JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Steve M. Galbraith on December 30, 2022, 06:38:46 PM
-
If, as is alleged, Lee Oswald was impersonated when he allegedly went to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City in late September of 1963 then why did the Soviets and KGB not announce this impersonation after the assassination or for the next 35-40 years afterwards? Why would they withhold that critical fact?
To put it differently: If a fake Oswald goes to the Embassy in Mexico City, meets with KGB officials over two days, and then the officials who met this impostor learn after the assassination - when Oswald's photo is shown in the newspapers/press - that the man claiming to be Oswald was not him then why not inform the world? The KGB agents in the Embassy who realized the man they met was an impostor would have informed Moscow/KGB headquarters of this charade. Wouldn't the Soviets then announce this?
The Soviets actively blamed the CIA for the murder of JFK. Why not include this impersonation as part of that story? But they didn't. Why not? It's illogical to me that they wouldn't reveal this, that they would keep it quiet. They want to embarrass the CIA and the US. This is one way to do it. And, in this case, it's supposedly true: he was impersonated.
We can ask this same question of the Cubans. If Oswald was impersonated at the consulate too, then why not expose this supposed CIA impersonation? It's a Cold War. They're going to attack the US with everything they have.
-
If, as is alleged, Lee Oswald was impersonated when he allegedly went to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City in late September of 1963, then why did the Soviets and KGB not announce this impersonation after the assassination or for the next 35-40 years afterwards? Why would they withhold that critical fact?
To put it differently: If a fake Oswald goes to the Embassy in Mexico City, meets with KGB officials over two days, and then the officials who met this impostor learn after the assassination - when Oswald's photo is shown in the newspapers/press - that the man claiming to be Oswald was not him then why not inform the world? The KGB agents in the Embassy who realized the man they met was an impostor would have informed Moscow/KGB headquarters of this charade. Wouldn't the Soviets then announce this?
The Soviets actively blamed the CIA for the murder of JFK. Why not include this impersonation as part of that story? But they didn't. Why not? It is illogical to me that they wouldn't reveal this; they want to embarrass the CIA and the US. This is one way to do it.
We can ask this same question of the Cubans. If Oswald was impersonated at the consulate too, then why not expose this supposed CIA impersonation. It's a Cold War. They're going to attack the US with everything they have.
If, as is alleged, Lee Oswald was impersonated when he allegedly went to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City in late September of 1963, then why did the Soviets and KGB not announce this impersonation after the assassination or for the next 35-40 years afterwards? Why would they withhold that critical fact?
How would they know it was an impersonator and, if they knew, why would they even talk to him?
Why would they withhold that critical fact?
Why would the KGB reveal anything about their intelligence operations, when the CIA is lying to the investigators and to this day are still withholding information?
The KGB agents in the Embassy who realized the man they met was an impostor would have informed Moscow/KGB headquarters of this charade. Wouldn't the Soviets then announce this?
I doubt it. Why would they announce it? Nobody accused the Soviet Union of being involved.
We can ask this same question of the Cubans. If Oswald was impersonated at the consulate too, then why not expose this supposed CIA impersonation. It's a Cold War. They're going to attack the US with everything they have.
Don't you think that somehow being seen as being involved is the last thing Castro would want? You really don't understand how this game of international politics is played, do you now?
Can you see the headlines; "Cubans denied involvement but talked to Oswald before the JFK murder"
-
Steve, is this what you're referring to? It doesn't imply that someone other than Oswald showed up in person at the Soviet embassy. The records show that he may have been impersonated in one or more phone calls:
Frontline: Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City
...intelligence documents released in 1999 establish that, after Oswald failed to get the visas, CIA intercepts showed that someone impersonated Oswald in phone calls made to the Soviet embassy and the Cuban consulate and linked Oswald to a known KGB assassin — Valery Kostikov — whom the CIA and FBI had been following for over a year.1
The news of this impersonation and the link to Kostikov, learned within hours of President Kennedy’s assassination, electrified top government and intelligence officials and dominated their discussion in the immediate weeks following the assassination. It also became during the next 40 years one of the CIA’s most closely guarded secrets on the Oswald case.
After President Kennedy’s assassination, documents show that the Agency created two more false stories in connection with Oswald’s Mexico City visit. The first cover story was that the CIA’s tapes of the phone calls had been erased before the assassination. The second cover story was that the CIA did not realize Oswald had visited the Cuban consulate until they looked into the matter after the assassination.
Whether these cables were inserted or altered after the fact no longer matters. They constitute the extant record and are not true. Ms. Goodpasture’s erasure cables are contradicted by her own 1995 deposition to the Assassination Records Review Board in which she stated she thought a tape dub had been hand-carried to the Texas border the night of the assassination,8 and that a copy of the tape was made at the CIA telephone tap center.9 She added that she was sure a copy of the tape would have been sent up to Washington as soon as it had been made. 10
Newly released internal CIA documents from the weeks following the assassination reveal that another copy of the October 1 intercept was found at that time,11 and that “the actual tapes” were reviewed.12 Furthermore, the Assassination Records Review Board also verified that in 1964 two Warren Commission attorneys, Coleman and Slawson, had traveled to the Mexico City station and listened to the tapes.13 There is no mention of this in either the Warren Commission’s 26 volumes or its final report.
Meanwhile, for the CIA’s erasure story to work, the FBI had to cooperate. FBI headquarters in Washington was still asking on the Monday after the assassination for the CIA tapes that had been sent from Mexico City to Dallas early Saturday.14
The FBI office in Mexico City provided the cover on the Monday afternoon after the assassination, sending a cable to headquarters saying that the tapes had been destroyed.15 When FBI Director Hoover learned of this lie, he was not amused. Eighteen days after the assassination, he censured, demoted or transferred everyone in the FBI that had been touched by the Mexico City story. Hoover was still fuming about it in January 1964, when his subordinates sent him a memo on illegal CIA operations in the US which stated that the CIA had promised to keep the Bureau informed. Hoover pulled out his pen and, in his characteristic large, thick handwriting scrawled, “OK, but I hope you are not being taken in. I can’t forget CIA withholding the French espionage activities in USA nor the false story re Oswald’s trip in Mexico City only to mention two of their instances of double dealing.” 16
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/oswald-the-cia-and-mexico-city/
-
Oh my goodness! Seriously? I take it you've never read the Lopez Report? I take it you're unaware of the new evidence and research on Oswald's activities in Mexico City? It is just amazing that you guys are so many years behind the information curve and keep repeating myths that were debunked years ago, some of them literally decades ago.
Let's start with the fact that we now know that J. Edgar Hoover advised LBJ that the American on the tape recording sent by the CIA from Mexico City was not Oswald. FBI agents listened to the tape and concluded the voice on it was not Oswald's. Surely you aren't going to tell me that you believe the later CIA fairy tale that they "sent the wrong tape"?
The CIA also claimed it had pictures that showed Oswald outside the Soviet Embassy, but when the pictures subsequently came to light, it was clear the man in them bore no resemblance to Oswald.
Let's consider the scenario that WC apologists would have us believe: The President of the United States had just been assassinated. Shortly thereafter, the CIA was asked to assist the Warren Commission in its investigation. The CIA then claimed it had photographic and audio evidence that Oswald, the alleged assassin, phoned and visited the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City. A short while later, the Agency said that while at the Soviet Embassy, Oswald spoke with Valery Kostikov, a KGB expert in sabotage and assassination. However, the CIA, in the most important investigation of the century, somehow gave the FBI the wrong photos and the wrong tape, even though voice intercepts are carefully catalogued, and even though Oswald's picture was in nearly every newspaper in the civilized world within hours of the assassination. Gosh, really? Really? You actually believe that?
It should be pointed out that the CIA never actually showed the pictures to the Warren
Commission--they surfaced years later and are clearly not of Oswald. On January 24, 1964, the
CIA told the Warren Commission that Oswald had met with Valery Kostikov at the Soviet
Embassy. The Agency said Kostikov was a KGB agent involved in assassination and sabotage.
The Commission was so frightened by this information that it decided to simply take the CIA's
word about Oswald's Mexico City activities. FBI agents examined the pictures and listened to the
tape and knew they were not of Oswald, but the FBI did not inform the Commission of this
fact.
In the mid-1990s, new information bearing on this issue came from files released by the Assassination Records Review Board. Among the released files was the transcript of the 11/23/63 telephone conversation between J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ in which Hoover advised LBJ that the American on the tape and in the pictures was not Oswald. Here's the exchange from the transcript:
JOHNSON. Have you established any more about the [Oswald] visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September?
HOOVER. No, that's one angle that's very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy.
Bullseye. Yes, there was a "second person" who was at the Soviet Embassy, and, as Hoover explained, he was not the real Lee Harvey Oswald.
And then there's the very strange delay in the CIA cable about the alleged Oswald conversation with Kostikov. Let's use some common sense, shall we? If the real Oswald had actually talked with Kostikov, there is no way on this planet that it would have taken seven days for the cable about this conversation to get to the CIA. Give me a break. If this event had actually occurred, that cable would have been sent at flash precedence; at a minimum, it would have been at the CIA within 24 hours.
-
[...]
Let's start with the fact that we now know that J. Edgar Hoover advised LBJ that the American on the tape recording sent by the CIA from Mexico City was not Oswald. FBI agents listened to the tape and concluded the voice on it was not Oswald's. Surely you aren't going to tell me that you believe the later CIA fairy tale that they "sent the wrong tape"?
Everyone of the FBI agents who actually handled the Cuban/Soviet Embassy materials sent by the CIA have said that they received no tapes from Win Scott's station. Only transcripts and photos. This number includes Hosty and the other SAs in Dallas, and Eldon Rudd, who carried the materials from Mexico City to Dallas. The FBI legation in Mexico City had to send a cable back to Washington, telling FBI HQ that the CIA did not provide any tapes to the FBI. The agents said then, and have always maintained, that they were not given any tapes of Oswald's conversations.
The notion that the FBI team in Dallas had listened to tapes starts with a memo from Belmont generated in the wee hours of Nov 23. This 'information' quickly spread up the chain to Hoover, not that it needed to go far. But Hoover and Belmont were no closer than 1200 miles away from the MXC materials at the time.
So there are two views of this. One comes from the guys who actually handled the materials. The other originated with some HQ types who were hundreds of miles away from the activity in question. You don't need to be a rocket surgeon to figure out which view is the better case.
-
You don't need to be a rocket surgeon to figure out which view is the better case.
The one you like better?
-
Everyone of the FBI agents who actually handled the Cuban/Soviet Embassy materials sent by the CIA have said that they received no tapes from Win Scott's station. Only transcripts and photos. This number includes Hosty and the other SAs in Dallas, and Eldon Rudd, who carried the materials from Mexico City to Dallas. The FBI legation in Mexico City had to send a cable back to Washington, telling FBI HQ that the CIA did not provide any tapes to the FBI. The agents said then, and have always maintained, that they were not given any tapes of Oswald's conversations.
The notion that the FBI team in Dallas had listened to tapes starts with a memo from Belmont generated in the wee hours of Nov 23. This 'information' quickly spread up the chain to Hoover, not that it needed to go far. But Hoover and Belmont were no closer than 1200 miles away from the MXC materials at the time.
So there are two views of this. One comes from the guys who actually handled the materials. The other originated with some HQ types who were hundreds of miles away from the activity in question. You don't need to be a rocket surgeon to figure out which view is the better case.
Correct. To reiterate: The evidence is overwhelming that no tapes were sent to Dallas. Each of the FBI/SA agents in Dallas were asked by the HSCA about any tapes and each said they were none. They were simply shown transcripts of calls - no tapes - and photos. Hoover was given bad/incorrect information (not for the first in this event); information that was corrected with a later cable.
Eldon Rudd was the FBI agent sent to Mexico City to retrieve the materials. In a cable sent to FBI headquarters he said that:
"With regard to the tapes referred to herein, CIA has advised that those tapes have been erased and are not available for review." Not available.
Rudd's cable can be read here: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/fbi/105-3702/124-10230-10430/html/124-10230-10430_0002a.htm
In any case, this is a separate question to the one I raised about Oswald being impersonated in the visits to the Soviet Embassy.
-
And to flesh this out a bit, this is from the HSCA's "Lopez Report", the investigation into the alleged visits by Oswald to Mexico City.
Conclusion: "While the majority of evidence tends to indicate that this individual was indeed Lee Harvey Oswald, the possibility that someone else used Lee Harvey Oswald's name during this time in contacts with the Soviet and Cuban Consulates cannot be absolutely dismissed." (screen cap below)
The "possibility" that "during this time" "someone else used his name" cannot be "absolutely dismissed." But the majority of evidence "tends to indicate" it was Oswald. So, evidence indicates he was indeed in MC but "during his time" someone else possibly used his name. Using his name is not, of course, showing up and impersonating him in person.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9802509822/Keyqyt4q1uu4ll8/Lopez conclusion.JPG)
The Lopez report can be read here: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_lopezrpt_2003.htm
-
Eldon Rudd cable/memo sent
to from Mexico City about the materials he was given by Win Scott. Rudd was a FBI special agent who carried this material to Dallas which was then seen/read by the agents there. As you can see at the bottom he mentions that the tapes had "been erased and are not available for review."
Note as well that the KGB agents were shown the photos of the unidentified person that the CIA believed was "possibly" the person who said he was Oswald - possibly - and all said the man did not identify himself as Oswald. The Oswald they met was the real Oswald.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9802692309/Keyy5opuscxhjy7/rudd cable.JPG)
-
I’m still not sure what the point of Steve’s question is.
And multiple sources have confirmed that the tapes of Oswald’s alleged phone calls existed after the JFK assassination.
See below from JFKFacts:
The existence of the Oswald tape remained a matter of speculation until 1993 when former Warren Commission staff attorneys David Slawson and William Coleman told author Anthony Summers that Mexico City station chief Win Scott had played the Oswald tape for them during their visit to Mexico City in April 1964.
Why does it matter?
The existence of the Oswald tape was important because a voice comparison of the tape with other recordings of Oswald would have resolved whether Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City, as Hoover suggested to LBJ and as Bill Simplich argues in his new book State Secret.
If the voice on the tape was Oswald’s, the CIA could have refuted the claim that Oswald was impersonated by simply releasing the tape. Since the CIA chose not to do this, the possibility that the voice on the tape was not Oswald’s cannot be dismissed.
And if it was ever proven that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City, the case for a JFK assassination conspiracy would be strengthened.
https://jfkfacts.org/what-happened-to-the-tape-of-oswald-in-mexico-city/
-
I’m still not sure what the point of Steve’s question is.
And multiple sources have confirmed that the tapes of Oswald’s alleged phone calls existed after the JFK assassination.
See below from JFKFacts:
The existence of the Oswald tape remained a matter of speculation until 1993 when former Warren Commission staff attorneys David Slawson and William Coleman told author Anthony Summers that Mexico City station chief Win Scott had played the Oswald tape for them during their visit to Mexico City in April 1964.
Why does it matter?
The existence of the Oswald tape was important because a voice comparison of the tape with other recordings of Oswald would have resolved whether Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City, as Hoover suggested to LBJ and as Bill Simplich argues in his new book State Secret.
If the voice on the tape was Oswald’s, the CIA could have refuted the claim that Oswald was impersonated by simply releasing the tape. Since the CIA chose not to do this, the possibility that the voice on the tape was not Oswald’s cannot be dismissed.
And if it was ever proven that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City, the case for a JFK assassination conspiracy would be strengthened.
https://jfkfacts.org/what-happened-to-the-tape-of-oswald-in-mexico-city/
The existence of the Oswald tape remained a matter of speculation until 1993 when former Warren Commission staff attorneys David Slawson and William Coleman told author Anthony Summers that Mexico City station chief Win Scott had played the Oswald tape for them during their visit to Mexico City in April 1964.
David Belin was with Slawson and Coleman on that trip. I don’t believe that he has corroborated this. Also, the link you provided to the jfkfacts.org web page has a dead link to the video.
(Summers explains how he got the story in this video from Mary Ferrell Foundation.)
Have you seen Summers’ video explanation? Do you have a working link to it?
-
I’m still not sure what the point of Steve’s question is.
And multiple sources have confirmed that the tapes of Oswald’s alleged phone calls existed after the JFK assassination.
See below from JFKFacts:
The existence of the Oswald tape remained a matter of speculation until 1993 when former Warren Commission staff attorneys David Slawson and William Coleman told author Anthony Summers that Mexico City station chief Win Scott had played the Oswald tape for them during their visit to Mexico City in April 1964.
Why does it matter?
The existence of the Oswald tape was important because a voice comparison of the tape with other recordings of Oswald would have resolved whether Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City, as Hoover suggested to LBJ and as Bill Simplich argues in his new book State Secret.
If the voice on the tape was Oswald’s, the CIA could have refuted the claim that Oswald was impersonated by simply releasing the tape. Since the CIA chose not to do this, the possibility that the voice on the tape was not Oswald’s cannot be dismissed.
And if it was ever proven that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City, the case for a JFK assassination conspiracy would be strengthened.
https://jfkfacts.org/what-happened-to-the-tape-of-oswald-in-mexico-city/
The Slawson/Coleman report on their trip to MXC was finally released a few years ago, having been classified and held back in 1964. In that report, Coleman and Slawson said they were allowed to peruse the "materials" related to Oswald in a secure room. They don't say tapes or anything that would lead one to believe they heard tapes, but they also don't say anything that precludes these "materials" from including tapes.
However....
They don't say that Win Scott played a tape of Oswald for them. In this 1964 version, the tape Win Scott plays for them is a recoding of phone traffic between the Cuban Embassy in MXC and Comrade Fidel himself. Not an Oswald call. In '64, they never mention anything specifically about listening to a tape of Oswald when they were in MXC, which would be a strange omission had they heard one. Also, IIRC, in Shennon's book, Coleman's and Slawson's later version of what happened is more ambiguous than what Summers reported.
And if we assume, arguendo, that Win Scott actually had tapes of the Oswald calls, it is not a given that he would have turned them over to the FBI.
There is an interesting coda to this. The MXC station's Russian translators, the Tarasoffs, were responsible for both transcribing the tapes and translating the contents. The Tarasoffs said their turnaround from receiving a tape to returning it with a transcription was 3-4 days. Anne Goodpasture , who oversaw the wiretap program in MXC, said that the tapes were returned to her after a week. It's certainly possible that one Tarasoff's "3-4 days" could be another Goodpasture's "one week," but I wonder if the tapes were being diverted to a third party for a day or two for copying. The obvious suspect here would be Win Scott's partners in the wiretap program, his friends in the upper reaches of the dominant faction of the PRI. If you go back and read the documents from Newman's original Lancer presentation, there is a cable from MEXI station saying that a source in the Mexican government claims to have "conversations." Given this, it's not much of a stretch to believe that there might be a separate source for the recordings. Just one that the CIAs MXC station did nopt have direct access to.
-
The existence of the Oswald tape remained a matter of speculation until 1993 when former Warren Commission staff attorneys David Slawson and William Coleman told author Anthony Summers that Mexico City station chief Win Scott had played the Oswald tape for them during their visit to Mexico City in April 1964.
David Belin was with Slawson and Coleman on that trip. I don’t believe that he has corroborated this. Also, the link you provided to the jfkfacts.org web page has a dead link to the video.
(Summers explains how he got the story in this video from Mary Ferrell Foundation.)
Have you seen Summers’ video explanation? Do you have a working link to it?
It’s an old article. I think Anthony Summers’ blog is down permanently.
The article cites several examples of people who claimed that the tapes existed after the JFK assassination.
Given how much the CIA has lied and obstructed in the JFK assassination investigations, it seems plausible that the Mexico City stuff is another cover-up. And the CIA, not the Soviets, are responsible for the murkiness and ambiguity of this issue…
-
https://anthonysummersandrobbynswan.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/intended-talk-to-copa-by-anthony-summers-where-the-jfk-case-sits-11222013/
NOVEMBER 24, 2013 · 5:20 PM↓ Jump to Comments
Intended Talk to COPA by Anthony Summers: Where the JFK Case Sits 11/22/2013
Dallas talk for COPA….November 22, ’13…..from Anthony Summers
(did not go ahead, because of technical problems)
"..Two of the calls Oswald supposedly made to the Soviet Embassy appear not to have been made by the real Oswald. Could one not establish whether that is so by comparing the voice on the tape with the known voice of the authentic Oswald? A good specimen was available, a recent broadcast he had done in connection with his pro-Castro activity in New Orleans.
Well no, said the CIA. It claimed the Mexico surveillance tapes had been “routinely” wiped weeks before the assassination – because, it claimed, Oswald had supposedly, been of no interest at the time.
Except, we now know from the draft memoir left behind by the then CIA station chief in Mexico City, Winston Scott, that – in his words – Oswald “had been a person of great interest to us” during his visit. “We kept a special watch” on him.
Except, too, that we now know the tapes were not routinely wiped before the assassination. Senior Warren Commission counsel William Coleman and his fellow Commission attorney David Slawson, and – in his retirement – the CIA station chief’s deputy, all told me that they listened to Oswald’s tape-recorded voice in April 1964 months after the assassination. What became of the recording – and indeed of the photographs that must have been snapped of Oswald on one of a total of five visits to the Communist embassies?
The CIA has offered no satisfactory answer. We do know, though, that – when Station Chief Scott died some years afterwards – CIA Counterintelligence’s James Angelton flew down to Mexico within hours, searched through the deceased man’s belongings, seized Scott’s draft memoir and what has been described as a stack of reel-to-reel tapes labelled “Oswald,” and ordered that they be flown to headquarters in Washington. Though some of the memoir has since been returned to the station chief’s next of kin, it appears that the other material was disposed of under a CIA “destruction order.”
There is still , meanwhile, the extraordinary episode that has been called the “Rosetta Stone” of the case, which probably occurred when the authentic Oswald was on his way from Mexico to Dallas, where he was to spend the few remaining weeks before the assassination. I refer to the testimony of the Odio sisters, Cuban exiles Silvia and Annie. I know, I know, this is a hoary old angle. But it is as central to the case as ever it was. The sisters were visited by a trio of men who said they were anti-Castro militants. Two of them, Hispanics, introduced their companion, an American who – the sisters would insist after the assassination looked just like Oswald – as “Oswald,” “Leon Oswald.”
Later, in what seemed to be a very deliberate way, the leader of the group would say Oswald was an “ex-Marine…an expert marksman…” who said “we should have shot Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs…should have done something like that.”
This posed a problem for the Warren Commission probe into the assassination – one that never was resolved. Commission attorneys took the view that the Odio women were excellent, credible witnesses and that their account seemed truthful. (I obtained what I believe were the first independent interviews with them – and I share that view.) Silvia and Annie’s account, of course, suggests that there was an attempt to set Oswald up – just weeks before the assassination – as a would-be presidential assassin..."
-
In KGB agent Oleg Nechiporenko's book, "Passport to Assassination", he quotes from a top secret memo sent by KGB chairman Vladimir Semichastny to Anastas Mikoyan, one of Khrushchev's top advisors. Nechiporenko was one of the three KGB agents who met Oswald at the Soviet Embassy. He said the KGB in Mexico City sent a memo to Moscow shortly after the assassination detailing the meeting with Oswald. The KGB was worried that they would be blamed for the assassination.
As you can see, nowhere is there any mention of an impostor. The KGB in Mexico City informed Moscow the man they met was indeed Oswald and not an impostor. Period. And the KGB and Politburo in Moscow forwarded this same information out. If they knew it was an impostor why would they tell their superiors it wasn't? Note as well that they mentioned Oswald saying he was being "harassed by the FBI."
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9808481300/Keysh059u1lxqx9/Mikoyan.jpg)
-
In KGB agent Oleg Nechiporenko's book, "Passport to Assassination", he quotes from a top secret memo sent by KGB chairman Vladimiar Semichastny to Anastas Mikoyan, one of Khrushchev's top advisors. Nechiporenko was one of the three KGB agents who met Oswald at the Soviet Embassy. He said the KGB in Mexico City sent a memo to Moscow shortly after the assassination detailing the meeting with Oswald. The KGB was terrified that they would be blamed for the assassination.
As you can see, nowhere is there any mention of an impostor. The KGB in Mexico City told Moscow the man they met was Oswald. Period. And the KGB and Politburo in Moscow gave the same information out. If they knew it was an impostor why would they tell their superiors it wasn't? Note as well that they mentioned Oswald saying he was being "harassed by the FBI."
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9808481300/Keysh059u1lxqx9/Mikoyan.jpg)
The ‘Oswald was impersonated’ claims originated from the FBI and CIA interpretations of phone calls to the embassies, not his alleged in-person visit to the Soviet embassy. That he wasn’t photographed entering or leaving the Soviet or Cuban embassies beggars disbelief but I’ve always leaned towards the probability that Oswald visited Mexico City.
The CIA and FBI, not the Soviets, are responsible for the murkiness and unanswered questions surrounding Oswald’s visit to Mexico.
If I remember correctly, someone at the Cuban consulate described a man claiming to be Oswald who didn’t fit Oswald’s description.
Beyond that example, are you referring specifically to JFK assassination researchers who deny that the real Oswald visited Mexico City?
The consensus (I think) is that he was there in Mexico City but also that the phone calls where he was impersonated by someone were listened to after the Assassination and covered up by the CIA and FBI.
It seems like a strawman argument to claim that what the Soviets said about his visit proves that he wasn’t impersonated in phone calls. How would they have known that someone was impersonating Oswald in phone calls?
-
Most people agree that a man calling himself Oswald visited Mexico City for a few days between the 27th of September and the 2nd of October. Most people agree that he went back and forth on the 27th between the Cuban consulate and the Soviet consulate - trying to get a visa to visit both countries and failing at both - with one last stab at the Soviet consulate on the 28th.
At the Cuban consulate, consul Eusebio Azcue insisted that the man he met was not Oswald. The other consul, Alfredo Mirabel, was equally insistent that the man was Oswald. This kind of sharp division makes it hard to determine if Oswald ever came to Mexico City. Jack Whitten, who was the CIA’s original investigator of the assassination, wrote in the days after 11/22 that “no source then at our disposal had ever actually seen Lee Oswald while he was in Mexico". That is remarkable, as the CIA’s sources inside the Cuban compound later told House Select Committee on Assassinations staffer Ed Lopez that the man who visited them was not Oswald.[ 111 ] For ease in writing this narrative, I will refer to the man at the center of this Mexico City narrative as Oswald, but I remain an agnostic as to whether he visited the Cuban consulate on the 27th, or even came to Mexico City. I’m convinced that he didn’t come to the Cuban consulate on the 28th. - Bill Simpich
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Chapter3.html
A fair analysis today, however, suggests that the real Oswald may indeed have visited the consulate at one stage on Friday, September 27, but that an impostor may have been involved at a later stage of the contacts with the consulate. A phone call from the Cuban consulate to the Soviet embassy on Saturday, September 28, in which Oswald was supposedly a participant, almost certainly involved an impostor. If that suspicion is correct, what was going on? - Anthony Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy (1980)
-
Anthony Summers from his book "Not in Your Lifetime" on the three KGB agents who say they met Oswald in Mexico City. He said he interviewed them separately in Moscow (they never defected). It's the same account that Nechiporenko gave in his book.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9808947883/Keyhsewu03bsin3/summers on Oswald.JPG)
-
So who lied?
The CIA? The Cubans? The Soviets? The Mexican intel operatives?
What really happened in Mexico City remains unresolved and requires further investigation before we can make any firm conclusions…
One person whom I suspect can answer some of these questions is Silvia Duran. I think she's still alive.
-
Most people agree that a man calling himself Oswald visited Mexico City for a few days between the 27th of September and the 2nd of October. Most people agree that he went back and forth on the 27th between the Cuban consulate and the Soviet consulate - trying to get a visa to visit both countries and failing at both - with one last stab at the Soviet consulate on the 28th.
At the Cuban consulate, consul Eusebio Azcue insisted that the man he met was not Oswald. The other consul, Alfredo Mirabel, was equally insistent that the man was Oswald. This kind of sharp division makes it hard to determine if Oswald ever came to Mexico City. Jack Whitten, who was the CIA’s original investigator of the assassination, wrote in the days after 11/22 that “no source then at our disposal had ever actually seen Lee Oswald while he was in Mexico". That is remarkable, as the CIA’s sources inside the Cuban compound later told House Select Committee on Assassinations staffer Ed Lopez that the man who visited them was not Oswald.[ 111 ] For ease in writing this narrative, I will refer to the man at the center of this Mexico City narrative as Oswald, but I remain an agnostic as to whether he visited the Cuban consulate on the 27th, or even came to Mexico City. I’m convinced that he didn’t come to the Cuban consulate on the 28th. - Bill Simpich
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Chapter3.html
A fair analysis today, however, suggests that the real Oswald may indeed have visited the consulate at one stage on Friday, September 27, but that an impostor may have been involved at a later stage of the contacts with the consulate. A phone call from the Cuban consulate to the Soviet embassy on Saturday, September 28, in which Oswald was supposedly a participant, almost certainly involved an impostor. If that suspicion is correct, what was going on? - Anthony Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy (1980)
Jon, my original question/point was to address the claim that Oswald was impersonated at the Soviet Embassy, in fact that he never went to Mexico City at all. I think the evidence is persuasive that he did go there. Why would the Soviets cover up or withhold this impersonation? What would be the reason?
One of the claims refuting the three KGB agents who said it was Oswald is that they "defected" to the West and made their claims for financial or other reasons. In other words, they lied. The fact that they informed Moscow shortly after the assassination that the man they saw was Oswald - an erratic and unstable Oswald - disproves that claim.
As to the tapes/phone calls: As Rudd said in his cable, the tapes had been erased. There were none. Why would they be kept? We have the transcripts and there's nothing of importance to keep. Why keep these when the usual procedure was to erase them? This was 1963, the tapes were huge devices. I think Coleman and Slawson's accounts - which have been contradictory, e.g. Coleman said on one occasion he heard no tapes and on another he did, same with Slawson - that they heard tapes is wrong.
As to Simpich and the Cuban consulate: Nowhere does Lopez mention in his report this CIA source's account. How would a CIA source know this? According to the Cubans there were only four people who were aware of the visit: Azcue, Duran, Mirabal and reportedly Teresa Proenza, the Cuban Cultural Attache who supposedly directed Oswald to Duran when he entered the consulate). Who else would know that some person identified himself as Oswald? Duran, who spent the most time with him, said it was Oswald (yes, she got his height wrong). The physical evidence - photos and signatures - are of Oswald's. He told the Soviets he went there. So we have Azcue saying it wasn't Oswald (he also said the photos were not of the man he met?) and all of this other evidence?
As to an impersonation: If one did occur on a phone call how does that show a conspiracy in the assassination? I don't see a connection.
In any case, I think Oswald did indeed go to the Soviet Embassy and meet the KGB agents. And according to Nechiporenko's account he mentioned visiting the Cuban consulate. Unless he was lying, that shows to me more evidence he did go there as well.
-
Jon, my original question/point was to address the claim that Oswald was impersonated at the Soviet Embassy, in fact that he never went to Mexico City at all. I think the evidence is persuasive that he did go there. Why would the Soviets cover up or withhold this impersonation? What would be the reason?
One of the claims refuting the three KGB agents who said it was Oswald is that they "defected" to the West and made their claims for financial or other reasons. In other words, they lied. The fact that they informed Moscow shortly after the assassination that the man they saw was Oswald - an erratic and unstable Oswald - disproves that claim.
As to the tapes/phone calls: As Rudd said in his cable, the tapes had been erased. There were none. Why would they be kept? We have the transcripts and there's nothing of importance to keep. Why keep these when the usual procedure was to erase them? This was 1963, the tapes were huge devices. I think Coleman and Slawson's accounts - which have been contradictory, e.g. Coleman said on one occasion he heard no tapes and on another he did, same with Slawson - that they heard tapes is wrong.
As to Simpich and the Cuban consulate: Nowhere does Lopez mention in his report this CIA source's account. How would a CIA source know this? According to the Cubans there were only four people who were aware of the visit: Azcue, Duran, Mirabal and reportedly Teresa Proenza, the Cuban Cultural Attache who supposedly directed Oswald to Duran when he entered the consulate). Who else would know that some person identified himself as Oswald?
As to an impersonation: If one did occur on a phone call how does that show a conspiracy in the assassination? I don't see a connection.
In any case, I think Oswald did indeed go to the Soviet Embassy and meet the KGB agents. And according to Nechiporenko's account he mentioned visiting the Cuban consulate. Unless he was lying, that shows to me more evidence he did go there as well.
Faking Oswald's presence in Mexico City would not have been necessary to frame him for the JFK assassination. And risky if the Russians or Cubans had evidence to the contrary. There were ample grounds for the fantasy conspirators to label him a political kook (if that was their intent) based on his defection to the USSR and ongoing nutty political involvement with Marxism following his return to the US. There would have been no need to send Oswald or an Oswald double to Mexico City unless there was some intent to implicate Russia or Cuba into the plot as a pretext for war. But what do the conspirators do according to our resident CTers? The exact opposite to this undermining this explanation. They immediately place all the blame on Oswald and cover up the involvement of anyone else including Russia or Cuba.
The Cubans and/or Russians may have had grounds to be suspicious that Oswald was working for the CIA. It's possible that they were understandably concerned following the assassination that his presence was part of a plot to start a war in Cuba. For that reason, they might not have been entirely forthcoming about what Oswald told them. Did he admit or imply his involvement in the Walker attempt to validate his credentials as a loyal Commie? Or make some vow to do so? It wouldn't surprise me. Oswald's actions leading up to the Mexico City visit were directed at creating a resume of his credentials to impress the Cubans. What better way to do that than admit or imply involvement in some risky act like assassinating a right winger like Walker? The Cubans would have good reason not to admit that Oswald had told them he was willing to commit some violent act on behalf of the cause. I think Oswald would have played every card with them and that was a strong one.
-
Faking Oswald's presence in Mexico City would not have been necessary to frame him for the JFK assassination. And risky if the Russians or Cubans had evidence to the contrary. There were ample grounds for the fantasy conspirators to label him a political kook (if that was their intent) based on his defection to the USSR and ongoing nutty political involvement with Marxism following his return to the US. There would have been no need to send Oswald or an Oswald double to Mexico City unless there was some intent to implicate Russia or Cuba into the plot as a pretext for war. But what do the conspirators do according to our resident CTers? The exact opposite to this undermining this explanation. They immediately place all the blame on Oswald and cover up the involvement of anyone else including Russia or Cuba.
The Cubans and/or Russians may have had grounds to be suspicious that Oswald was working for the CIA. It's possible that they were understandably concerned following the assassination that his presence was part of a plot to start a war in Cuba. For that reason, they might not have been entirely forthcoming about what Oswald told them. Did he admit or imply his involvement in the Walker attempt to validate his credentials as a loyal Commie? Or make some vow to do so? It wouldn't surprise me. Oswald's actions leading up to the Mexico City visit were directed at creating a resume of his credentials to impress the Cubans. What better way to do that than admit or imply involvement in some risky act like assassinating a right winger like Walker? The Cubans would have good reason not to admit that Oswald had told them he was willing to commit some violent act on behalf of the cause. I think Oswald would have played every card with them and that was a strong one.
The exoneration of Castro and the Soviets in the investigations has always puzzled me. Wouldn't these supposed neo-fascists who killed JFK because he was too soft on communists, specifically Castro and the Bay of Pigs et cetera, want to blame Cuba for the assassination? As a sort of Reichstag fire event to justify removing Castro?
But they conducted a fake investigation - it's claimed - that cleared Castro? And the Soviets. And everyone else. Oswald alone. So why frame a pro-Castro person and kill a "soft on Castro president" and then clear Castro? You've undermined your own plan. It makes no sense.
Even more remarkable is that LBJ essentially ended the covert war on Cuba. That war was driven by the Kennedys anyway and with RFK no longer interested in the matter it died out. So why the heck frame a pro-Castro person for the assassination? For what purpose?
-
The exoneration of Castro and the Soviets in the investigations has always puzzled me. Wouldn't these supposed neo-fascists who killed JFK because he was too soft on communists, specifically Castro and the Bay of Pigs et cetera, want to blame Cuba for the assassination? As a sort of Reichstag fire event to justify removing Castro?
But they conducted a fake investigation - it's claimed - that cleared Castro? And the Soviets. And everyone else. Oswald alone. So why frame a pro-Castro person and kill a "soft on Castro president" and then clear Castro? You've undermined your own plan. It makes no sense.
Even more remarkable is that LBJ essentially ended the covert war on Cuba. That war was driven by the Kennedys anyway and with RFK no longer interested in the matter it died out. So why the heck frame a pro-Castro person for the assassination? For what purpose?
Yes, a conflicting narrative. On the one hand, some CTers suggest or imply that the conspirators were using Oswald as a pretext for war with Cuba (i.e. his visit to Mexico City and political background were being used to link him to Cuba or Russia to hold them responsible), but then they criticize the authorities investigating the crime for placing the blame entirely on Oswald and not pursuing the involvement of others like Cuba. Thus, undermining the entire premise that the intent of the conspirators was to lead the trail back via Oswald to Cuba. Narrative consistency is not a strong point, however, of conspiracy or contrarian thinking. Masterminding a fake Oswald appearance in Mexico City needs no context for them. It is sufficient just to suggest that it was faked and declare victory on that basis.
-
Jon, my original question/point was to address the claim that Oswald was impersonated at the Soviet Embassy, in fact that he never went to Mexico City at all. I think the evidence is persuasive that he did go there. Why would the Soviets cover up or withhold this impersonation? What would be the reason?
No one can answer your question because it's a Strawman argument given that no one is arguing that the real Oswald didn't visit the Soviet embassy.
The popular claim is that Oswald was impersonated in phone calls to the Soviet embassy, not in person.
I referenced the Simpich and Summers quotes because I thought maybe you're confusing the Cuban and Soviet embassy stories. There are claims that the person who visited the Cuban consulate in MC wasn't the real Oswald but I haven't seen similar claims made about his visit to the Soviet embassy.
Do we know as an established fact that someone impersonated Oswald on one or more occasions during his Mexico City trip? No. But there are valid reasons to speculate that someone might've impersonated him.
As to the tapes/phone calls: As Rudd said in his cable, the tapes had been erased. There were none. Why would they be kept? We have the transcripts and there's nothing of importance to keep. Why keep these when the usual procedure was to erase them? This was 1963, the tapes were huge devices. I think Coleman and Slawson's accounts - which have been contradictory, e.g. Coleman said on one occasion he heard no tapes and on another he did, same with Slawson - that they heard tapes is wrong.
Whether the people who claimed the tapes existed after 11/22/63 were mistaken or not (and there were others who claimed that the tapes were listened to after the assassination besides the two you mentioned), there's other evidence that suggests that the person on the phone calls wasn't the real Oswald and that Silvia Duran may have been impersonated as well:
In two telephone calls to the Soviet Embassy, a man claiming to be Lee Harvey Oswald spoke “terrible, hardly recognizable Russian”, according to the CIA’s translator. Oswald himself spoke Russian very well.
The man who made the incriminating phone call to Kostikov had also phoned from the Cuban Consulate three days earlier, on Saturday 28 September. In this instance, not only was Oswald impersonated but the phone call or the transcript appear to have been fabricated. The Cuban Consulate and the switchboard at the Soviet Embassy were closed on Saturdays. Silvia Durán, an employee at the Cuban Consulate, who was mentioned by name on the transcript, denied that she had taken part in the call on the 28th.
http://22november1963.org.uk/a-little-incident-in-mexico-city
The CIA translator also claimed that the person claiming to be Oswald spoke broken English:
The phone caller spoke broken Russian and broken English, and knew that Oswald was in transition but not that he was moving away from his family
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Chapter5.html
Primary source - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=50273#relPageId=5
As to Simpich and the Cuban consulate: Nowhere does Lopez mention in his report this CIA source's account. How would a CIA source know this? According to the Cubans there were only four people who were aware of the visit: Azcue, Duran, Mirabal and reportedly Teresa Proenza, the Cuban Cultural Attache who supposedly directed Oswald to Duran when he entered the consulate). Who else would know that some person identified himself as Oswald? Duran, who spent the most time with him, said it was Oswald (yes, she got his height wrong). The physical evidence - photos and signatures - are of Oswald's. He told the Soviets he went there. So we have Azcue saying it wasn't Oswald (he also said the photos were not of the man he met?) and all of this other evidence?
Duran's claim was that she never saw Oswald again after September 27, 1963. Therefore, if Oswald returned to the Cuban embassy on the 28th and she helped him call the Soviet embassy from the Cuban embassy (as the 9/28/63 wiretap transcript describes), then either she lied or someone was impersonating her.
The last call in question was made on October 1.
As to an impersonation: If one did occur on a phone call how does that show a conspiracy in the assassination? I don't see a connection.
If someone was attempting to frame Oswald as potentially conspiring with the Soviets or Cubans weeks prior to 11/22/63, that would be hard evidence of a conspiracy plot. Hence why LBJ tried to bury the Mexico City stuff about the Cubans (I'm aware that the story about his visit to the Soviet embassy wasn't buried).
The possibility that Oswald might've been impersonated at the Cuban embassy could be why the Cuba stuff was covered up.
I don't think the Sylvia Odio thing can be dismissed either (did the real Oswald visit her? Or an impersonator?).
Put another way, if Oswald was simply a "lone-nut", why would anyone go through the trouble of trying to impersonate him (in person or on phone calls)? What would be the non-conspiratorial explanation if it's true that he was impersonated?
We really don't know enough about that week of Oswald's life to draw any concrete conclusions...
-
Faking Oswald's presence in Mexico City would not have been necessary to frame him for the JFK assassination. And risky if the Russians or Cubans had evidence to the contrary. There were ample grounds for the fantasy conspirators to label him a political kook (if that was their intent) based on his defection to the USSR and ongoing nutty political involvement with Marxism following his return to the US. There would have been no need to send Oswald or an Oswald double to Mexico City unless there was some intent to implicate Russia or Cuba into the plot as a pretext for war. But what do the conspirators do according to our resident CTers? The exact opposite to this undermining this explanation. They immediately place all the blame on Oswald and cover up the involvement of anyone else including Russia or Cuba.
The Cubans and/or Russians may have had grounds to be suspicious that Oswald was working for the CIA. It's possible that they were understandably concerned following the assassination that his presence was part of a plot to start a war in Cuba. For that reason, they might not have been entirely forthcoming about what Oswald told them. Did he admit or imply his involvement in the Walker attempt to validate his credentials as a loyal Commie? Or make some vow to do so? It wouldn't surprise me. Oswald's actions leading up to the Mexico City visit were directed at creating a resume of his credentials to impress the Cubans. What better way to do that than admit or imply involvement in some risky act like assassinating a right winger like Walker? The Cubans would have good reason not to admit that Oswald had told them he was willing to commit some violent act on behalf of the cause. I think Oswald would have played every card with them and that was a strong one.
This is my point with the original question: "And risky if the Russians or Cubans had evidence to the contrary."
Why impersonate him when the Soviets and/or Cubans could expose this impersonation? If the plan was to impersonate him to connect him to the Cubans and Soviets and then use this fake connection to blame them for the assassination (especially Castro) wouldn't the Cubans and Soviet expose this?
So why didn't they expose it? It seems obvious to me: they didn't because he wasn't impersonated. This was not a made up story by the three KGB agents to sell a book. They informed Moscow right after the assassination that they met Oswald. They didn't tell Moscow it was a fake, an impostor. If they had the Soviets would have clearly made that known. But again, they didn't. For more than 30 years they didn't.
Because it was Oswald. Or, if one insists, a damned good fake.
-
This is my point with the original question: "And risky if the Russians or Cubans had evidence to the contrary."
Why impersonate him when the Soviets and/or Cubans could expose this impersonation?
How would they have known that someone impersonated Oswald? And unlike the Soviet embassy, some Cuban officials from Mexico City were not sure if they were visited by the real Lee Harvey Oswald.
The phone call impersonation claim involving the Soviet embassy originates from the FBI and some CIA officers.
How would the Soviets have known that the person who called the Soviet embassy on September 28th, 1963 was impersonating Oswald?
So why didn't they expose it? It seems obvious to me: they didn't because he wasn't impersonated. .
You're applying circular logic to dismiss credible claims that Oswald was impersonated.
You don't want to believe Oswald was impersonated so you cite what the Soviets said while ignoring what the Cuban embassy officials said.
J Edgar Hoover, the translators of the phone calls to the embassies in Mexico City, Sylvia Duran, and some of the CIA officials from Mexico City have all given us information that strongly suggests that at least in the phone calls between September 28 and October 1, 1963, Oswald was being impersonated by someone.
We can't confirm the impersonation story because the audio tapes no longer exist. But the descriptions given by the translators of the phone calls plus Duran's claim that she wasn't with Oswald on September 28th suggest that someone impersonated him.
-
Depiction of Oswald (or an alleged impostor) meeting with KGB agents in Soviet Embassy in
Moscow Mexico City (from Nechiporenko's book on the assassination). Nechiporenko includes an account where shortly after the assassination Cuban Consul Eusbio Azcue met with fellow KGB agent Pavel Yatskov and asked why the Soviets sent him "that schizo [Oswald] for a visa?" Yatskov replied that "How could I have sent him? I don't handle visas." Azcue expressed no doubt, as he would later, that the man was Oswald.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9833106831/Key7vv9dbih3coe/oswald at embassy.JPG)
-
Depiction of Oswald (or an alleged impostor) meeting with KGB agents in Soviet Embassy in Moscow (from Nechiporenk's book on the assassination). Nechiporenko includes an account where shortly after the assassination Cuban Consul Eusbio Azcue met with fellow KGB agent Pavel Yatskov and asked why the Soviets sent him "that schizo [Oswald] for a visa?" Yatskov replied that "How could I have sent him? I don't handle visas." Azcue expressed no doubt, as he would later, that the man was Oswald.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9833106831/Key7vv9dbih3coe/oswald at embassy.JPG)
NY Times:
Eusebio Azcue Lopez, a former Cuban consul in Mexico City, told the tribunal that the person claiming to be Lee Harvey Oswald who visited him Sept. 27, 1963, to request a visa for Cuba was not the same person who appeared in films and photographs as the arrested assassin of Mr. Kennedy. The Warren Commission reported the C.I.A.'s evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald had visited the Cuban consulate on that day.
“In no way did the person I saw in film and photographs resemble the person who visited me,” said Mr. Anue, who has never before given evidence in public. “The person in the film was younger and with a pudgier face compared to the hard lines and older face of the person who requested the visa.”
A member of a so‐called Cuban Investigating Commission, Idalberto Guevara Quintana, who presented today's main charges against the C.I.A., said that there was a growing body of evidence suggesting efforts to link Cuba to the assassination even before it took place.
Mr. Guevara charged that, contrary to evidence presented to the Warren Con%mission, no one by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald belonged to the so‐called “Fair Play to Cuba” organization in the United States and that no affiliate of that group existed in New Orleans, where Mr. Oswald had allegedly been a militant.
He also said that, contrary to evidence presented by the C.I.A. to the Senate's Select Committee, the person who sought visa for Cuba in Mexico City never announced while in the consulate that he was planning to kill President Kennedy.
https://www.nytimes.com/1978/08/03/archives/cuba-says-cia-fabricated-evidence-on-kennedy.html