You have brought all of this conveniently left behind for everyone to see evidence up earlier in the thread more than once and it has been discussed. What bilingual person saves their rough draft notes [in English] for a typed correspondence to be delivered to the Russians [in English] that states really nothing. Oswald knew how to spell his own wife's name demonstrated in other correspondence..but the typed letter doesn't spell it nearly right at all. Can we say it all stinks-- even after 56 years?
We don't have jack crap. Yes plenty of that.
Of course. Every piece of evidence is faked, planted, altered, staged, made up, falsified.
The draft notes were identified as having been written by Oswald. Your response is to say, "What person saves their draft notes?" Well, Oswald did. But that fact is then dismissed. The letter sent to the Soviet Embassy where Oswald mentions the visit is dismissed as faked. Marina and Ruth say they saw him type it. But you will say they lied. The FBI said it was typed on Ruth's typewriter. But you will say they lied. On and on and on.
What evidence can be produced to show to you he went there? Is there anything?
Just say it: nothing will persuade you he went to Mexico City. Whatever evidence is presented will be dismissed as being staged. Not only will you say it's faked, you'll say that the evidence indicating he went to Mexico City is actually evidence he didn't. If the CIA released ten photos of Oswald outside of the embassies you would say it's proof he didn't go because they were faked.
This is the conspiracist mindset. Up is down and down is up. Evidence of "A" is actually evidence not of "A".
