JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Duncan MacRae on April 18, 2024, 07:41:54 AM
-
Peter Dale Scott The Mexico City Tape And Photographs
-
Here’s what’s always flummoxed me on Mexico City. Despite David Attlee Phillips’ claims to the contrary, we know from the HSCA that the CIA cameras in MC were functional during the period of Oswald’s alleged visits to the Cuban Embassy, from which we can infer that there would exist pics of LHO in Mexico City, either outside the Cuban Consulate or Embassy, or both. Given the intelligence community’s rush to frame Oswald in the aftermath of Dallas, why didn’t we see pics of Oswald in MC plastered all over the front pages of newspapers on 11/23/63?
There can only be one answer………..Oswald was never there.
-
Here’s what’s always flummoxed me on Mexico City. Despite David Attlee Phillips’ claims to the contrary, we know from the HSCA that the CIA cameras in MC were functional during the period of Oswald’s alleged visits to the Cuban Embassy, from which we can infer that there would exist pics of LHO in Mexico City, either outside the Cuban Consulate or Embassy, or both. Given the intelligence community’s rush to frame Oswald in the aftermath of Dallas, why didn’t we see pics of Oswald in MC plastered all over the front pages of newspapers on 11/23/63?
There can only be one answer………..Oswald was never there.
There are a couple of plausible scenarios here. The CIA is not infallible. First, they simply didn't have photos of every single person who entered the embassy on every single day. Imagine how many such embassies existed around the world. How many photos that would have to be taken. How many agents would have to be assigned to do nothing other than take such photos. Second, perhaps the CIA did capture images of Oswald and maybe even tape recordings. After his death, however, they decided it was not worth revealing their means and methods of surveillance by disclosing the photos and evidence to the world. The Cubans/Russians could easily reverse engineer any such evidence to determine how the Americans were spying on them and take countermeasures to undermine those methods.
Regardless, it makes absolutely no sense for anyone to fake Oswald's presence in Mexico City. His defection to the USSR was more than sufficient to characterize him as a political nut if that was the objective. And, of course, an assassin doesn't have to be a political nut. There is no reason in a conspiracy narrative to fake this incident and it is fraught with risk as a faked event if anyone else could place Oswald in another location during this timeframe.
-
There are a couple of plausible scenarios here. The CIA is not infallible. First, they simply didn't have photos of every single person who entered the embassy on every single day. Imagine how many such embassies existed around the world. How many photos that would have to be taken. How many agents would have to be assigned to do nothing other than take such photos. Second, perhaps the CIA did capture images of Oswald and maybe even tape recordings. After his death, however, they decided it was not worth revealing their means and methods of surveillance by disclosing the photos and evidence to the world. The Cubans/Russians could easily reverse engineer any such evidence to determine how the Americans were spying on them and take countermeasures to undermine those methods.
Regardless, it makes absolutely no sense for anyone to fake Oswald's presence in Mexico City. His defection to the USSR was more than sufficient to characterize him as a political nut if that was the objective. And, of course, an assassin doesn't have to be a political nut. There is no reason in a conspiracy narrative to fake this incident and it is fraught with risk as a faked event if anyone else could place Oswald in another location during this timeframe.
The HSCA concluded - through the so-called Lopez Report - this:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID11268023106/Keylidw8p88v5fx/lopez report.JPG)
The CIA said their pulse cameras were broken, not working. But one would think a backup manual surveillance would have been done. Apparently there wasn't. So, if you have a conspiracy mindset that sounds sinister. If you have a "this is government at work" mindset it sounds plausible. One of the problems with the conspiracy advocates is they simply refuse to believe that the CIA or government simply screws up, is incompetent, gets things wrong. Have they ever gone to get a driver's license? A pothole in the road filled?
Anyway, call me a cynic but I think the same people like Scott who reject all of the existing evidence - physical, eyewitness and circumstantial - that Oswald went to Mexico City and visited the Cuban and Soviet facilities simply would not accept CIA photos of him there. They just wouldn't.
Oswald sent a letter to the Soviet Embassy in Washington discussing his visit. A draft copy, in his handwriting, was found. Here we have evidence from Oswald that he went there. Scott's response is, of course, they are fake. My above cynicism isn't groundless.
-
LBJ: Have you established any more about the 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 down there.
(LBJ Library, transcript from the November 23 call from Hoover to Lyndon Johnson)
**********************
They knew exactly who it was...
https://jfk.boards.net/post/3079
-
The Lopez investigators were quite thorough in interviewing CIA personnel from the MC station, right down to camera technicians/installers. They concluded cameras covering both the Cuban Embassy and Consulate were functioning during the period of Oswald’s alleged visits. They further concluded, through these interviews, that various CIA personnel had seen the photos and heard audiotapes of the man alleged to be LHO.
To the argument that the agency could not have staffed cameras
at so many embassies/consulates around the world, the Lopez Report makes clear that some relevant compounds were covered by impulse cameras that required no human staffing. Such was the case with the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City.
As to the disposition of the above-cited photos and audiotapes, the report was unable to locate any of the purported evidence.
-
LBJ: Have you established any more about the 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 down there.
(LBJ Library, transcript from the November 23 call from Hoover to Lyndon Johnson)
**********************
They knew exactly who it was...
https://jfk.boards.net/post/3079
Assuming that "they" knew who it was in the photo, it does not follow that the person in the photo had anything to do with Oswald or the assassination.
-
Assuming that "they" knew who it was in the photo, it does not follow that the person in the photo had anything to do with Oswald or the assassination.
Hoover: "...photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald’s name."
-
Assuming that "they" knew who it was in the photo, it does not follow that the person in the photo had anything to do with Oswald or the assassination.
Hoover was simply wrong that the person used Oswald's name; he either got bad information (apparently the photo had the name "Oswald" written on it) or misunderstood what he was told. As he said in the call: it's "confusing" and it "appears": he wasn't sure what he had. How would Hoover know what that person in the photo told the Soviets? What his name was? Hoover told LBJ in that early period a number of wrong things, e.g., that Oswald was arrested in a shootout at the Texas Theater and that a police officer was killed. It was the type of misinformation that was all around during those early stages; the Mexico City matter was near the top (Hoover was told that tapes of phone calls were sent to Dallas; wrong, there were no tapes sent).
Is the theory then that this person - who clearly isn't Oswald - impersonated Oswald AND THE SOVIETS never revealed it? They kept it quiet? They fell for it? They didn't figure out that the person in the photo wasn't Oswald? But that's wrong: the Soviets themselves said it was Oswald who went there and that the person in the photo didn't identify himself as Oswald but was another person.
Or is the theory that Hoover and others manufactured this visit to Mexico City and then the CIA releases this photo of their impersonator and then Hoover ON TAPE exposes the impersonation? And the tape is released?
So the theories are (1) the Soviets knew about this impersonation and kept it quiet and that (2) Hoover knew about the impersonation and reveals it on a phone call that is released? Is this what conspiracists are reduced to arguing?
Again, the three KGB agents/Soviet Embassy officials who met Oswald were shown the photo that Hoover mentioned. They all said the man never said he was Oswald. In fact, Oleg Nechiporenko said the man was a US Air Force sergeant who visited the Embassy and offered secrets to them. It wasn't Oswald.
Shorter: Hoover told LBJ all sorts of things that were wrong. This was one of them.
Here they are at the 1:10 mark interviewed in the PBS show "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?" Once again, they all said the man they met was the real Oswald and not the man in the photo who supposedly said he was Oswald.
-
The day after the assassination the then head of the KGB - Vladimir Semichastny - sent a report to the Politburo on Oswald. In that report he told the Soviet officials that Oswald visited the Embassy. It wasn't an impostor. So were the Soviets fooled by this person who clearly wasn't Oswald? Is this the theory?
Nechiporenko quotes from the report here:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID11017219205/Keyc5uanyu3kiop/Semichastny.JPG)
-
LBJ: Have you established any more about the 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 down there.
(LBJ Library, transcript from the November 23 call from Hoover to Lyndon Johnson)
**********************
They knew exactly who it was...
https://jfk.boards.net/post/3079
So, your explanation is: They staged an Oswald visit to the Soviet Embassy using this impersonator (who of course looks nothing like Oswald; is this the best they can do?) and the CIA, the people involved in this staged operation, take a photo of this impersonator (who again looks nothing like Oswald), and then they release this photo to others.
Then Hoover, also involved in this frame-up, on a phone call to LBJ exposes this impersonation. The one they are trying pull off.
So again your idea seems to be that they (Hoover et al.) knew who the person was - after all, they sent him - and they knew it was a staged incident to connect Oswald to the Soviets and after all of this they, the people staging this, both release a photo of the impersonator and also a transcript of a call: both of which exposes their plan?
I won't even ask why the Soviets didn't expose this impersonation, why they didn't reveal it as part of the CIA's murder of JFK and attempt to blame them for it.
Is this your explanation? You think this makes sense?
-
Hoover was wrong that the person used Oswald's name; he either got bad information or misunderstood it. How would Hoover know what that person in the photo told the Soviets that he met? What his name was? Hoover told LBJ in that early period lots of wrong things, e.g., that Oswald was arrested in a shootout at the Texas Theater and that a police officer was killed. It was the type of misinformation that was all around during those early stages.
Is one theory that this person - who clearly isn't Oswald - impersonated Oswald AND THE SOVIETS never revealed it? They kept it quiet? They fell for it? But that's wrong: the Soviets themselves said it was Oswald who went there and that the person in the photo didn't identify himself as Oswald but was another person.
Or is the theory that Hoover and others manufactured this visit to Mexico City and then Hoover ON TAPE exposes the impersonation? And the tape is released?
So the theories are (1) the Soviets knew about this impersonation and kept it quiet and that (2) Hoover knew about the impersonation and reveals it on a phone call that is released? Is this what conspiracists are reduced to arguing?
Again, the three KGB agents/Soviet Embassy officials who met Oswald were shown the photo that Hoover mentioned. They all said the man never said he was Oswald. In fact, Oleg Nechiporenko said the man was a US Air Force sergeant who visited the Embassy and offered secrets to them. It wasn't Oswald.
Shorter: Hoover told LBJ all sorts of things that were wrong. This was one of them.
Here they are at the 1:10 mark interviewed in the PBS show "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?" Once again, they all said the man was not the man who said he was Oswald.
It's hopeless. Many CTers claim Hoover was behind the assassination directing the conspiracy and cover up. But without missing a beat he is cited as the source of skepticism of Oswald's guilt. Imagine Hoover pulling strings to frame Oswald, exposing himself to disgrace and prison, but then entertaining a conspiracy. CTers cling to pedantic bits of evidence and make no effort to think about the implications of their own claims having any validity. It is just so. Here are a couple of questions.
WHY FAKE OSWALD'S PRESENCE IN MEXICO CITY? How would that advance the cause of the conspirators to frame him for the assassination? Particularly if all the blame is to be placed on Oswald as CTers allege and no apparent effort is made by the most commonly named conspirators like the WC, LBJ, or Hoover to link the crime to Cuba or Russia. In fact, CTers often criticize the WC for placing all the blame on Oswald and ignoring evidence of the possible involvement of others to avoid WWIII. Oswald was already a known political kook for his defection to the USSR. There is no need to fake his presence in Mexico City to further promote any such narrative.
HOW DO THE CONSPIRATORS ENSURE THAT OSWALD ISN'T IN THE PRESENCE OF ANYONE DURING THIS TIMEFRAME WHO COULD PLACE HIM ELSEWHERE? That could only be done if Oswald was cooperating with the conspirators. In which case, the obvious solution to their problem is to - wait for it - send Oswald to Mexico City. There is no conceivable scenario where a fake Oswald is sent to Mexico City and the real Oswald continues to go about his life in Mr. Magoo-like bliss while being implicated in the assassination.
-
It's hopeless. Many CTers claim Hoover was behind the assassination directing the conspiracy and cover up. But without missing a beat he is cited as the source of skepticism of Oswald's guilt. Imagine Hoover pulling strings to frame Oswald, exposing himself to disgrace and prison, but then entertaining a conspiracy. CTers cling to pedantic bits of evidence and make no effort to think about the implications of their own claims having any validity. It is just so. Here are a couple of questions.
WHY FAKE OSWALD'S PRESENCE IN MEXICO CITY? How would that advance the cause of the conspirators to frame him for the assassination? Particularly if all the blame is to be placed on Oswald as CTers allege and no apparent effort is made by the most commonly named conspirators like the WC, LBJ, or Hoover to link the crime to Cuba or Russia. In fact, CTers often criticize the WC for placing all the blame on Oswald and ignoring evidence of the possible involvement of others to avoid WWIII. Oswald was already a known political kook for his defection to the USSR. There is no need to fake his presence in Mexico City to further promote any such narrative.
HOW DO THE CONSPIRATORS ENSURE THAT OSWALD ISN'T IN THE PRESENCE OF ANYONE DURING THIS TIMEFRAME WHO COULD PLACE HIM ELSEWHERE? That could only be done if Oswald was cooperating with the conspirators. In which case, the obvious solution to their problem is to - wait for it - send Oswald to Mexico City. There is no conceivable scenario where a fake Oswald is sent to Mexico City and the real Oswald continues to go about his life in Mr. Magoo-like bliss while being implicated in the assassination.
I've read that the conspiracy believers who say he was impersonated argue that this staging of Oswald's visit to the Soviet Embassy was a sort of poison pill that was done to limit any investigation into the assassination; that Warren was told by LBJ that WWIII could result and that he shouldn't look into areas like Mexico City since it could lead to Armageddon.
So it wasn't intended to frame him for the assassination but was intended to connect the Soviets to it. And by doing so limit the investigation - essentially stop it - out of fear of war with Moscow. Of course the Soviet Union disappeared in 1991 and many of the WC people were alive at that time. There was no chance of war since the USSR didn't exist. Why not reveal that part of the coverup?
Dan Hardway worked for the HSCA and the so-called "Lopez Report" which investigated the Mexico City matter. He says Oswald DID go to Mexico City but was ordered to do so by his control agent David Atlee Phillips. Yes, Oswald was a CIA asset. This was done by the real murderers - dramatic pause, *THE CIA* - in order to connect the assassination to Moscow and Havana. And in turn, as I mention above, it was done to limit the investigation since it would lead to the Soviets and a possible war. So the actual assassins of JFK were able to escape discovery because the investigation was limited due to Oswald's visit to the Soviet Embassy. Whew.
In any case, I still want to know why they would do this, send an impersonator to connect Oswald with the Cubans and Soviet, and then release their photo of the supposed impersonator they sent and thus expose their very own plan. Then Hoover, on a phone call with LBJ, exposes the plan as well? Furthermore, how could they get the Soviets - who said at that time and over the next decades - that it *was* Oswald that they met to go along with it? Does everything have be understood through a conspiracy worldview, a conspiracy perspective? Is this the only way conspiracy advocates can see things?
Anyway, some (many?) conspiracists think the Zapruder film was faked, the backyard photos were faked, the autopsy x-rays and photos faked: would they really accept a photo of Oswald at the Soviet Embassy from the CIA? And if *they* faked all of this other evidence why didn't they fake a photo of Oswald in MC? It's illogical and contradictory.
-
Here is Oleg Nechiporenko, one of the three KGB agents/Embassy officials who say they met Oswald at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, describing what happened. He was interviewed in Moscow by the late Edward Epstein. Nechiporenko never defected; he stayed in Russia and went to work for the Russian intelligence service the FSB.
If you don't believe his account, if you believe Nechiporenko et al were lying in order to sell a book or gain favor with the West or whatever, then you believe that in actuality that Nechiporenko originally told the KGB and Moscow about this impersonation, that it wasn't the real Oswald they met, that it was the man in the photo. And after informing Moscow of this deception the Soviets themselves kept this revelation quiet for the next 30 years. The Soviets didn't reveal it? Is that remotely possible?
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID10793320643/Keyq68mdds1ckx9/Nechiporenko.jpg)
-
Here’s what’s always flummoxed me on Mexico City. Despite David Attlee Phillips’ claims to the contrary, we know from the HSCA that the CIA cameras in MC were functional during the period of Oswald’s alleged visits to the Cuban Embassy, from which we can infer that there would exist pics of LHO in Mexico City, either outside the Cuban Consulate or Embassy, or both. Given the intelligence community’s rush to frame Oswald in the aftermath of Dallas, why didn’t we see pics of Oswald in MC plastered all over the front pages of newspapers on 11/23/63?
There can only be one answer………..Oswald was never there.
Gradually, I'm moving towards the same conclusion.
Due to the strong indications that someone was impersonating Oswald in MC and the lack of photographic evidence that he was there...
-
Here (again) is Oswald's letter - typed on Ruth Paine's typewriter (the FBI matched it) - discussing his visit to the Cuban Consulate and Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. He mailed this to the Soviet Embassy in Washington. Oswald's signature is on the letter. And the envelope had his handwriting on it. A draft copy - in his hand writing - of this letter discussing the visits was found. So we have Oswald *himself* revealing the visits. Marina said he went there, Cuban personnel said it was him, his photo and handwriting on the visa application were found and on and on and on.
So we have physical, eyewitness and circumstantial evidence that Oswald went to MC but because the CIA didn't photograph him entering the Cuban consulate that proves he didn't go there? But he did go to the Soviet Embassy? Does that make any sense? I would suggest that if you don't believe all of this other evidence, that you think it was manufactured you likely wouldn't accept a CIA photo of Oswald either. And one more: the Soviets themselves said he went there, they interviewed him and he discussed his visit to the Cuban consulate with them. Did they lie too?
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID11284977131/Key518vs9ehahu5/oswald letter.JPG)
-
Hoover: "...photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald’s name."
The vague description Hoover uses, "the man" implies that Hoover didn't know who he was.
BTW, at the time, Hoover was 1500 miles away from Mexico City and 1200 miles away from Dallas, where the surveillance materials were being examined. How would he really know? After all, he was wrong about tapes being sent to Dallas.
-
The vague description Hoover uses, "the man" implies that Hoover didn't know who he was.
BTW, at the time, Hoover was 1500 miles away from Mexico City and 1200 miles away from Dallas, where the surveillance materials were being examined. How would he really know? After all, he was wrong about tapes being sent to Dallas.
All true - we can include the confusion by the CIA people at Mexico City - and relevant to a non-conspiracist view of information but irrelevant to conspiracists since everything is only understood through a conspiracy perspective. E.g., we see a goofball waving an umbrella; they see an operative coordinating the triangulated sniper fire.
Apparently (I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong) he thinks Hoover was lying about this on the call; Hoover was aware of the plan to send this person to impersonate Oswald. That is, Hoover knew who the person was and what the person was up to. So Hoover was dissembling about this in the call and pretending to be confused. That seems to be what he is suggesting.
Why Hoover would even discuss/reveal this supposed plot is not explained. By discussing it and then releasing the transcript later he is *revealing* the plan, this impersonation. Lose that transcript; or edit the part about the impersonator out. And why would the CIA release the photo of the man they supposedly sent (or knew about) to impersonate Oswald? This too exposes the plan. Burn that photo. None of this makes sense. Hell, why even use this person to imitate Oswald? The Soviets knew what Oswald looked like; and would after he's arrested for the assassination. This is the best person they could find to imitate Oswald? It's absurd.
Add to this that the Soviets never exposed this supposed impersonation - the man is clearly not Oswald. In fact they said the man they met *was* the real Oswald and that the man in the photo was another person who never identified himself as Oswald but was someone else.
But again if the only way you can interpret this information is through a conspiracy perspective then all of this is irrelevant.
-
hoover played no part in jfks assassination , the FBI did however play a part in concealing information . and that simply would never be done without his knowledge .
as for mexico , certainly at the cuban embassy two people who spoke to the man claiming to be Oswald claimed Oswald was not the man they spoke to . consul Azcue when asked he stated (not verbatim now from memory ) that he could not identify the man he saw shot in the DPD basement as the man he spoke to because the man he spoke to was blonde . and a second witness (duran ) description of the man was of a blonde man . i dont think i have seen a single mention of this here by any of the LN posting . i appreciate most posts have been about the pulse cameras which were working , however we need to discuss the actual people who were there and spoke with or saw Oswald .
Mr. CORNWELL . Senor Azcue, the pictures on the upper lefthand
portion of each document would appear to be of the same individu-
al; is that correct?
Senor AzCUE. Yes, sir.
Mr. CORNWELL. Do those pictures of that individual appear to
you to be the same individual who visited the consulate in Mexico
City on the occasions you have previously described to us?
Senor AZCUE. Truly, this photograph is one that I saw for the
first time when the honorable U.S. committee members came to
Cuba in April of this year, and I was surprised that I believe that it
was not the same person. Fifteen years had gone by so it is very
difficult for me to be in a position to guarantee it in a categorical
form.
But my belief is that this gentleman was not, is not, the person
or the individual who went to the consulate .
Mr. CORNWELL. Directing your attention to the period of time
immediately after the assassination, the day of the assassination or
the day after the assassination, did you during that period of time
have an occasion to see pictures of the alleged assassin in the
newspapers or to observe on television the man identified at that
time as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Senor AZCUE. Yes, sir, not so close to the date, not in the first
few days, not immediately thereafter. Some time I calculate ap-
proximately-and I say this because I am not a great movie fan,
but it was in mid-December approximately-I saw at that time the
film in which Ruby appears assassinating the Oswald who was
there, and I was not able to identify him and only 2 months had
gone by since I had seen the Oswald who appeared at the consul-
ate . And I had a clear mental picture because we had had an
unpleasant discussion and he had not been very pleasant to me and
I did not recognize when I first saw him. I did not recognize
Oswald.
The man who went to the consulate was a man over 30 years of
age and very thin, very thin faced. And the individual I saw in the
movie was a young man, considerably younger, and a fuller face.
Mr. CORNWELL. What color hair did the individual have to the
best of your memory who visited the consulate?
Senor AZCUE. He was blond, dark blond.
Mr. CORNWELL. Did the individual you saw in the movie, the
person who was killed by Jack Ruby, resemble more closely the
individual in these photographs to your memory than the individu-
al who visited the consulate?
Senor AZCUE. I believe so.
duran also described the man she saw as blonde and short , all be it she would also say that Oswald was the man . but then LN will of course dispute her description . but we have to consider that both she and azcue described a short blonde man of 5 feet 6 or under . Oswald was neither blonde , nor short at 5 feet 10 or 11 .
"Like Azcue, Contreras said the "Oswald" he met looked more than thirty years old. Like Sylvia Duran, he recalled very positively that Oswald was short-he too thought at most 5' 6". He said he would normally be reluctant to be so specific, but his recall on this point is persuasive. Contreras himself is only 5' 9" tall, and he clearly recalled looking down at the man he calls "Oswald the Rabbit." "
there is a lot of information to assert that a person / s was in some way pretending to be Oswald at different times . we must consider all of this .
-
If they're framing him on a visit to the Cuban consulate they would simply say he admitted to going there during his interrogation. He's dead; they can say he admitted to it. Why would they say he denied it if they are trying to frame him for it? Just say he said he did. Again, he can't deny it since, y'know, he's dead.
As to Hoover: He was, as the record shows, a ruthless and powerful man but the idea that he would/could know everything about what his people did in the investigation, could control what they found and limit it, is conspiracy silliness at its finest. Conspiracists really believe that "the CIA" and "the FBI" and these bureaucracies can be completely controlled, and were. They can't. A Hitler or a Stalin couldn't control all of their people, their bureaucracies, their factions and personality conflicts. Read any history of their rule. Do you folks read anything other than conspiracy books?
As in: the FBI agents James Hosty and his superior Gordon Shanklin destroyed a note that Oswald left complaining about the FBI's treatment of his wife. Hoover knew nothing about it. If he had such control then how could that have happened? And after the assassination Hoover punished about a dozen agents (I think it was 17) for their failures to adequately monitor Oswald. He couldn't control everything his people did or didn't do. He was one person.
For a better and greater example read about Hoover and the FBI and the Hiss/Chambers investigation. Hoover was left out of the loop from his own people. He didn't know what was happening. He couldn't control all of it; hell, he couldn't control just about any of it. Besides, he died in 1972; how coulde he control what the FBI did in the HSCA investigation or what they knew later?
-
From Cuban counterintelligence officer Fabian Escalante's book "The Cuba Files", pg. 130-132.
"Guillermo Ruiz was the translator in the conversation between Azcue and Oswald. He told Fabian Escalante that although he was not an expert in physiognomy, it was his opinion that the Oswald he saw on Mexican television was the one he saw in the consulate that day. Antonio Garcia Lara [who worked in the trade office at the Consulate] saw Oswald as he was leaving, and he had the same impression as Ruiz. Both of them disagreed with Azcue."
So we have two additional witnesses saying that they believed the man who visited the Cuban consulate *was* Oswald. Four in all: Mirabal, Duran, Ruiz and Garcia Lara. A problem with these later accounts, of course, is that Azcue never mentioned the two men, particularly Ruiz who supposedly helped translate for him. And Duran never mentioned them either. Very odd.
Again, the Cubans concluded it *was* Oswald who visited their consulate but they argue he was sent there by someone or some group - CIA or anti-Castro groups - to connect the assassination through him to Havana. Conspiracy believers gonna' conspiracy argue no matter what is presented.
More on the Cuban investigation can be read here: https://www.cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0027.html
So we have the Soviets saying it was Oswald, the Cubans saying it was Oswald and all sorts of other evidence but conspiracists ignore all of this and say it wasn't. Because of course.
-
If they're framing him on a visit to the Cuban consulate they would simply say he admitted to going there during his interrogation. He's dead; they can say he admitted to it. Why would they say he denied it if they are trying to frame him for it? Just say he said he did. Again, he can't deny it since, y'know, he's dead.
As to Hoover: He was, as the record shows, a ruthless and powerful man but the idea that he would/could know everything about what his people did in the investigation, could control what they found and limit it, is conspiracy silliness at its finest. Conspiracists really believe that "the CIA" and "the FBI" and these bureaucracies can be completely controlled, and were. They can't. A Hitler or a Stalin couldn't control all of their people, their bureaucracies, their factions and personality conflicts. Read any history of their rule. Do you folks read anything other than conspiracy books?
As in: the FBI agents James Hosty and his superior Gordon Shanklin destroyed a note that Oswald left complaining about the FBI's treatment of his wife. Hoover knew nothing about it. If he had such control then how could that have happened? And after the assassination Hoover punished about a dozen agents (I think it was 17) for their failures to adequately monitor Oswald. He couldn't control everything his people did or didn't do. He was one person.
For a better and greater example read about Hoover and the FBI and the Hiss/Chambers investigation. Hoover was left out of the loop from his own people. He didn't know what was happening. He couldn't control all of it; hell, he couldn't control just about any of it.
"As in: the FBI agents James Hosty and his superior Gordon Shanklin destroyed a note that Oswald left complaining about the FBI's treatment of his wife. Hoover knew nothing about it. If he had such control then how could that have happened? And after the assassination Hoover punished about a dozen agents (I think it was 17) for their failures to adequately monitor Oswald. He couldn't control everything his people did or didn't do. He was one person."
lets be clear here yes Hoover was a human and not super human , he cant know every single little thing . he certainly cant know about that which is intentionally kept from him . if he never knew about the Hosty note so far as i am aware , well at a later date yes im sure he did . Shanklyn and Hosty kept that information from him , what was so devastating to Shanklyn about a note from Oswald saying not to speak to his wife when he was not there ?. and why would Hoover who was aware of Oswald care about such a note ? . by the way certain LN but not all have tried to use that note to say Oswald wrote a threat on it to blow up the building . leading to the question why would they not keep that note as evidence against him ? .they base this claim on a woman (whos name eludes my memory now ) , Hosty was questioned about the note and her story . he replied and reiterated it merely was about Marina as above . he went further saying she gave 3 different stories about that note WHICH ONE WOULD YOU LIKE ?. but FBI agents did not go along with the official line at times , they did not necessarily go out of their way to dispute it but they shall we say stuck by what they said / reported even if it disputed the official narrative .
"If they're framing him on a visit to the Cuban consulate they would simply say he admitted to going there during his interrogation. He's dead; they can say he admitted to it. Why would they say he denied it if they are trying to frame him for it? Just say he said he did. Again, he can't deny it since, y'know, he's dead. "
the DPD had the case taken from them very quickly .it would seem if we can accept the late Jim leavelles word for it that the DPD did not care a lot about jfk and viewed getting Oswald for the Tippit killing as more important . i wont quote Jim here as he used racial terms . so i dont know just how much import if any at all they would have in Oswald visiting mexico or not .or to what if any extent that they would want to frame him using mexico . but if we look at the arrest for example of duran we see that others did have an interest in mexico .
lets face it hoover would not need to know everything about everything , even about the assassination , just certain important aspects of it . many things were never questioned really . once the people were told Oswald who had been to russia went to mexico they would have believed and not questioned it . only in light of evidence that an imposter or imposters seem to have been active , and in light of the statements of Odio would people later question such things .and most people did not have that sort of info in 63 and 64 .
in regards mexico we are being asked it seems to believe that 3 people all saw the same WRONG THINGS , all made the same mistake , or well they all decided to invent the same BS . all 3 said the man was a short man , so short that one who was 5 feet 6 had to look down on the man .atleast two of them independently said the man they saw was blonde .
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt_2003/html/LopezRpt_0200a.htm
it is proposed that Oswald entered both consulates in mexico some 5 times each . so that means there were atleast 10 opportunities at each location (going in and going out ) to capture him on camera . yet we dont have a single photo . that baffles belief .