JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Steve M. Galbraith on April 07, 2024, 03:27:16 PM
-
If, as is claimed by some conspiracists, Oswald was impersonated (by the man below) in a visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City in late September of 1963, then why didn't the Soviets, who blamed the CIA for the assassination, expose this fakery? Why did they, as far as everything I've read, keep it quiet? They blamed the CIA for the murder; why not include this impersonation into the CIA's plot? Why not expose this to the world?
But, again as far I know, they didn't. In his book on the visit, KGB agent/Embassy Official Oleg Nechiporenko said that when Oswald's picture was shown on television shortly after the assassination that he and his fellow agents who met Oswald were shocked. It was indeed the man who came to them acting oddly two months before. Nechiporenko said that he was then ordered by his station chief to file a report on the meeting. This was sent to Moscow where the head of the KGB informed the Soviet leadership of the visit. He didn't tell them it was an impersonation.
From the Nechiporenko account (the Valery here is Valery Kostikov, his fellow agent who met Oswald):
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID11165452202/Keyer9ncxq2yv8y/Nechiporenko Shock.JPG)
If, on the other hand, it was an impersonation, they why didn't Nechiporenko reveal this to his superiors? Who then, in turn, would reveal this to the world; reveal it as part of the CIA's murder of JFK and their attempt to blame Moscow for the act?
But none of this happened. According to Nechiporenko's account the man *was* Oswald and that they immediately informed Moscow about the visit. Moscow in turn never said anything differently, that there was a impostor. By the way, the man shown below was identified by Nechiporenko and said he was a US Air Force enlisted man who offered to sell secrets to the Soviets (which raises an interesting question: Did the CIA miss this?).
One more point: Neither Nechiporenko nor Kostikov defected to the West. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union they both remained in Russia and worked for the FSB, the Russian followup intelligence service to the KGB. The claim that they defected to the West and wrote this book to curry favor with the West and/or to make money falls apart: again, they never defected and it seems obvious that writing a conspiracy book saying Oswald was impersonated is going to make more money than one saying he wasn't. Conspiracies sell.
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.0ybWg_4ksi-8vCulKfvt_AAAAA?rs=1&pid=ImgDetMain)
-
It's very simple. The Soviets had nothing to do with this. The whole plan was to use Oswald - the designated patsy's - fake visit to the embassy down there as the "false flag" to invade Cuba with the pretense of "the Soviets murdered JFK and, therefore, we have a right to invade Cuba now."
But LBJ backed off when he found that the narrative for JFK's murder could be kept under wraps internally. You know, instead of starting WWIII. Thus, the whitewash of the Warren Commission conclusions, etc.
This has been done literally a million times by the US and other countries. To wit:
USS Maine
The overthrow of Allende
JFK murder
Weapons of mass destruction
...and so on.
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#:~:text=In%20a%201954%20CIA%20operation,wing%20dictators%2C%20in%20its%20place.
-
Go to the 1:10:24 mark...
https://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-who-was-lee-harvey-oswald/
-
It's very simple. The Soviets had nothing to do with this. The whole plan was to use Oswald - the designated patsy's - fake visit to the embassy down there as the "false flag" to invade Cuba with the pretense of "the Soviets murdered JFK and, therefore, we have a right to invade Cuba now."
But LBJ backed off when he found that the narrative for JFK's murder could be kept under wraps internally. You know, instead of starting WWIII. Thus, the whitewash of the Warren Commission conclusions, etc.
This has been done literally a million times by the US and other countries. To wit:
USS Maine
The overthrow of Allende
JFK murder
Weapons of mass destruction
...and so on.
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#:~:text=In%20a%201954%20CIA%20operation,wing%20dictators%2C%20in%20its%20place.
That makes absolutely no sense. Someone goes to the incredible risk of assassinating the president to start a war but the plan does not account for LBJ who would make that decision? Instead, as CTers often complain, all the blame is immediately put on Oswald. No apparent effort was made by anyone in power to promote the avowed conspiratorial objective to start a war with Cuba or Russia. Did your fantasy conspirators just give up a couple hours after the assassination on the idea of starting a war and go a completely opposite direction to put all the blame on Oswald? It's laughable as a narrative. I can entertain that the CIA may have known more than they ever let on about Oswald's Mexico City visit but after he was dead and they were satisfied of his guilt they did not want to release any materials that might shed light on their means and methods of acquiring surveillance information from the Commie embassies. Maybe they had his picture, taped conversations etc. But the explanation for faking Oswald's presence is not viable for a whole lot of reasons.
-
That makes absolutely no sense. Someone goes to the incredible risk of assassinating the president to start a war but the plan does not account for LBJ who would make that decision? Instead, as CTers often complain, all the blame is immediately put on Oswald. No apparent effort was made by anyone in power to promote the avowed conspiratorial objective to start a war with Cuba or Russia. Did your fantasy conspirators just give up a couple hours after the assassination on the idea of starting a war and go a completely opposite direction to put all the blame on Oswald? It's laughable as a narrative. I can entertain that the CIA may have known more than they ever let on about Oswald's Mexico City visit but after he was dead and they were satisfied of his guilt they did not want to release any materials that might shed light on their means and methods of acquiring surveillance information from the Commie embassies. Maybe they had his picture, taped conversations etc. But the explanation for faking Oswald's presence is not viable for a whole lot of reasons.
So they send an Oswald impostor to Mexico City and have him visit the Cuban and Soviet facilities in order to connect Castro and/or Moscow to the assassination and then, after the assassination, exonerate both Castro and Moscow for that act? They said Oswald, acting alone for his own unknown reasons, murdered JFK. Castro and Moscow are cleared of any involvement. How could it be a "false flag" operation when they said it was Oswald alone, no foreign involvement? And they did this because they suddenly realized they couldn't get away with it? But they were the ones investigating it and supposedly covered it up later. And subsequent generations of Americans, in the government and in the media, went along with this?
This is completely at odds with itself. It's upside down. They framed a Marxist in order to do a "false flag" operation to blame Havana or Moscow and then cleared them? Or was this a rogue CIA element that sent the impostor? And then the rest of the CIA and government covered up for this rogue element? Why? Even now? For 60 years? Multiple generations of people in the government? Multiple presidencies and CIA directors and others? How does this theory work?
In conspiracy world the claims don't have to make sense, be logical, be consistent; they only have to somehow support their conspiracy belief.
In any case, once again: If the CIA sent an impostor to Mexico City (supposedly the man below) then why didn't the Soviets expose this impersonation? They blamed the CIA for the murder. They can point to this as part of that plan. But not only did they not expose it - at that time or now - they said it was Oswald.
The evidence - physical, eyewitness, and circumstantial - that Oswald did go to Mexico City, did try to defect to Cuba, is so overwhelming that one has to be, well, a conspiracist, to think otherwise. Right, but Duran said he was only slighter taller than she is (even though she insisted that it was Oswald); and Azcue said the photos didn't appear to be the same person. That is supposed to cancel out all of the other evidence?
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.0ybWg_4ksi-8vCulKfvt_AAAAA?rs=1&pid=ImgDetMain)
-
Go to the 1:10:24 mark...
https://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-who-was-lee-harvey-oswald/
Yes, Nechiporenko and the others with him all said it was the real Oswald and not an impostor. He goes into greater details in his book on the visits: he says Oswald was acting hysterically, blaming the FBI for his problems and that it all was going to end tragically if he wasn't given a visa.
The problem is that conspiracy believers say they are lying, that they lied to sell a book or, for whatever reason, gain favor with the West. As usual with this crowd, when the evidence contradicts what they claim they come up with another conspiracy to explain that new evidence away. Conspiracy after conspiracy after conspiracy.
As I pointed out in my original post, from the very start - the day of the assassination - they were saying it was Oswald. They reported back to Moscow that the real Oswald visited the Embassy. They didn't change their story in 1992 for personal benefit; they said it from the start. The Soviets never once said that it was an impostor. The head of the KGB told the leaders that it was Oswald.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID11017219205/Keyc5uanyu3kiop/Semichastny.JPG)
Shorter: it was Oswald.
-
Personally, I think the evidence that it was Oswald in Mexico outweighs the evidence it was an impostor.
But I find it amusing that this somehow exonerates him from conspiracy.
Oswald was a Marine who defected to the USSR. Had there ever been a situation like that before? And during the Cold War?
He married a Soviet woman and, not only was he allowed to leave with her, he was welcomed back to the States! WTF?
He starts up a one man Fair Play For Cuba outfit, makes himself as obvious as possible in New Orleans - the defector Marine publicly fighting a pro-Communist cause - appears on radio and television espousing his views and is being hassled by the FBI...
...and all this somehow exonerates him from conspiracy?
Am I missing something?
Can it really be believed he was just some loner who bought a cheap rifle. Some kind of ordinary Joe gone wrong?
None of this proves that he didn't do it alone but to imagine there was no way he could've been involved in a conspiracy is naive, to say the least.
-
Personally, I think the evidence that it was Oswald in Mexico outweighs the evidence it was an impostor.
But I find it amusing that this somehow exonerates him from conspiracy.
Oswald was a Marine who defected to the USSR. Had there ever been a situation like that before? And during the Cold War?
He married a Soviet woman and, not only was he allowed to leave with her, he was welcomed back to the States! WTF?
He starts up a one man Fair Play For Cuba outfit, makes himself as obvious as possible in New Orleans - the defector Marine publicly fighting a pro-Communist cause - appears on radio and television espousing his views and is being hassled by the FBI...
...and all this somehow exonerates him from conspiracy?
Am I missing something?
Can it really be believed he was just some loner who bought a cheap rifle. Some kind of ordinary Joe gone wrong?
None of this proves that he didn't do it alone but to imagine there was no way he could've been involved in a conspiracy is naive, to say the least.
Not aware of anyone arguing that Oswald's visit exonerates him from a conspiracy. The point was that there was no logical reason to fake Oswald's presence in Mexico City. The rest is just more of the same CTer nonsense. Oswald was acting like such a not that he couldn't be a nut etc. What links Oswald to the crime is none of this but the evidence he left behind. His rifle was found at the crime scene. Oswald provides no explanation for this. Instead he lies to the authorities. He has no credile alibi, flees the scene and murders a police officer. It's as stone cold a case of guilt as possible absent a time machine.
-
Not aware of anyone arguing that Oswald's visit exonerates him from a conspiracy. The point was that there was no logical reason to fake Oswald's presence in Mexico City. The rest is just more of the same CTer nonsense. Oswald was acting like such a not that he couldn't be a nut etc. What links Oswald to the crime is none of this but the evidence he left behind. His rifle was found at the crime scene. Oswald provides no explanation for this. Instead he lies to the authorities. He has no credile alibi, flees the scene and murders a police officer. It's as stone cold a case of guilt as possible absent a time machine.
::)
I agree Oswald flees the scene and kills Tippit as he was heading for the border.
But I don't agree that Oswald took the shots.
That's why three of the five eye-witnesses who saw a man on the 6th floor describe the man wearing clothes Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own.
That's why no-one saw Oswald descending from the 6th floor - Dougherty stood next to the area where Oswald would have to walk across the 5th floor to get to the next staircase, Garner and others on the 4th floor stood in the same kind of area.
That's why Oswald is reported as seeing Junior Jarman and Harold Norman which he could only have done when they entered the first floor by the back door on their way up to the 5th floor.
The way to frame Oswald is to leave his rifle there. That way people can put two and two together.
Isn't it funny that such a "stone cold" case won't go away.
To imagine Oswald isn't the kind of guy who would possibly be involved in some kind of conspiracy is ridiculous.
Given the brief history I outlined there could hardly be anyone more suited.
He could hardly be more involved in intrigue if he tried.
Oswald isn't some everyday guy who's lost it.
He has no credile alibi,
You're not wrong there.
He uses Bill Shelley as part of his alibi. He fully expects Shelley to back him up that he didn't flee the scene but was advised he could go home by his foreman.
Why would he expect such a thing if it didn't actually happen?
-
Not aware of anyone arguing that Oswald's visit exonerates him from a conspiracy. The point was that there was no logical reason to fake Oswald's presence in Mexico City. The rest is just more of the same CTer nonsense. Oswald was acting like such a not that he couldn't be a nut etc. What links Oswald to the crime is none of this but the evidence he left behind. His rifle was found at the crime scene. Oswald provides no explanation for this. Instead he lies to the authorities. He has no credile alibi, flees the scene and murders a police officer. It's as stone cold a case of guilt as possible absent a time machine.
I certainly didn't claim that proving he went to Mexico City shows there was no conspiracy behind the assassination, one involving him or not. And I'm not aware of anyone making such a claim. If they did it's a foolish one. All I am addressing is the conspiracy claim - repeated above - that he was impersonated and that the impersonation was part of a covert "false flag" type plan to frame him for the assassination and then connect Cuba or Moscow with the assassination. Conspiracists cite Operation Northwoods as the blue print for this. If he did go to Mexico City, then this scenario falls apart. And if he did then lots of other claims about him are weakened, e.g., he was a CIA asset, he was pretending to hold radical views, he really wasn't an unstable angry person, et cetera.
As to the visit: if the Soviets or Cubans give him a visa he's gone, he defects and leaves the US. Again (he didn't like it here <g>). JFK isn't assassinated by him or as part of a conspiracy involving him (since he's not in Dallas). Moreover, how he behaved in Mexico City is a clue. He not only wants to leave the US - he thinks the FBI is ruining his life - he acts like, well, a nut when he's denied the visa. He's having a breakdown, weeping, yelling. The Cubans said this, the Soviets too. He's coming unglued.
This fits into the description of a desperate man, one whose life is falling apart and is capable of anything. It doesn't prove he shot JFK; but it shows a man who is emotionally capable of doing it.