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

[Richard Smith]

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? 

[Dan O'meara]

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.

[Richard Smith]

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.

[Dan O'meara]

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.

[Richard Smith]

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.