JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Steve M. Galbraith on May 30, 2024, 09:22:04 PM
-
If Oswald was, as conspiracists claim, impersonated in the visits to the Cuban consulate and Soviet Embassy in Mexico City by the man pictured below then one of the obvious questions to ask is why the Cubans and Soviets didn't expose this duplicity, didn't tell the world about this conspiracy? After all both governments stated that the CIA (them again) was behind the assassination and that part of their plan was to blame them, e.g., Havana or Moscow, for the act. So why not include this duplicity into their charges? It's clearly not Oswald and it's clearly in their interests to reveal it.
But they didn't. Not only did they not make the claim they both concluded, according to top Cuban intelligence officer Fabian Escalante and KGB agent Oleg Nechiporenko, after investigating the matter that the person was the actual Oswald and not a double.
Here is Escalante on the Cuban investigation:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID11320857555/Keypsxh6bs1bx1w/Escalanate%20Oswald%20After%20Account.jpg)
Here is then KGB chief Vladimir Semichastny in his report to the Politburo the day after the assassination:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID11017219205/Keyc5uanyu3kiop/Semichastny.JPG)
And the supposed Oswald double (who conspiracists think fooled the Soviets all of these years):
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/99GlJoOBvrw/hqdefault.jpg)
-
If Oswald was, as conspiracists claim, impersonated by the man pictured below then one of the obvious questions to ask is why the Cubans and Soviets didn't expose this duplicity, didn't tell the world about this conspiracy? After all both governments stated that the CIA (them again) was behind the assassination and that part of their plan was to blame them, e.g., Havana or Moscow, for the act. So why not include this duplicity into their charges? It's clearly not Oswald and it's clearly in their interests to reveal it.
But they didn't. Not only did they not make the claim they both concluded, according to top Cuban intelligence officer Fabian Escalante and KGB agent Oleg Nechiporenko, after investigating the matter that the person was the actual Oswald and not a double.
Here is Escalante on the Cuban investigation:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID11320857555/Keypsxh6bs1bx1w/Escalanate%20Oswald%20After%20Account.jpg)
Here is then KGB chief Vladimir Semichastny in his report to the Politburo the day after the assassination:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID11017219205/Keyc5uanyu3kiop/Semichastny.JPG)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/99GlJoOBvrw/hqdefault.jpg)
…as secretary of a pro-Cuban organization, he was being harassed by the FBI. …
It seems to me that the above quote from the Soviet memo might help to explain why LHO requested to speak with an FBI agent while he was in the custody of the New Orleans police. I have often wondered about what his reasoning might be. If he was already planning and creating his resume and appeal to the Cuban and Soviet embassies, this might make some sense.
-
…as secretary of a pro-Cuban organization, he was being harassed by the FBI. …
It seems to me that the above quote from the Soviet memo might help to explain why LHO requested to speak with an FBI agent while he was in the custody of the New Orleans police. I have often wondered about what his reasoning might be. If he was already planning and creating his resume and appeal to the Cuban and Soviet embassies, this might make some sense.
Good catch. Nechiporenko et al said Oswald complained about the "notorious FBI" hounding him, he shows the revolver et cetera. But this was all *before* the Hosty matter. So where was the hounding?
It's clear, at least to us, what he was doing with all of that New Orleans activity: building a pro-Castro resume, showing he was being harassed by the US government, that he was a friend of the Revolution and an enemy of the imperialists. All in order to get to Cuba. And the attacks by the FBI claim was manufactured by him by the NO arrest incident. He clearly WANTED to get arrested.
The problem is the conspiracists see all of it as an act, that he was pretending to hold these views; in reality it was his legend, his cover, he was really a gung-ho pro-American defending us from the communists (oy, what these people believe!). We see up and they see down. Here we are going in circles 60 years later.
-
Good catch. Nechiporenko et al said Oswald complained about the "notorious FBI" hounding him, he shows the revolver et cetera. But this was all *before* the Hosty matter. So where was the hounding?
It's clear, at least to us, what he was doing with all of that New Orleans activity: building a pro-Castro resume, showing he was being harassed by the US government, that he was a friend of the Revolution and an enemy of the imperialists. All in order to get to Cuba. And the attacks by the FBI claim was manufactured by him by the NO arrest incident. He clearly WANTED to get arrested.
The problem is the conspiracists see all of it as an act, that he was pretending to hold these views; in reality it was his legend, his cover, he was really a gung-ho pro-American defending us from the communists (oy, what these people believe!). We see up and they see down. Here we are going in circles 60 years later.
The more that I consider that Semichastny specified, in his memo dated 11/23/63, that LHO cited his “position” as secretary of a pro-Cuban organization…. , the more it becomes obvious that this should be considered strong evidence that LHO himself was indeed there in Mexico City petitioning the Cubans and Soviets as reported. How else could Semichastny have known on 11/23/63 about LHO’s claimed “position” as secretary? I know it was in the news media very early on that LHO was associated with the fair play for Cuba Committee. I could be mistaken, but I really don’t believe that the information regarding his claimed position as secretary became publicly known until much later in the investigation. If this is correct, it appears to me that the only way Semichastny could have know this would have been from the earlier reports from their embassy in Mexico City. Evidence indicates that LHO created this “position” and the related membership card while he was in New Orleans a short while before the trip to Mexico City. I know his association with the FPCC was news while he was in New Orleans. But was his “position as secretary” a part of the news in New Orleans? I do not remember that it was, but I could be wrong.
-
The more that I consider that Semichastny specified, in his memo dated 11/23/63, that LHO cited his “position” as secretary of a pro-Cuban organization…. , the more it becomes obvious that this should be considered strong evidence that LHO himself was indeed there in Mexico City petitioning the Cubans and Soviets as reported. How else could Semichastny have known on 11/23/63 about LHO’s claimed “position” as secretary? I know it was in the news media very early on that LHO was associated with the fair play for Cuba Committee. I could be mistaken, but I really don’t believe that the information regarding his claimed position as secretary became publicly known until much later in the investigation. If this is correct, it appears to me that the only way Semichastny could have know this would have been from the earlier reports from their embassy in Mexico City. Evidence indicates that LHO created this “position” and the related membership card while he was in New Orleans a short while before the trip to Mexico City. I know his association with the FPCC was news while he was in New Orleans. But was his “position as secretary” a part of the news in New Orleans? I do not remember that it was, but I could be wrong.
Oswald said he was the secretary of the NO FPCC chapter in his August '63 radio debate:
SLATTER: How many people do you have in your committee here in New Orleans?
OSWALD: I cannot reveal that as Secretary of the Fair Play for Cuba committee.
So that fact was known before the assassination. But it's still hard for me to see how an Oswald double would have known the other details that only the real Oswald would have known and then told both the Cubans and Soviets. He showed his marriage license to the Soviets, talked about what he did there. Was that well known? The "Oswald was impersonated" story falls apart when you drill down further. And I think the alleged impersonation on the phone calls don't add up either. I know conspiracists see the all powerful CIA behind everything, that they had/have near absolute power, but they must recognize some limits to what they could do?
Nechiporenko gave this account on what Oswald told them over the two days (note the "stories and documents" part):
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID11333861021/Key2ghwj1g24uqh/Nechiproenko2.JPG)
As to the material: Boris Yeltsin gave some KGB/Soviet files about Oswald to Clinton back in 1995 or so but the Russians are still withholding many more. Like the surveillance of Oswald in Minsk, et cetera. This report by Semichastny and the reports by Nechiporenko to Moscow about the visits would be interesting to see what they said.
Yuri Nosenko was the KGB officer who defected shortly after the assassination and said he was the case officer for Oswald. He told the HSCA this:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID11333021588/Key4659gg2q6sm4/Nosenko.JPG)
He said that he ordered that Oswald not be given a visa. He also said that after the assassination he asked for and was given Oswald's file. It was quite large. It seems to me that if the KGB had told Moscow that Oswald had been impersonated in Mexico City, that a double was sent, that Nosenko would have read that and told the HSCA. In other words, the Nechiporenko claims that it was Oswald were not made up, he originally said it was a impostor before he wrote his book.
At this point this is sort of like bombing the rubble; the rubble being the "it was a double" claim. How much more evidence do we need? The supporters have Azcue saying it wasn't Oswald and Duran saying the man had blonde hair and was only a few inches taller than she was. Okay. That's on one side and this other evidence is on the other side. Weighing all of that simply doesn't indicate it was an impersonation.
-
Oswald said he was the secretary of the NO FPCC chapter in his August '63 radio debate:
SLATTER: How many people do you have in your committee here in New Orleans?
OSWALD: I cannot reveal that as Secretary of the Fair Play for Cuba committee.
So that fact was known before the assassination. But it's still hard for me to see how an Oswald double would have known the other details that only the real Oswald would have known and then told both the Cubans and Soviets. He showed his marriage license to the Soviets, talked about what he did there. Was that well known? The "Oswald was impersonated" story falls apart when you drill down further. And I think the alleged impersonation on the phone calls don't add up either. I know conspiracists see the all powerful CIA behind everything, that they had/have near absolute power, but they must recognize some limits to what they could do?
Nechiporenko gave this account on what Oswald told them over the two days (note the "stories and documents" part):
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID11333861021/Key2ghwj1g24uqh/Nechiproenko2.JPG)
As to the material: Boris Yeltsin gave some KGB/Soviet files about Oswald to Clinton back in 1995 or so but the Russians are still withholding many more. Like the surveillance of Oswald in Minsk, et cetera. This report by Semichastny and the reports by Nechiporenko to Moscow about the visits would be interesting to see what they said.
Yuri Nosenko was the KGB officer who defected shortly after the assassination and said he was the case officer for Oswald. He told the HSCA this:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID11333021588/Key4659gg2q6sm4/Nosenko.JPG)
He said that he ordered that Oswald not be given a visa. He also said that after the assassination he asked for and was given Oswald's file. It was quite large. It seems to me that if the KGB had told Moscow that Oswald had been impersonated in Mexico City, that a double was sent, that Nosenko would have read that and told the HSCA. In other words, the Nechiporenko claims that it was Oswald were not made up, he originally said it was a impostor before he wrote his book.
At this point this is sort of like bombing the rubble; the rubble being the "it was a double" claim. How much more evidence do we need? The supporters have Azcue saying it wasn't Oswald and Duran saying the man had blonde hair and was only a few inches taller than she was. Okay. That's on one side and this other evidence is on the other side. Weighing all of that simply doesn't indicate it was an impersonation.
Thanks, that radio debate information answers the main question that remained in my mind regarding the “secretary position.” However, I remain skeptical that the Soviets would have gotten that information from the radio debate. And, unless the news media immediately disseminated that information in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, the Soviets couldn’t have gotten it through the news media in time for a 11/23/63 memo. The more likely source seems to me to be when LHO was begging for a visa and providing documentation (marriage license, etc) of his claims. So at least to me it is still evidence that LHO was there, just not as conclusive (on its own) as I first thought. I agree with you, if all the evidence is considered, the conclusion seems to be that LHO was there in Mexico City as reported.
-
Why didn't the Soviets and Cubans expose the alleged fake Oswald visits?
If I may answer for the CTers, because everyone was in on the assassination and coverup. The FBI, CIA, the military, the industrial-military complex, the Texas Oil millionaires and the Russians. All to prevent communism from taking over all of Vietnam. Just as the Russians didn't expose our fake moon landings, less we expose all their fake manned space flights and that the world is really flat.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID11360407557/Keymyhyt76v07vy/coverage%20two%20Mexico.JPG)
-
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 SaPersonay, 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
No one could've predicted LBJ's response to the evidence potentially connecting the Soviets and Cubans to Oswald. At the time, Johnson was perceived as more hawkish and anti-communist than JFK.
Rather than confront the Soviets, President Johnson chose to cover up potential foreign complicity in Kennedy's assassination, including shutting down investigations into what happened in Mexico City in the Fall of 63'.
Years after the Warren Report, LBJ continued to suggest Oswald didn't act alone. He wasn't satisfied with the lone assassin narrative but it served the purpose of avoiding retaliation against Cuba or the USSR...
Max Holland:
In July of 1973, six months after the death of Lyndon Baines Johnson, The Atlantic published an article by a journalist and former Johnson speechwriter named Leo Janos. "The Last Days of the President," about LBJ in retirement, was elegiac in tone and fact, save for one dissonant paragraph—in which Johnson volunteered his opinion that President John F. Kennedy's assassination had been the result of a conspiracy organized from Cuba. "I never believed that [Lee Harvey] Oswald acted alone, although I can accept that he pulled the trigger," he explained to Janos. Johnson thought such a conspiracy had formed in retaliation for U.S. plots to assassinate Fidel Castro; he had found after taking office that the government "had been operating a damned Murder Inc. in the Caribbean."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/06/the-assassination-tapes/302964/
-
No one could've predicted LBJ's response to the evidence potentially connecting the Soviets and Cubans to Oswald. At the time, Johnson was perceived as more hawkish and anti-communist than JFK.
Rather than confront the Soviets, President Johnson chose to cover up potential foreign complicity in Kennedy's assassination, including shutting down investigations into what happened in Mexico City in the Fall of 63'.
Years after the Warren Report, LBJ continued to suggest Oswald didn't act alone. He wasn't satisfied with the lone assassin narrative but it served the purpose of avoiding retaliation against Cuba or the USSR...
Max Holland:
All that lends itself to proving that: 1) LBJ was not involved in any conspiracy; and 2) Oswald's Mexico City trip was not faked as a pretext for war with Cuba or Russia. The conspirators would not have gone to the enormous risk of assassinating the president without some assurance that the person who would replace him would be onboard with their objective.
-
All that lends itself to proving that: 1) LBJ was not being involved in any conspiracy; and 2) Oswald's Mexico City trip was not faked as a pretext for war with Cuba or Russia. The conspirators would not have gone to the enormous risk of assassinating the president without some assurance that the person who would replace him would be onboard with their objective.
Yet there is the truly perverse coincidence that the building JFK was assassinated from belonged to one of LBJ's close friends - David Harold Byrd.
Of the hundreds of tall buildings JFK passed during his many motorcades it was from one owned by a good friend of LBJ's that the assassin killed JFK.
It is also a perverse coincidence that Byrd was good friends with George De Morenschildt, the extravagant socialite who, for some utterly bewildering reason, chose to befriend broke bum/anti-social loner Oswald.
-
Yet there is the truly perverse coincidence that the building JFK was assassinated from belonged to one of LBJ's close friends - David Harold Byrd.
Of the hundreds of tall buildings JFK passed during his many motorcades it was from one owned by a good friend of LBJ's that the assassin killed JFK.
It is also a perverse coincidence that Byrd was good friends with George De Morenschildt, the extravagant socialite who, for some utterly bewildering reason, chose to befriend broke bum/anti-social loner Oswald.
How do you know that the TSBD building was the "only" one that JFK passed in Dallas that belonged to such a friend? I imagine that LBJ had a lot of good friends in Texas. LBJ was a lifelong politician in Texas. He probably had a relationship with every wealthy person in the state. But even if that dubious premise were true, it is meaningless. If you examined every event in human history, you would find many apparent "coincidences." Coincidences are often the norm but we are just unaware that they are occurring because there is no cause to research every human encounter. The point here being, however, that no one would fake an Oswald visit to Mexico City for the purpose of creating a pretext for war with Cuba or Russia but then make no apparent effort after pulling off the assassination to put the blame on Cuba or Russia. Instead we are told the plan comes to nothing just because LBJ would not go along.
-
All that lends itself to proving that: 1) LBJ was not involved in any conspiracy; and 2) Oswald's Mexico City trip was not faked as a pretext for war with Cuba or Russia. The conspirators would not have gone to the enormous risk of assassinating the president without some assurance that the person who would replace him would be onboard with their objective.
1 - LBJ was deeply involved with the intelligence and political coverups after the Kennedy assassination. RFK Sr too. But it doesn't prove that he was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. And of course, I don't believe RFK was in on a conspiracy to kill his brother. The conspiracy and coverups that followed the assassination should be viewed as two distinct things. The motives for the coverups might've been related to avoiding a war or covering up illegal acts abroad (ie assassination attempts in Cuba) moreso than protecting potential conspirators.
2 - The Mexico City trip makes no sense outside of the context of it being some sort of intelligence operation. Oswald, having visited the USSR previously, knew of better ways to be able to travel to the Soviet Union or Cuba. Maybe the point was just to make a scene so it could be documented that he (or someone pretending to be him) visited those embassies weeks before the assassination? Or maybe it was as John Newman and others theorized, an attempt to create bad PR for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee?
We simply don't know enough to conclusively say what happened in Mexico City...
-
1 - LBJ was deeply involved with the intelligence and political coverups after the Kennedy assassination. RFK Sr too. But it doesn't prove that he was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. And of course, I don't believe RFK was in on a conspiracy to kill his brother. The conspiracy and coverups that followed the assassination should be viewed as two distinct things. The motives for the coverups might've been related to avoiding a war or covering up illegal acts abroad (ie assassination attempts in Cuba) moreso than protecting potential conspirators.
2 - The Mexico City trip makes no sense outside of the context of it being some sort of intelligence operation. Oswald, having visited the USSR previously, knew of better ways to be able to travel to the Soviet Union or Cuba. Maybe the point was just to make a scene so it could be documented that he (or someone pretending to be him) visited those embassies weeks before the assassination? Or maybe it was as John Newman and others theorized, an attempt to create bad PR for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee?
We simply don't know enough to conclusively say what happened in Mexico City...
I'm not sure that I'm following. If a pretext for a fake Oswald visit was to link him to Cuba or Russia as a basis for war, then the conspirators must have known that LBJ would the one to make that decision after the assassination. LBJ would become president. They would not have gone to the enormous risk of assassinating the president for that purpose without some control or assurance from LBJ that he would approve such an action. Instead there is no apparent effort to promote war with Cuba or Russia. To the contrary, most CTers complain that all the blame was immediately put on Oswald instead of investigating other possibilities.
Bad PR for Fair Play for Cuba? Who would care about that? That's a laughable explanation for staging such a risky fake visit just shortly before intending to assassinate JFK. And wasn't there enough "bad PR" from his act of assassinating JFK?
-
How do you know that the TSBD building was the "only" one that JFK passed in Dallas that belonged to such a friend?
Where did I post that the TSBD building was the "only" building JFK passed that belonged to a friend of LBJ?
Why have you put the word "only" in quotation marks?
This is what I posted:
"Yet there is the truly perverse coincidence that the building JFK was assassinated from belonged to one of LBJ's close friends - David Harold Byrd. Of the hundreds of tall buildings JFK passed during his many motorcades it was from one owned by a good friend of LBJ's that the assassin killed JFK.
It is also a perverse coincidence that Byrd was good friends with George De Morenschildt, the extravagant socialite who, for some utterly bewildering reason, chose to befriend broke bum/anti-social loner Oswald."
Nowhere in this post have I used the word "only".
Nowhere have I even hinted that the TSBD building was the "only" building JFK passed that belonged to a friend of LBJ.
I won't say you're a liar, but I will say you need to sharpen up.
I imagine that LBJ had a lot of good friends in Texas.
What an amazing imagination you have.
(that is sarcasm by the way)
LBJ was a lifelong politician in Texas.
You're so full of amazing facts.
(that is sarcasm by the way)
He probably had a relationship with every wealthy person in the state.
Is this a guess?
Is this just something you're throwing out there?
Is this just a meaningless, made-up statement?
(the answer is 'yes' by the way)
But even if that dubious premise were true, it is meaningless.
Except it isn't a "dubious premise". (note - I've used quotation marks around the phrase "dubious premise" because it's something you actually posted, as opposed to your use of the word "only", which wasn't posted)
JFK was assassinated from a building owned by a friend of LBJ's - as far as you're concerned that's a fact, not a dubious premise.
Do you understand the difference?
If you examined every event in human history, you would find many apparent "coincidences." Coincidences are often the norm but we are just unaware that they are occurring because there is no cause to research every human encounter.
I absolutely agree with this statement.
Josiah Thompson makes a similar observation regarding the JFK case,
It is a coincidence that JFK was assassinated from a building owned by LBJ's good friend Byrd. It also a coincidence that the very first defence contract LBJ awarded as President was to his good friend Byrd. Or is that a motive?
I notice you avoided the De Morenschildt coincidence and it is also a coincidence that Byrd is connected to Oswald via the Civil Air Patrol.
Loads of lovely, juicy coincidences.
The point here being, however, that no one would fake an Oswald visit to Mexico City for the purpose of creating a pretext for war with Cuba or Russia but then make no apparent effort after pulling off the assassination to put the blame on Cuba or Russia. Instead we are told the plan comes to nothing just because LBJ would not go along.
It would make sense Oswald visited the embassy in Mexico City as this is probably where he was heading when he went on the run from the TSBD building. It has f^ck all to do with LBJ.
-
Where did I post that the TSBD building was the "only" building JFK passed that belonged to a friend of LBJ?
Why have you put the word "only" in quotation marks?
So many excuses. Here are your exact words: "Of the hundreds of tall buildings JFK passed during his many motorcades it was from one owned by a good friend of LBJ's that the assassin killed JFK." "It" [the TSBD] was the "one" owned by a friend of LBJ in your silly claim. What exactly does this mean if you are not indicating there was something unique and singular about the TSBD? Again, "it" was the "one" building passed that was allegedly owned by a "friend" of LBJ. You have clearly stated that the TSBD was the "one" or only building passed that was allegedly owned by a "friend." That is what renders your baseless claim as having any relevance. If you are now acknowledging that JFK passed many other such buildings owned by "friends" of LBJ, your point has even less relevance than before. Which was none.
-
So many excuses. Here are your exact words: "Of the hundreds of tall buildings JFK passed during his many motorcades it was from one owned by a good friend of LBJ's that the assassin killed JFK." "It" [the TSBD] was the "one" owned by a friend of LBJ in your silly claim. What exactly does this mean if you are not indicating there was something unique and singular about the TSBD? Again, "it" was the "one" building passed that was allegedly owned by a "friend" of LBJ. You have clearly stated that the TSBD was the "one" or only building passed that was allegedly owned by a "friend." That is what renders your baseless claim as having any relevance. If you are now acknowledging that JFK passed many other such buildings owned by "friends" of LBJ, your point has even less relevance than before. Which was none.
So many excuses.
There isn't a single excuse in anything I posted.
Your understanding of the English language is questionable to say the least.
Not understanding the language you are using is a sure indicator of a questionable intelligence.
I know what my exact words are. I posted them. I posted them again to demonstrate that you were talking sh^t, as usual.
It's amusing that you have decided to post them yet again, demonstrating your tenuous grasp of the English language.
I'll make it simple for you - I said it was a coincidence that the building LBJ was shot from was owned by a friend of his. You said that I said this was the "only" building JFK passed by that was owned by a friend of LBJ's.
I said nothing of the sort. You are either lying or just stupid.
I pointed out that you were wrong and why you were wrong.
Instead of accepting your mistake with good grace you come up with this mental post insisting you were somehow right!!
JFK was shot from a building owned by a friend of LBJ.
You call this a "baseless claim" (note the correct use of quotation marks referencing something you actually posted. Do you understand how that works yet?). In an earlier post you refer to this coincidence as a "dubious premise".
Do you understand what you mean when you post things like "baseless claim" or "dubious premise"? These phrases do not apply to what I've posted.
Do you understand that?
I imagine that, in a murder investigation, it would be of immense interest that the man who benefitted the most from JFK's death (LBJ) awarded his first multi-million dollar defence contract to the man who owned the building JFK was shot from!
You don't think that's interesting because you don't think. You are told what to think by the Warren Commission. So you don't have to think for yourself.
-
So many excuses.
There isn't a single excuse in anything I posted.
Your understanding of the English language is questionable to say the least.
Not understanding the language you are using is a sure indicator of a questionable intelligence.
I know what my exact words are. I posted them. I posted them again to demonstrate that you were talking sh^t, as usual.
It's amusing that you have decided to post them yet again, demonstrating your tenuous grasp of the English language.
I'll make it simple for you - I said it was a coincidence that the building LBJ was shot from was owned by a friend of his. You said that I said this was the "only" building JFK passed by that was owned by a friend of LBJ's.
I said nothing of the sort. You are either lying or just stupid.
I pointed out that you were wrong and why you were wrong.
Instead of accepting your mistake with good grace you come up with this mental post insisting you were somehow right!!
JFK was shot from a building owned by a friend of LBJ.
You call this a "baseless claim" (note the correct use of quotation marks referencing something you actually posted. Do you understand how that works yet?). In an earlier post you refer to this coincidence as a "dubious premise".
Do you understand what you mean when you post things like "baseless claim" or "dubious premise"? These phrases do not apply to what I've posted.
Do you understand that?
I imagine that, in a murder investigation, it would be of immense interest that the man who benefitted the most from JFK's death (LBJ) awarded his first multi-million dollar defence contract to the man who owned the building JFK was shot from!
You don't think that's interesting because you don't think. You are told what to think by the Warren Commission. So you don't have to think for yourself.
So many words and another juvenile tantrum/lecture. Here is exactly what you said to suggest there was a possible connection between the shots coming from the TSBD and LBJ: "Of the hundreds of tall buildings JFK passed during his many motorcades it was from one owned by a good friend of LBJ's[/b] that the assassin killed JFK."
Putting aside that your statement is baseless, it is clearly intended to suggest that the TSBD was different from the other buildings along the motorcade because it was owned by a "friend" of LBJ and that uniqueness has some potential significance. If you are now backtracking to acknowledge that it was not the only such building owned by a friend along the route and that other such buildings were also owned by LBJ friends/associates, then your original statement is completely pointless. There would be nothing unique about this. LBJ was a lifelong Texas politician. He probably has some relationship with just about every wealthy person in the state including many of those who owned buildings along the route. Big deal.