Oswald In Helsinki

[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.

[Lance Payette]

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.

I think this is the key Oswald Problem and one of the keys to the assassination. He actually was quite intelligent and politically oriented, but he had no educational credentials, did have an unappealing personality and could never get anyone to take him as seriously as he felt he should be taken. When he defected, he hoped to be sent to Moscow State University and to emerge as a significant political figure - but he ended up as a factory grunt in the backwater of Minsk. His pathetic U.S. job history had to be frustrating and demeaning for someone with his intelligence and ambitions, hence his fantasy of becoming one of Castro's right-hand men. He was on a treadmill to nowhere, the TSBD being about as low as things could get.

But forget all that. I am now enamored of my very own factoid:

What is with this University of Turku stuff? I find no meaningful discussion anywhere, even on the Helsinki threads at the Ed Forum. Let's think about it: He applies to Albert Schweitzer College in March, pays his fee in June, but then on September 4th (before he's even out of the Marines) he adds the U of T to his passport application in Los Angeles. WHY? Does he know at that point that Helsinki is where he'll be going for a visa? WHY and HOW? Was it common knowledge that Helsinki was the "quick visa" office? I doubt it; there were several European cities where one could obtain a Soviet tourist visa. Why would he have particularly cared if his visa were issued in two days or a week anyway? For that matter, why did the idiot even list Cuba and Russia as among his intended travel destinations when there was no need??? I find it all quite mysterious, yet it seems to get no attention.

Chew on this, conspiracy fans! If anything will convert me to your cause, it will be a factoid of my very own! (In fact, I have now started a separate thread to give you an opportunity to really strut your stuff.)

[Richard Smith]

There are two ways that Oswald's eccentric conduct can be explained.  Most CTers would suggest that there was some unspecified guiding hand behind his conduct which was using Oswald as an intelligence asset to obtain information from Russia and Cuba and/or to be groomed as a patsy to be framed based on his political background.  Alternatively, most LNers would suggest that Oswald's eccentric behavior was exactly that of some mentally unbalanced person who would be of the type to assassinate the president.  Those are equally plausible theories to explain Oswald's conduct.  What is determinative of the matter is the evidence.  The evidence is conclusive that LHO assassinated JFK on Nov. 22, 1963.  After 60 years and counting, there is no credible evidence that lends itself to the conclusion that Oswald conspired with anyone else to commit that crime.  With that said, some folks will always take the position that there were just too many real or more often imagined anomalies to accept the simpler and most obvious explanation as supported by the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin.  They will forever subscribe to the notion that "where there is smoke, there must be fire" and that something else (rarely specified because they allege the authorities covered it up) must have happened.  There is no dissuading those people because this is largely a faith-based belief.  Thankfully, the truth is not determined based upon everyone agreeing upon it.