Oswald In Helsinki

[Lance Payette]

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.

Quite wrong. The speedy issuance of Oswald's visa is indeed an anomaly. Rankin recognized it, just as I do. (Rankin's pursuit of it cuts against the notion that the WC was a stacked deck, no?) It's just not an anomaly that is inevitably suspicious. When viewed in context, a non-conspiratorial explanation is far more plausible than a conspiratorial one. I myself have experienced at least three travel anomalies that I would characterize as Damn Near Miraculous, but I had no reason to regard them as suspicious. (I was thinking of these just yesterday, for reasons entirely unrelated to the JFKA.)

The JFKA is chock-full of interesting anomalies. The alignment of the holes in the clothing with the back and throat wounds is a fascinating anomaly that demands an explanation. The Magic Bullet is a fascinating anomaly. Oswald's entire life, even to a Lone Nutter, is rife with anomalies. The challenge is to apply logic, rationality and critical thinking to these anomalies and to the case as a whole and NOT to follow them down the Conspiracy Rabbit Hole.

OK, the Helsinki issue is new to you, which would suggest you haven't dived too deeply into the JFKA. But it has been beaten to death since the WC. In three hours of online research, I (or you) could probably assemble a reasonably scholarly analysis using citation-worthy sources. What reason is there to think that a bunch of goofballs on an internet forum - including me, of course, unless the issue happens to be one I've researched - are going to have anything worthwhile to say?

As I suggested in the snarky post I deleted, this is one of the great puzzles to me of internet forums. On the ones on which I've participated the most, someone will pose a genuinely deep philosophical, theological or historical question about which I own perhaps a dozen serious books. I will respond along the lines of "You're not going to get meaningful input on an issue like this on an nternet forum. Here are five scholarly books to get you started." Does anyone EVER follow through? Noooooo, which tells me the purpose of internet forums is mostly just mental masturbation.

To someone like you I would say: DO YOUR RESEARCH. Take it to an internet forum only when you know what you're talking about and either have something substantive to contribute or have reached a dead end and are seeking input on a narrow, focused aspect.

I lurked at the Ed Forum for at least a few years, practically in awe of the vast knowledge of the "experts." I was, I thought, unworthy to contribute. Then I happened to do my own research on a particular factoid that caught my interest. I discovered then, and again and again ever since, that the "experts" have no clothes. Some of the most high-profile "experts" are, in my opinion, Grade A hucksters and purveyors of baseless factoids. Before I knew it, I was on the CIA payroll, had been issued my Autograph Model Factoid Buster cape, and was an absolute legend in my own mind.

You are astute in questioning how Oswald's life squares with his supposed spycraft. They were keeping their baby in a dresser drawer and then in a cardboard box. Even if "appearing to be destitute" might be a clever intelligence cover in some circumstances, it scarcely makes any sense in Oswald's unless there was some Swiss bank account no one knows about. This is why conspiracists inevitably have to reinvent Oswald and insert this cardboard figure into the conspiracy. The real Oswald just doesn't fit - not in the USSR and not in Dallas.

[Lance Payette]

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.

You missed this part:

Mr. Klein: So your testimony today, Mr. Nosenko, is that Oswald essentially slipped through the cracks because the KGB was preoccupied with other defectors?

Mr. Nosenko: Yes, and the fact that his Helsinki visa had been granted so quickly we knew he had to be part of the LCIMPROVE technique to encourage counter-espionage opportunities aimed at the Soviet intelligence services - and all of them seemed like harmless goofballs.

CIA Document N47-80783A, released 3/20/2025, www.nara.com/imaginarystuff/CIA

I made that up, but who cares? This is Conspiracy World! Google it in two weeks - it will be on its way to Factoid status.

[Tom Graves]

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.

Yuri Nosenko was a false-defector-in-place-in-June-1962, sent to the CIA in Geneva to discredit what true defector Anatoliy Golitsyn was telling Angleton about possible penetrations of the CIA, the FBI, and the intelligence services of our NATO allies. Nonsenko was a rogue-physical-defector-to-the-U.S.-in-February-1964, whose bona fides the KGB had no choice but to support in the U.S. through FEDORA, KITTYHAWK, and Vitaliy Yurchenko, et al., because he was telling the CIA and the FBI the same story he'd been sent back to Geneva in late January 1964 to tell his two CIA case officers (Tennent H. Bagley and probable KGB "mole" George Kisevalter), i.e. that the KGB had absolutely nothing to do with sharpshooting, U-2 radar operator Oswald during the two-and-one-half years he lived two blocks from a KGB school in Minsk.

Why in the world would anyone believe anything Nosenko (and Russia-born Kisevalter) said about anything?

You can read Bagley's 2007 Yale University Press book, "Spy Wars: Moles, Mysteries, and Deadly Games," and his 2014 follow-up article, "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," for free by googling "spy wars" and "archive" simultaneously and "ghosts of the spy wars" and "archive" simultaneously.

[Dan O'meara]

Quite wrong. The speedy issuance of Oswald's visa is indeed an anomaly. Rankin recognized it, just as I do. (Rankin's pursuit of it cuts against the notion that the WC was a stacked deck, no?) It's just not an anomaly that is inevitably suspicious. When viewed in context, a non-conspiratorial explanation is far more plausible than a conspiratorial one. I myself have experienced at least three travel anomalies that I would characterize as Damn Near Miraculous, but I had no reason to regard them as suspicious. (I was thinking of these just yesterday, for reasons entirely unrelated to the JFKA.)

The JFKA is chock-full of interesting anomalies. The alignment of the holes in the clothing with the back and throat wounds is a fascinating anomaly that demands an explanation. The Magic Bullet is a fascinating anomaly. Oswald's entire life, even to a Lone Nutter, is rife with anomalies. The challenge is to apply logic, rationality and critical thinking to these anomalies and to the case as a whole and NOT to follow them down the Conspiracy Rabbit Hole.

OK, the Helsinki issue is new to you, which would suggest you haven't dived too deeply into the JFKA. But it has been beaten to death since the WC. In three hours of online research, I (or you) could probably assemble a reasonably scholarly analysis using citation-worthy sources. What reason is there to think that a bunch of goofballs on an internet forum - including me, of course, unless the issue happens to be one I've researched - are going to have anything worthwhile to say?

As I suggested in the snarky post I deleted, this is one of the great puzzles to me of internet forums. On the ones on which I've participated the most, someone will pose a genuinely deep philosophical, theological or historical question about which I own perhaps a dozen serious books. I will respond along the lines of "You're not going to get meaningful input on an issue like this on an nternet forum. Here are five scholarly books to get you started." Does anyone EVER follow through? Noooooo, which tells me the purpose of internet forums is mostly just mental masturbation.

To someone like you I would say: DO YOUR RESEARCH. Take it to an internet forum only when you know what you're talking about and either have something substantive to contribute or have reached a dead end and are seeking input on a narrow, focused aspect.

I lurked at the Ed Forum for at least a few years, practically in awe of the vast knowledge of the "experts." I was, I thought, unworthy to contribute. Then I happened to do my own research on particular a factoid that caught my interest. I discovered then, and again and again ever since, that the "experts" have no clothes. Some of the most high-profile "experts" are, in my opinion, Grade A hucksters and purveyors of baseless factoids. Before I knew it, I was on the CIA payroll, had been issued my Autograph Model Factoid Buster cape, and was an absolute legend in my own mind.

You are astute in questioning how Oswald's life squares with his supposed spycraft. They were keeping their baby in a dresser drawer and then in a cardboard box. Even if "appearing to be destitute" might be a clever intelligence cover in some circumstances, it scarcely makes any sense in Oswald's unless there was some Swiss bank account no one knows about. This is why conspiracists inevitably have to reinvent Oswald and insert this cardboard figure into the conspiracy. The real Oswald just doesn't fit - not in the USSR and not in Dallas.

Quite wrong. The speedy issuance of Oswald's visa is indeed an anomaly. Rankin recognized it, just as I do. (Rankin's pursuit of it cuts against the notion that the WC was a stacked deck, no?) It's just not an anomaly that is inevitably suspicious. When viewed in context, a non-conspiratorial explanation is far more plausible than a conspiratorial one.

There is nothing wrong exploring an anomaly to see if there is anything suspicious or not. Exploring it is how we determine whether it's suspicious or not.
Not really knowing about the anomaly of the visa issue it started off as not really suspicious, then I realised Oswald arrived late on the night of the 10th and couldn't apply for the visa until the 12th. This meant the visa was issued in 2 days which did seem really suspicious (let alone it was issued in 24 hours).
Then I started to get the information on Gulob and his ability to grant a visa in "minutes" and how Costille was sending Americans his way and he would deal with their visas really quickly, so it didn't seem that suspicious after all.
That's why I posted this in REPLY#6

Maybe Oswald rocked up to the US Embassy in Helsinki on Monday morning, expressed his desire to enter the USSR and his case was put to Golub by Costille.

However, even though I acknowledged this totally non-suspicious possibility as part of my own journey learning about this issue, it appears that some people don't believe I even have a right to look into these issues. In there minds its all done. No more questions need asking.
I very much resent this presence on the forum.

Take it to an internet forum only when you know what you're talking about

I'll use the forum as a research tool if that's alright with you.
I'll learn as I post and part of that is looking into areas of research raised by those more knowledgeable than myself about these things.
I learn by debating.
The only problem with that is having to deal with trolls who just want to close all debate down (why they are part of this forum is a mystery)

I discovered then, and again and again ever since, that the "experts" have no clothes.

Even in the short time I've been looking into this issue I've found exactly the same thing.
Josiah Thompson did a little piece on a documentary debunking the Umbrella Man and he made a point that (to paraphrase) there is how things look on the surface, but if you stare at something hard enough and for long enough, a kind of quantum world of interconnections and coincidence emerges that obscures the reality of what you're looking at.

The visa issue is explicable even though the finest of details aren't available. Golub was handing out visas in "minutes" around the time Oswald showed up.
The hotels Oswald stayed were some of the most prestigious in Helsinki and that really does go against his tightfisted nature, not to mention the fact he was running out of money - but that doesn't prove anything.
He did seem to know he would only be staying for 5 nights when he first booked into the Torni but that might be just a coincidence.

Two takeaways from this are that Helsinki seemed like a proper 007 espionage hotbed in '59 and Oswald wasn't just some lowly order-filler working in a textbook warehouse.

[Lance Payette]

I'll use the forum as a research tool if that's alright with you.
I'll learn as I post and part of that isto deal with trolls who just want to close all debate down (why they are part of this forum is a mystery)

It's fine with me, but as someone who made his living doing serious research, I can only caution you that it's an almost complete waste of time. Pick the brains of Bill Simpich, Jim DiEugenio, et al., and you'll end up stupider than when you started - but if you don't do your own research, how will you know it?

The hotels Oswald stayed were some of the most prestigious in Helsinki and that really does go against his tightfisted nature, not to mention the fact he was running out of money - but that doesn't prove anything.

No, they really weren't. Here is a short piece by Fred Litwin that confirms my own research of several years ago: https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-oswald-stay-at-a-luxury-hotel-in-helsinki

Two takeaways from this are that Helsinki seemed like a proper 007 espionage hotbed in '59 and Oswald wasn't just some lowly order-filler working in a textbook warehouse.

Hello? Did your logic go off a cliff there at the end? What does the issuance of his Helsinki visa have to do with his status at the TSBD?

Helsinki was indeed a hotbed of KGB, CIA and Finnish security activity during the Cold War. The issue is, does this have anything to do with Oswald?

A more interesting question to me would be why he listed the University of Turku (Finland) on his U.S. passport application in September of 1959 in the first place. He had actually applied to the Albert Schweitzer College in Switzerland in March and paid his registration fee in June, so why did he add the U of T to his passport application in September? That might be an anomaly actually worth pursuing.

[Richard Smith]

Quite wrong. The speedy issuance of Oswald's visa is indeed an anomaly. Rankin recognized it, just as I do. (Rankin's pursuit of it cuts against the notion that the WC was a stacked deck, no?) It's just not an anomaly that is inevitably suspicious. When viewed in context, a non-conspiratorial explanation is far more plausible than a conspiratorial one.

There is nothing wrong exploring an anomaly to see if there is anything suspicious or not. Exploring it is how we determine whether it's suspicious or not.
Not really knowing about the anomaly of the visa issue it started off as not really suspicious, then I realised Oswald arrived late on the night of the 10th and couldn't apply for the visa until the 12th. This meant the visa was issued in 2 days which did seem really suspicious (let alone it was issued in 24 hours).
Then I started to get the information on Gulob and his ability to grant a visa in "minutes" and how Costille was sending Americans his way and he would deal with their visas really quickly, so it didn't seem that suspicious after all.
That's why I posted this in REPLY#6

Maybe Oswald rocked up to the US Embassy in Helsinki on Monday morning, expressed his desire to enter the USSR and his case was put to Golub by Costille.

However, even though I acknowledged this totally non-suspicious possibility as part of my own journey learning about this issue, it appears that some people don't believe I even have a right to look into these issues. In there minds its all done. No more questions need asking.
I very much resent this presence on the forum.

Take it to an internet forum only when you know what you're talking about

I'll use the forum as a research tool if that's alright with you.
I'll learn as I post and part of that is looking into areas of research raised by those more knowledgeable than myself about these things.
I learn by debating.
The only problem with that is having to deal with trolls who just want to close all debate down (why they are part of this forum is a mystery)

I discovered then, and again and again ever since, that the "experts" have no clothes.

Even in the short time I've been looking into this issue I've found exactly the same thing.
Josiah Thompson did a little piece on a documentary debunking the Umbrella Man and he made a point that (to paraphrase) there is how things look on the surface, but if you stare at something hard enough and for long enough, a kind of quantum world of interconnections and coincidence emerges that obscures the reality of what you're looking at.

The visa issue is explicable even though the finest of details aren't available. Golub was handing out visas in "minutes" around the time Oswald showed up.
The hotels Oswald stayed were some of the most prestigious in Helsinki and that really does go against his tightfisted nature, not to mention the fact he was running out of money - but that doesn't prove anything.
He did seem to know he would only be staying for 5 nights when he first booked into the Torni but that might be just a coincidence.

Two takeaways from this are that Helsinki seemed like a proper 007 espionage hotbed in '59 and Oswald wasn't just some lowly order-filler working in a textbook warehouse.

You of all people are playing the victim card after telling me to FO and STFU for questioning your implications?  LOL.  That's a gas.  No one has suggested in any way that you shouldn't raise or discuss the issue.  I've merely pointed out how you mischaracterized Rankin's words and the absurdity of anyone needing to expediate Oswald's visa.  In response, I've gotten a blizzard of insults and rants.

[Dan O'meara]

It's fine with me, but as someone who made his living doing serious research, I can only caution you that it's an almost complete waste of time. Pick the brains of Bill Simpich, Jim DiEugenio, et al., and you'll end up stupider than when you started - but if you don't do your own research, how will you know it?

No, they really weren't. Here is a short piece by Fred Litwin that confirms my own research of several years ago: https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-oswald-stay-at-a-luxury-hotel-in-helsinki

Hello? Did your logic go off a cliff there at the end? What does the issuance of his Helsinki visa have to do with his status at the TSBD?

Helsinki was indeed a hotbed of KGB, CIA and Finnish security activity during the Cold War. The issue is, does this have anything to do with Oswald?

A more interesting question to me would be why he listed the University of Turku (Finland) on his U.S. passport application in September of 1959 in the first place. He had actually applied to the Albert Schweitzer College in Switzerland in March and paid his registration fee in June, so why did he add the U of T to his passport application in September? That might be an anomaly actually worth pursuing.

What does the issuance of his Helsinki visa have to do with his status at the TSBD?

Nothing.

It was a more general comment about the information I'd come across while researching this topic.
I was very struck by Oswald being only 19 years old when he defected.
It seems this move was something he'd decided on a lot earlier as he had to save the money in order to make it happen and, as I understand it, he wasn't making a vast amount as a Marine. But if Oswald was anything he was frugal. It is a very 'driven' thing to aim for and achieve. Very disciplined.
He'd already started learning to read and write Russian which, again, seems to suggest a really focused and determined nature, not to mention intelligence.
I think this is in contrast to how Oswald is often perceived in his role as a bit of a nobody working at some dead-end job at the TSBD.

[Dan O'meara]

You of all people are playing the victim card after telling me to FO and STFU for questioning your implications?  LOL.  That's a gas.  No one has suggested in any way that you shouldn't raise or discuss the issue.  I've merely pointed out how you mischaracterized Rankin's words and the absurdity of anyone needing to expediate Oswald's visa.  In response, I've gotten a blizzard of insults and rants.

I've merely pointed out how you mischaracterized Rankin's words and the absurdity of anyone needing to expediate Oswald's visa

Mischaracterized Rankin's words?
I was the one who posted Rankin's words. Not you.
Just because I misquoted what I'd already posted you jumped on it because you had nothing else. No argument, No evidence.
That's all you had to troll the discussion with.
Zero contribution. Just trolling.

And you pointed out the absurdity of anyone needing to expedite Oswald's visa??
But Oswald's visa WAS EXPEDITED!
It was done in 24 hours!
What don't you understand about things being expedited?
The only thing "absurd" is your presence on this forum.

In response, I've gotten a blizzard of insults and rants.

Stop playing the victim.
You're nothing but a troll.
If you want respect do something worthy of it.