the significance of those alleged anomalies.  It's the implication that is important.  The reasons are of no apparent interest because it undermines the desired narrative.

BINGO!

I had prepared this before seeing your response. CTers simply want "anomalies." Every anomaly is, ipso facto, evidence of a conspiracy. In Conspiracy World, context is irrelevant.

Anyway, FWIW ...

OK, the new and improved me will attempt to address this issue in a calm, rational and statesmanlike manner:

1. Context: If, in fact, Oswald were being sent to the USSR on an intelligence-related mission, what possible urgency would there be for his visa in Helsinki to be expedited, thereby leaving a red flag for future generations of conspiracy theorists to salivate over? What sense would this make – his mission couldn’t wait an additional couple of days for “normal” processing?

2. Context: Ditto with the hotels in Helsinki. Why would a 19-year-old on an intelligence mission be housed in “luxurious” hotels, yet another red flag? (I and someone else once looked into what these hotels cost in 1959 and they actually weren’t particularly expensive.)

3. Context: Helsinki was apparently the easiest location in which to obtain a Soviet visa. How busy was it at all, and how busy would it have been in October (not exactly the tourist season in Moscow)?

4. Context: This was a 6-day tourist visa for a clean-cut, intelligent 19-year-old who spoke at least pigeon Russian and a line of patter about planning to attend the University of Turku. Would this have been of any particular concern? It’s clear from the materials available online that Golub could expedite the process if he so desired, sometimes down to 24 hours, so perhaps he did.

5. Context: At least some materials indicate that the principal reason visas were delayed was the lack of hotel accommodations in Moscow. Since Oswald was met by an Intourist rep, he had apparently made prior connection with Intourist. This could also have been a factor in the approval of his visa. You’ve presumably seen this HSCA document referencing Golub’s telling the U.S. Consul he would approve two visas immediately so long as the Americans made advance Intourist reservations: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2021/docid-32273530.pdf

6. Context: According to the HSCA, the CIA suspected Golub of being a KGB agent. Perhaps Oswald said something (gee, I can’t imagine what) that piqued his interest. Golub was apparently an “interesting” character in any event: https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php?id=AEPAWNEE-5

Could the expedited approval be viewed as suspicious? Sure – but for what purpose?

Could it be viewed as entirely non-suspicious? Sure. The WC, HSCA, CIA and numerous researchers looked into the issue and came away with nothing more than “the visa was issued more quickly than was typical” – but “typical” was more commonly businessmen and summer tourists.

If there is any mystery, it’s not going to be solved at this point. I never quite understand the point of beating issues like this to death on internet forums.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

You by no means "covered" what is cited in Bugliosi's book.  It explains that the visa could be granted immediately solving your "mystery." LOL.  In addition, instead of answering any questions, you revert to the petulant child not wanting to accept that there is no Santa Claus attitude.  How about you tell us why you falsely claimed that Rankin found the visa situation "significant"?  You took an unproven allegation (that Oswald's visa had been granted expeditiously) grafted a baseless implication to that (this lends itself to demonstrating the involvement of some intelligence agency) to reach a desired conclusion.   You have shown zero curiosity as to why any intelligence agency might need to expedite Oswald's visa as a possible means to validate your theory.  Oswald spent those days as a tourist in Moscow doing nothing of note.  There was no urgency for expediated treatment of his case.

Yuri Nosenko said somewhere that the KGB overlooked Oswald, didn't fully interrogate him because they were busy monitoring a, I believe it was a US/USSR trade show (or some East/West event) that was taking place in Moscow at the time. That they were occupied with that event and Oswald went largely unnoticed. So, a conspiracist would argue that Oswald's handlers wanted to rush him to Moscow to take advantage of this diversion. Cue spooky background music.

I am not a conspiracist but I can play one on the internet (like just now). Heck, why do they get to have all of the fun? We've got one miserable crackpot to work with; they have all sorts of shiny things to play with.

[Lance Payette]

Conspiracy fans surely cannot do better than Bill Simpich's dark and cryptogram-laden analysis of all this in THE TWELVE THAT BUILT THE OSWALD LEGEND, https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?p=1&f=THE-JFK-CASE--THE-TWELVE-by-Bill-Simpich-100830-157.html. To cut to the chase, "I [Simpich] suggest that Golub, Costille, and the these two CIA division chiefs were central to the plan to get Oswald into the Soviet Union, as part of the LCIMPROVE technique to encourage counter-espionage opportunities aimed at the Soviet intelligence services."

Simpich does not, alas, ponder why an Instant Visa was necessary for this purpose. 19-year-old Oswald was doing counter-espionage stuff, and that's all we need to know. Perhaps someone can diagram Simpich's analysis for doddering old me, because I'll have to confess I'm having difficulty following how it Makes Any Sense.

In addition to ignoring context and rationale for the anomalies they love, it always seems to me that conspiracy fans are curiously never puzzled as to why the conspirators, even at the level of the CIA, were such Diabolical Geniuses half the time and Complete Fools the other half. Had I been goofy enough to send a 19-year-old with Oswald's dubious track record in the Marines to the USSR on a counter-espionage mission, I would've made sure his entry was the most unremarkable, business-as-usual entry possible. But noooo, just to spice things up we'll have him go through Helsinki, start at one upper-class hotel and move to another, and arrange for his visa to be granted with suspicious rapidity.

[Dan O'meara]

BINGO!

I had prepared this before seeing your response. CTers simply want "anomalies." Every anomaly is, ipso facto, evidence of a conspiracy. In Conspiracy World, context is irrelevant.

Anyway, FWIW ...

OK, the new and improved me will attempt to address this issue in a calm, rational and statesmanlike manner:

1. Context: If, in fact, Oswald were being sent to the USSR on an intelligence-related mission, what possible urgency would there be for his visa in Helsinki to be expedited, thereby leaving a red flag for future generations of conspiracy theorists to salivate over? What sense would this make – his mission couldn’t wait an additional couple of days for “normal” processing?

2. Context: Ditto with the hotels in Helsinki. Why would a 19-year-old on an intelligence mission be housed in “luxurious” hotels, yet another red flag? (I and someone else once looked into what these hotels cost in 1959 and they actually weren’t particularly expensive.)

3. Context: Helsinki was apparently the easiest location in which to obtain a Soviet visa. How busy was it at all, and how busy would it have been in October (not exactly the tourist season in Moscow)?

4. Context: This was a 6-day tourist visa for a clean-cut, intelligent 19-year-old who spoke at least pigeon Russian and a line of patter about planning to attend the University of Turku. Would this have been of any particular concern? It’s clear from the materials available online that Golub could expedite the process if he so desired, sometimes down to 24 hours, so perhaps he did.

5. Context: At least some materials indicate that the principal reason visas were delayed was the lack of hotel accommodations in Moscow. Since Oswald was met by an Intourist rep, he had apparently made prior connection with Intourist. This could also have been a factor in the approval of his visa. You’ve presumably seen this HSCA document referencing Golub’s telling the U.S. Consul he would approve two visas immediately so long as the Americans made advance Intourist reservations: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2021/docid-32273530.pdf

6. Context: According to the HSCA, the CIA suspected Golub of being a KGB agent. Perhaps Oswald said something (gee, I can’t imagine what) that piqued his interest. Golub was apparently an “interesting” character in any event: https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php?id=AEPAWNEE-5

Could the expedited approval be viewed as suspicious? Sure – but for what purpose?

Could it be viewed as entirely non-suspicious? Sure. The WC, HSCA, CIA and numerous researchers looked into the issue and came away with nothing more than “the visa was issued more quickly than was typical” – but “typical” was more commonly businessmen and summer tourists.

If there is any mystery, it’s not going to be solved at this point. I never quite understand the point of beating issues like this to death on internet forums.

Nutters don't see anomalies anywhere.
The Warren Commission has done the thinking for you and you swallow it down hook, line and sinker.
The irony here is that it is Rankin who raises this potential anomaly. He believes the speed of the issuance of Oswald's visa "may have some significance" but true Nutters don't accept that this might be an anomaly.
What is Rankin's concern?
Obviously, that Oswald might be getting some kind of help with his visa.
Rankin is just trying to clarify whether or not it is unusual to have a visa issued within 4 or even 2 days of being applied for (the fact of the matter is that it is granted within 24 hours). And his query is never really answered. The CIA take over two months to get back to him and offer no clarification whatsoever.

I was completely unfamiliar with Oswald's stay in Helsinki.
It was news to me and I just wanted to explore it but just looking into a matter has the TruNutters tearing there hair out.

There are many odd issues about Oswald's defection to the USSR and it is definitely worth looking into even if it upsets some of the more fragile forum members.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that Oswald had any CIA or intelligence connections. When Georges De Morenschildt describes first meeting the Oswalds they are living in truly abject poverty, in a shack on the side of a dusty road. I don't know much about 'spycraft' but I suspect espionage is tricky while you're constantly trying to keep your head above water and trying to feed a young family.

The fact of the matter is I will still explore any issue regarding the JFK case I feel like even if it means having to deal with the mental health issues of others.

[Lance Payette]

Yuri Nosenko said somewhere that the KGB overlooked Oswald, didn't fully interrogate him because they were busy monitoring a, I believe it was a US/USSR trade show (or some East/West event) that was taking place in Moscow at the time. That they were occupied with that event and Oswald went largely unnoticed. So, a conspiracist would argue that Oswald's handlers wanted to rush him to Moscow to take advantage of this diversion. Cue spooky background music.

I am not a conspiracist but I can play one on the internet (like just now). Heck, why do they get to have all of the fun? We've got one miserable crackpot to work with; they have all sorts of shiny things to play with.

You are obviously referring to Robert Webster, a Rand Corporation employee who had scientific knowledge about plastics that was of interest to the Soviets, who became enamored with a Russian woman even though he was married, who defected for romantic reasons at the time of the American Exhibition in Moscow in September of 1959, and who returned when informed that his mother had suffered a nervous breakdown and his father was struggling to provide support for his children. (He is, nevertheless, likewise viewed as some sort of CIA plant by conspiracy fans.) Webster's defection had been in the works long before Oswald arrived in Helsinki, and I'm not aware of any suggestion by Nosenko that Webster's case diverted attention from Oswald. This is, however, an excellent example of playing conspiracist because it Makes No Sense,

[Steve M. Galbraith]

You are obviously referring to Robert Webster, a Rand Corporation employee who had scientific knowledge about plastics that was of interest to the Soviets, who became enamored with a Russian woman even though he was married, who defected for romantic reasons at the time of the American Exhibition in Moscow in September of 1959, and who returned when informed that his mother had suffered a nervous breakdown and his father was struggling to provide support for his children. (He is, nevertheless, likewise viewed as some sort of CIA plant by conspiracy fans.) Webster's defection had been in the works long before Oswald arrived in Helsinki, and I'm not aware of any suggestion by Nosenko that Webster's case diverted attention from Oswald. This is, however, an excellent example of playing conspiracist because it Makes No Sense,

I was referring to Nosenko's testimony excerpted below as to why "No one [in the KGB] was working on Oswald" at that early time. He said that an "American exhibition" and the visit of other tourists offered numerous targets for the KGB to go after or watch. And because of this Oswald was overlooked (my word; not his). Webster talked to the Soviets at a July 11, 1959 exhibit, one that lasted until September. Oswald arrived in Moscow around October. So either Nosenko was referring to a second/different exhibit or he was confused. Or perhaps, more likely, the agents were still preoccupied with the "targets" from the earlier exhibit.

I'll amend my theory: Angelton knew they were still working on the targets from the exhibit a month earlier and that's why he expedited Oswald's defection to Moscow. This is conspiracy world: it doesn't have to make sense, it just has to promote a conspiracy.