JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Dan O'meara on March 22, 2025, 11:14:41 AM
-
I wasn't aware that Oswald stopped off for 5 days in Helsinki on his way to the Soviet Union.
Oswald sailed from New Orleans to Le Havre in France. He then made his way across the English Channel to arrive in Southampton.
From Southampton he made his way to London where he flew from London to Helsinki in Finland.
He stayed for 5 days in Helsinki while he waited for a tourist visa into the Soviet Union.
He then traveled from Helsinki to Moscow.
On 25th May '64, J. Lee Rankin wrote to Richard Helms (CIA) for information about the speed with which Oswald got his visa to enter the Soviet Union.
Rankin had heard that it would usually take at least week for a visa to be granted.
Oswald arrived in Helsinki on the 10th October '59 and was granted a visa by the 14th.
This might not seem too unusual but there was another, slightly more concerning possibility.
The 10th was a Sat.urday and the Soviet Consulate closed early and was closed all day Sunday.
If Oswald arrived late on Sat.urday it would mean he would have to wait until Monday morning, the 12th, to apply for his visa, meaning it only took two days to get his visa. This would be considered highly unusual:
(https://i.postimg.cc/x1Lwh9xs/helsinkiletter1a.png) (https://postimages.org/)(https://i.postimg.cc/YSVcyY4Y/helsinkiletter1b.png) (https://postimages.org/)
There is a follow up to this request on June 1st but without much extra information other than the CIA having a presence in Helsinki.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qRDSyqq7/helsinkiletter2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Then I came across this article about the Finnish Security Intelligence Service (SUPO) declassifying documents pertaining to Oswald's stay in Helsinki.
It turns out Oswald arrived late on Sat.urday and had to wait until Monday (the 12th) to apply for his visa and received it within two days (Wednesday the 14th).
He then traveled to Moscow on the 15th.
https://yle.fi/a/74-20064205
The article reveals something quite strange - when Oswald initially arrived in Helsinki he seemed to know he would only be staying 5 nights.
How could he know that?
How could he have his visa application expedited?
Who did he know in Helsinki?
-
I wasn't aware that Oswald stopped off for 5 days in Helsinki on his way to the Soviet Union.
Oswald sailed from New Orleans to Le Havre in France. He then made his way across the English Channel to arrive in Southampton.
From Southampton he made his way to London where he flew from London to Helsinki in Finland.
He stayed for 5 days in Helsinki while he waited for a tourist visa into the Soviet Union.
He then traveled from Helsinki to Moscow.
On 25th May '64, J. Lee Rankin wrote to Richard Helms (CIA) for information about the speed with which Oswald got his visa to enter the Soviet Union.
Rankin had heard that it would usually take at least week for a visa to be granted.
Oswald arrived in Helsinki on the 10th October '59 and was granted a visa by the 14th.
This might not seem too unusual but there was another, slightly more concerning possibility.
The 10th was a Sat.urday and the Soviet Consulate closed early and was closed all day Sunday.
If Oswald arrived late on Sat.urday it would mean he would have to wait until Monday morning, the 12th, to apply for his visa, meaning it only took two days to get his visa. This would be considered highly unusual:
(https://i.postimg.cc/x1Lwh9xs/helsinkiletter1a.png) (https://postimages.org/)(https://i.postimg.cc/YSVcyY4Y/helsinkiletter1b.png) (https://postimages.org/)
There is a follow up to this request on June 1st but without much extra information other than the CIA having a presence in Helsinki.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qRDSyqq7/helsinkiletter2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Then I came across this article about the Finnish Security Intelligence Service (SUPO) declassifying documents pertaining to Oswald's stay in Helsinki.
It turns out Oswald arrived late on Sat.urday and had to wait until Monday (the 12th) to apply for his visa and received it within two days (Wednesday the 14th).
He then traveled to Moscow on the 15th.
https://yle.fi/a/74-20064205
The article reveals something quite strange - when Oswald initially arrived in Helsinki he seemed to know he would only be staying 5 nights.
How could he know that?
How could he have his visa application expedited?
Who did he know in Helsinki?
The answers to your multitudes of questions can be found in my thread, "How was LHO able to get a USSR tourist visa so quickly & leave with Marina, etc?"
-
The answers to your multitudes of questions can be found in my thread, "How was LHO able to get a USSR tourist visa so quickly & leave with Marina, etc?"
There's nothing at your thread except freestyling waffle.
How was Oswald's tourist visa expedited?
This is a very straight forward question.
-
Deleted - overlapped with Dan's below and frankly I'm too worn out on the JFKA to be anything other than disdainfully snarky. Get back to me when the conspiracy is solved.
-
As far as getting a visa expedited, it appears that the man to know at the Soviet Consulate in Helsinki was Grigoriy Ye Golub.
This is a document (dated 13th March '59) from CIA Chief of Station at Helsinki, Frank Friberg, to other station chiefs, about contact between Golub and William L. Costille (who I believe is a CIA agent operating in Helsinki).
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=225891#relPageId=2
It is a record from Costille of this meeting. He met Golub for lunch on Wenesday 18th Feb. Costille was planning a trip to Moscow on the 28th Feb:
"When Costliie appeared worried about getting his visa in time for the trip on 28 February, Golub stated not to worry that he would personally see tat the visa came through on time. Golub phoned Costille on Sat.urday at the Embassy to tell him that all the visas of the Americans making the trip were returned from Moscow approved. He stated that he had made a phone call to Moscow requesting they hurry the visas up. Otherwise we would never have received our visas in time, according to Golub."
The visas have to be approved in Moscow.
The only way to have them rushed through is to have Golub ring Moscow and request them to hurry up.
How, exactly, is teenage American tourist Oswald showing up in Helsiniki and getting Golub to hurry his tourist visa along?
-
How, exactly, is teenage American tourist Oswald showing up in Helsinki and getting Golub to hurry his tourist visa along?
Maybe "Mole" Solie contacted Golub and told him, "'Useful idiot' Lee Harvey Oswald will be arriving in Helsinki on the 10th, mistakenly believing he's on a mission for the CIA, so please give him a tourist visa right away!"
-
It's possible that Oswald contacted the American Embassy in Helsinki directly, expressing his desire to enter the USSR.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=18980#relPageId=3
"A number of Americans have been calling at the U. S. Embassy who have not previously applied for Soviet visas and express a desire to travel to the USSR. Costille has been referring these Americans directly to Golub at the Soviet Embassy, as Golub once told Costille that he had the authority to grant visas without prior approval from Moscow. As long as the Americans had made travel arrangements through a local travel bureau, as well as hotel reservations, he stated he had no objections in giving them a visa in a matter of minutes. We had four occasions to try Golub out in this matter, and so far he has fulfilled his promise."
Maybe Oswald rocked up to the US Embassy in Helsinki on Monday morning, expressed his desire to enter the USSR and his case was put to Golub by Costille.
-
If the point is that Oswald got his visa faster than others, but this is just a detail that has no larger implication, then it doesn't really matter why or how. If the claim, however, is that Oswald getting expediated treatment is indicative of some involvement with the CIA or Russian intelligence, then it begs the question why did they need to expediate his visa in 1959? Logically, someone would then look to how Oswald spent the two days or so afterward afforded by this expediated treatment. Did anything significant or time sensitive happen in those two days? If not, why not just process his visa in a normal manner? Why any rush? My experience here is that CTers like to point out real or imagined anomalies but then are uninterested in explaining the significance of those alleged anomalies. It's the implication that is important. The reasons are of no apparent interest because it undermines the desired narrative.
-
If the point is that Oswald got his visa faster than others, but this is just a detail that has no larger implication, then it doesn't really matter why or how. If the claim, however, is that Oswald getting expediated treatment is indicative of some involvement with the CIA or Russian intelligence, then it begs the question why did they need to expediate his visa in 1959? Logically, someone would then look to how Oswald spent the two days or so afterward afforded by this expediated treatment. Did anything significant or time sensitive happen in those two days? If not, why not just process his visa in a normal manner? Why any rush? My experience here is that CTers like to point out real or imagined anomalies but then are uninterested in explaining the significance of those alleged anomalies. It's the implication that is important. The reasons are of no apparent interest because it undermines the desired narrative.
If you weren't so blinded by your rabid bias you would see I'm genuinely working through a real anomaly.
An anomaly raised by your own hero, Rankin.
Because of your blindness you can't see that Oswald getting his visa in two days is anomalous. You think it could just happen. That it's not worth looking into. You don't think anything is worth looking into. You know what happened so there's no need for questions or evidence or any of these inconvenient things.
What is the importance of this anomaly?
Answer this question - why did your hero, Rankin, think it was of "significance" that Oswald's visa was issued so quickly?
What might it mean if the normal protocol for issuing a visa is bypassed?
If there is even the slightest potential of CIA involvement in the expedition of the Oswald's visa it must be looked into.
I know you don't understand why this is the case. In your mind Oswald did it alone with no involvement from anyone else, therefore any examination of anything that questions your belief system must be wrong. Everyone is wrong to investigate or research this issue because you know that it's already been settled. No more questions need be asked.
-
If you weren't so blinded by your rabid bias you would see I'm genuinely working through a real anomaly.
An anomaly raised by your own hero, Rankin.
Because of your blindness you can't see that Oswald getting his visa in two days is anomalous. You think it could just happen. That it's not worth looking into. You don't think anything is worth looking into. You know what happened so there's no need for questions or evidence or any of these inconvenient things.
What is the importance of this anomaly?
Answer this question - why did your hero, Rankin, think it was of "significance" that Oswald's visa was issued so quickly?
What might it mean if the normal protocol for issuing a visa is bypassed?
If there is even the slightest potential of CIA involvement in the expedition of the Oswald's visa it must be looked into.
I know you don't understand why this is the case. In your mind Oswald did it alone with no involvement from anyone else, therefore any examination of anything that questions your belief system must be wrong. Everyone is wrong to investigate or research this issue because you know that it's already been settled. No more questions need be asked.
Deja vu. Make this all about me. I have merely posed a simple question for you. Was there any apparent time sensitive reason for an intelligence agency to have expediated Oswald's visa in 1959? Why do you keep referring in response to Rankin as "my hero"? I have never expressed any opinion about Rankin. If I understand your position correctly, however, you believe that Rankin and the WC were involved in the framing of Oswald and/or cover up of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK and that in so doing they did not pursue leads that pointed in other directions. But here suddenly you reverse course and are citing these same people as identifying possible connections to intelligence agencies. Do you see any inconsistency in those views? And, of course, you have selectively and dishonestly quoted Rankin. He did not say he thought this was of "significance." LOL. He wrote that "it may have some significance." An entirely different statement when the full context is provided and your bias is removed. To characterize this as having "significance" means that he had reached a conclusion about the event. To write that it "may have some significance" merely means he thought it worth looking into. He goes on even further to suggest that there is doubt as whether Oswald even received his visa more quickly than normal by framing that as a question.
-
Deja vu. Make this all about me. I have merely posed a simple question for you. Was there any apparent time sensitive reason for an intelligence agency to have expediated Oswald's visa in 1959? Why do you keep referring in response to Rankin as "my hero"? I have never expressed any opinion about Rankin. If I understand your position correctly, however, you believe that Rankin and the WC were involved in the framing of Oswald and/or cover up of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK and that in so doing they did not pursue leads that pointed in other directions. But here suddenly you reverse course and are citing these same people as identifying possible connections to intelligence agencies. Do you see any inconsistency in those views? And, of course, you have selectively and dishonestly quoted Rankin. He did not say he thought this was of "significance." LOL. He wrote that "it may have some significance." An entirely different statement when the full context is provided and your bias is removed. To characterize this as having "significance" means that he had reached a conclusion about the event. To write that it "may have some significance" merely means he thought it worth looking into. He goes on even further to suggest that there is doubt as whether Oswald even received his visa more quickly than normal by framing that as a question.
If I understand your position correctly, however, you believe that Rankin and the WC were involved in the framing of Oswald
This is the third or fourth time you have made this bizarre accusation.
You don't seem to be aware that the WC was formed months after the assassination so how could they be involved in framing Oswald?
It is such a weird accusation to make.
Because you keep making the same accusation, it makes me wonder about your mental health.
You seemed very detached from what's going on.
Was there any apparent time sensitive reason for an intelligence agency to have expediated Oswald's visa in 1959?
You keep asking this question as well.
Over and over again.
You acknowledge that the issuance of Oswald's visa was indeed expedited but seem to question the very thing you are acknowledging because there isn't "any apparent time sensitive reason" for expediting the visa.
The issuance of the visa was expedited. You start with that. Then ask - why was it expedited?
That's how it works.
To write that it "may have some significance" merely means he thought it worth looking into.
Why did he think it was worth looking into?
He goes on even further to suggest that there is doubt as whether Oswald even received his visa more quickly than normal by framing that as a question.
Can you quote where he expresses this doubt?
Beyond that, do you any kind of contribution to make to this subject?
Do you have any knowledge about it?
-
Oswald certainly had a knack for bypassing red tape. Getting his Soviet tourist visa in record time seems par for the course:
"Colonel B. J. Kozak, a military officer with direct knowledge of dependency discharges, provided an even more specific timeframe: "It normally took between 3 to 6 months for a hardship discharge to be approved." (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed; p.136). Yet, for Oswald, all standard protocols were seemingly cast aside. He submitted his request on August 17, 1959—and by August 28, just eleven days later, the Dependency Discharge Board had already approved it.(WCR; p.688)"
[ https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-oswald-puzzle-the-pieces-that-won-t-fit-part-2 ]
Stranger and stranger.
-
If I understand your position correctly, however, you believe that Rankin and the WC were involved in the framing of Oswald
This is the third or fourth time you have made this bizarre accusation.
You don't seem to be aware that the WC was formed months after the assassination so how could they be involved in framing Oswald?
It is such a weird accusation to make.
Because you keep making the same accusation, it makes me wonder about your mental health.
You seemed very detached from what's going on.
Was there any apparent time sensitive reason for an intelligence agency to have expediated Oswald's visa in 1959?
You keep asking this question as well.
Over and over again.
You acknowledge that the issuance of Oswald's visa was indeed expedited but seem to question the very thing you are acknowledging because there isn't "any apparent time sensitive reason" for expediting the visa.
The issuance of the visa was expedited. You start with that. Then ask - why was it expedited?
That's how it works.
To write that it "may have some significance" merely means he thought it worth looking into.
Why did he think it was worth looking into?
He goes on even further to suggest that there is doubt as whether Oswald even received his visa more quickly than normal by framing that as a question.
Can you quote where he expresses this doubt?
Beyond that, do you any kind of contribution to make to this subject?
Do you have any knowledge about it?
Ugh. Here is what Rankin wrote:
"We are of course interested in the question of the regularity of procedures because we want to know whether, if Oswald did in fact obtain his visa more quickly than normal, his doing so was significant, or whether it may have been only the result of not- infrequent deviation from normal procedures."
Rankin did not conclude that this was "significant" as you have falsely claimed. He didn't even conclude that Oswald's visa had been expediated. He raised some questions regarding that process. Here are some questions that you ignore:
1) What, if any, response was there to this inquiry?
2) Why would any intelligence agency need to expediate Oswald's visa by a couple of days? What possible reason could they have for doing so and potentially raising a red flag for any counterintelligence agency? If there was no apparent reason to do so, what implication can be drawn about the likelihood that anything sinister was going on?
3) Did Oswald, in fact, do anything of a time sensitive manner in those first couple of days in the USSR?
Again, if you believe Rankin was part of some cover up of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK with the objective to put all the blame on Oswald, why would he be the one highlighting a potential anomaly to that outcome? You are trying to eat your cake and have it too.
-
According to Bugliosi's book the Soviet consul in Helsinki, Gregory Golub, who handled visas had authority to grant visas to Americans on his own authority and that he was able to do so within minutes if there were no red flags. In Oswald's case, he was nineteen and listed his occupation as a "student." In addition, a dispatch from the US embassy on Oct. 9 - before Oswald's arrival - noted that a couple of US businessmen had been advised to go to Golub to obtain visas, had done so, and were immediately granted visas with proof of "Intourist reservations."
-
According to Bugliosi's book the Soviet consul in Helsinki, Gregory Golub, who handled visas had authority to grant visas to Americans on his own authority and that he was able to do so within minutes if there were no red flags. In Oswald's case, he was nineteen and listed his occupation as a "student." In addition, a dispatch from the US embassy on Oct. 9 - before Oswald's arrival - noted that a couple of US businessmen had been advised to go to Golub to obtain visas, had done so, and were immediately granted visas with proof of "Intourist reservations."
I've already covered Golub in earlier posts and the significance of his ability to grant visas without prior approval from Moscow.
Have the manners to read the work you are critiquing.
-
Came across this in a post by Jim Root:
"In 1993 former KGB Colonel Oleg Nechiporenko published his book, Passport to Assassination. Within this publication, Nechiporenko has reproduced a photocopy of Oswald’s 1959 visa application form. To the surprise of most assassination researchers the application was signed and dated by Oswald on October 13, 1959, one day later than had been assumed by the Warren Commission. Lee Harvey Oswald received an entry visa from the Soviet consulate within twenty-four hours."
Can't find a pic of this visa application form.
Does anyone know anything about this?
-
Oswald certainly had a knack for bypassing red tape. Getting his Soviet tourist visa in record time seems par for the course:
"Colonel B. J. Kozak, a military officer with direct knowledge of dependency discharges, provided an even more specific timeframe: "It normally took between 3 to 6 months for a hardship discharge to be approved." (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed; p.136). Yet, for Oswald, all standard protocols were seemingly cast aside. He submitted his request on August 17, 1959—and by August 28, just eleven days later, the Dependency Discharge Board had already approved it.(WCR; p.688)"
[ https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-oswald-puzzle-the-pieces-that-won-t-fit-part-2 ]
Stranger and stranger.
Kozak explained that a "hardship discharge" took "3 to 6 months." Oswald requested and was given a "dependency discharge." Those are two different things.
The Marine review board decided that "for reasons of dependency" that Oswald be discharged early. His active duty obligations were scheduled to end in December 7th. So they let him out on August 26 or about three months early.
In fact, Oswald wrote to his mother about her situation in July and told her that an "early hardship discharge" was "rarely given" but "if they know you are unable to support yourself than they will release me from the USMC and I will be able to come home and help you." That's what happened.
Here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=743
Tracy Parnell goes into greater details about this here: https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/lee-harvey-oswald-us-marine-corps-1956.html
-
I've already covered Golub in earlier posts and the significance of his ability to grant visas without prior approval from Moscow.
Have the manners to read the work you are critiquing.
You by no means "covered" what is cited in Bugliosi's book. It explains that the visa could be granted immediately solving your "mystery." LOL. In addition, instead of answering any questions, you revert to the petulant child not wanting to accept that there is no Santa Claus attitude. How about you tell us why you falsely claimed that Rankin found the visa situation "significant"? You took an unproven allegation (that Oswald's visa had been granted expeditiously) grafted a baseless implication to that (this lends itself to demonstrating the involvement of some intelligence agency) to reach a desired conclusion. You have shown zero curiosity as to why any intelligence agency might need to expedite Oswald's visa as a possible means to validate your theory. Oswald spent those days as a tourist in Moscow doing nothing of note. There was no urgency for expediated treatment of his case.
-
If the point is that Oswald got his visa faster than others, but this is just a detail that has no larger implication, then it doesn't really matter why or how. If the claim, however, is that Oswald getting expediated treatment is indicative of some involvement with the CIA or Russian intelligence, then it begs the question why did they need to expediate his visa in 1959? Logically, someone would then look to how Oswald spent the two days or so afterward afforded by this expediated treatment. Did anything significant or time sensitive happen in those two days? If not, why not just process his visa in a normal manner? Why any rush? My experience here is that CTers like to point out real or imagined anomalies but then are uninterested in explaining the significance of those alleged anomalies. It's the implication that is important. The reasons are of no apparent interest because it undermines the desired narrative.
BINGO!
I had prepared this before seeing your response. CTers simply want "anomalies." Every anomaly is, ipso facto, evidence of a conspiracy. In Conspiracy World, context is irrelevant.
Anyway, FWIW ...
OK, the new and improved me will attempt to address this issue in a calm, rational and statesmanlike manner:
1. Context: If, in fact, Oswald were being sent to the USSR on an intelligence-related mission, what possible urgency would there be for his visa in Helsinki to be expedited, thereby leaving a red flag for future generations of conspiracy theorists to salivate over? What sense would this make – his mission couldn’t wait an additional couple of days for “normal” processing?
2. Context: Ditto with the hotels in Helsinki. Why would a 19-year-old on an intelligence mission be housed in “luxurious” hotels, yet another red flag? (I and someone else once looked into what these hotels cost in 1959 and they actually weren’t particularly expensive.)
3. Context: Helsinki was apparently the easiest location in which to obtain a Soviet visa. How busy was it at all, and how busy would it have been in October (not exactly the tourist season in Moscow)?
4. Context: This was a 6-day tourist visa for a clean-cut, intelligent 19-year-old who spoke at least pigeon Russian and a line of patter about planning to attend the University of Turku. Would this have been of any particular concern? It’s clear from the materials available online that Golub could expedite the process if he so desired, sometimes down to 24 hours, so perhaps he did.
5. Context: At least some materials indicate that the principal reason visas were delayed was the lack of hotel accommodations in Moscow. Since Oswald was met by an Intourist rep, he had apparently made prior connection with Intourist. This could also have been a factor in the approval of his visa. You’ve presumably seen this HSCA document referencing Golub’s telling the U.S. Consul he would approve two visas immediately so long as the Americans made advance Intourist reservations: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2021/docid-32273530.pdf
6. Context: According to the HSCA, the CIA suspected Golub of being a KGB agent. Perhaps Oswald said something (gee, I can’t imagine what) that piqued his interest. Golub was apparently an “interesting” character in any event: https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php?id=AEPAWNEE-5
Could the expedited approval be viewed as suspicious? Sure – but for what purpose?
Could it be viewed as entirely non-suspicious? Sure. The WC, HSCA, CIA and numerous researchers looked into the issue and came away with nothing more than “the visa was issued more quickly than was typical” – but “typical” was more commonly businessmen and summer tourists.
If there is any mystery, it’s not going to be solved at this point. I never quite understand the point of beating issues like this to death on internet forums.
-
You by no means "covered" what is cited in Bugliosi's book. It explains that the visa could be granted immediately solving your "mystery." LOL. In addition, instead of answering any questions, you revert to the petulant child not wanting to accept that there is no Santa Claus attitude. How about you tell us why you falsely claimed that Rankin found the visa situation "significant"? You took an unproven allegation (that Oswald's visa had been granted expeditiously) grafted a baseless implication to that (this lends itself to demonstrating the involvement of some intelligence agency) to reach a desired conclusion. You have shown zero curiosity as to why any intelligence agency might need to expedite Oswald's visa as a possible means to validate your theory. Oswald spent those days as a tourist in Moscow doing nothing of note. There was no urgency for expediated treatment of his case.
Yuri Nosenko said somewhere that the KGB overlooked Oswald, didn't fully interrogate him because they were busy monitoring a, I believe it was a US/USSR trade show (or some East/West event) that was taking place in Moscow at the time. That they were occupied with that event and Oswald went largely unnoticed. So, a conspiracist would argue that Oswald's handlers wanted to rush him to Moscow to take advantage of this diversion. Cue spooky background music.
I am not a conspiracist but I can play one on the internet (like just now). Heck, why do they get to have all of the fun? We've got one miserable crackpot to work with; they have all sorts of shiny things to play with.
-
Conspiracy fans surely cannot do better than Bill Simpich's dark and cryptogram-laden analysis of all this in THE TWELVE THAT BUILT THE OSWALD LEGEND, https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?p=1&f=THE-JFK-CASE--THE-TWELVE-by-Bill-Simpich-100830-157.html. To cut to the chase, "I [Simpich] suggest that Golub, Costille, and the these two CIA division chiefs were central to the plan to get Oswald into the Soviet Union, as part of the LCIMPROVE technique to encourage counter-espionage opportunities aimed at the Soviet intelligence services."
Simpich does not, alas, ponder why an Instant Visa was necessary for this purpose. 19-year-old Oswald was doing counter-espionage stuff, and that's all we need to know. Perhaps someone can diagram Simpich's analysis for doddering old me, because I'll have to confess I'm having difficulty following how it Makes Any Sense.
In addition to ignoring context and rationale for the anomalies they love, it always seems to me that conspiracy fans are curiously never puzzled as to why the conspirators, even at the level of the CIA, were such Diabolical Geniuses half the time and Complete Fools the other half. Had I been goofy enough to send a 19-year-old with Oswald's dubious track record in the Marines to the USSR on a counter-espionage mission, I would've made sure his entry was the most unremarkable, business-as-usual entry possible. But noooo, just to spice things up we'll have him go through Helsinki, start at one upper-class hotel and move to another, and arrange for his visa to be granted with suspicious rapidity.
-
BINGO!
I had prepared this before seeing your response. CTers simply want "anomalies." Every anomaly is, ipso facto, evidence of a conspiracy. In Conspiracy World, context is irrelevant.
Anyway, FWIW ...
OK, the new and improved me will attempt to address this issue in a calm, rational and statesmanlike manner:
1. Context: If, in fact, Oswald were being sent to the USSR on an intelligence-related mission, what possible urgency would there be for his visa in Helsinki to be expedited, thereby leaving a red flag for future generations of conspiracy theorists to salivate over? What sense would this make – his mission couldn’t wait an additional couple of days for “normal” processing?
2. Context: Ditto with the hotels in Helsinki. Why would a 19-year-old on an intelligence mission be housed in “luxurious” hotels, yet another red flag? (I and someone else once looked into what these hotels cost in 1959 and they actually weren’t particularly expensive.)
3. Context: Helsinki was apparently the easiest location in which to obtain a Soviet visa. How busy was it at all, and how busy would it have been in October (not exactly the tourist season in Moscow)?
4. Context: This was a 6-day tourist visa for a clean-cut, intelligent 19-year-old who spoke at least pigeon Russian and a line of patter about planning to attend the University of Turku. Would this have been of any particular concern? It’s clear from the materials available online that Golub could expedite the process if he so desired, sometimes down to 24 hours, so perhaps he did.
5. Context: At least some materials indicate that the principal reason visas were delayed was the lack of hotel accommodations in Moscow. Since Oswald was met by an Intourist rep, he had apparently made prior connection with Intourist. This could also have been a factor in the approval of his visa. You’ve presumably seen this HSCA document referencing Golub’s telling the U.S. Consul he would approve two visas immediately so long as the Americans made advance Intourist reservations: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2021/docid-32273530.pdf
6. Context: According to the HSCA, the CIA suspected Golub of being a KGB agent. Perhaps Oswald said something (gee, I can’t imagine what) that piqued his interest. Golub was apparently an “interesting” character in any event: https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php?id=AEPAWNEE-5
Could the expedited approval be viewed as suspicious? Sure – but for what purpose?
Could it be viewed as entirely non-suspicious? Sure. The WC, HSCA, CIA and numerous researchers looked into the issue and came away with nothing more than “the visa was issued more quickly than was typical” – but “typical” was more commonly businessmen and summer tourists.
If there is any mystery, it’s not going to be solved at this point. I never quite understand the point of beating issues like this to death on internet forums.
Nutters don't see anomalies anywhere.
The Warren Commission has done the thinking for you and you swallow it down hook, line and sinker.
The irony here is that it is Rankin who raises this potential anomaly. He believes the speed of the issuance of Oswald's visa "may have some significance" but true Nutters don't accept that this might be an anomaly.
What is Rankin's concern?
Obviously, that Oswald might be getting some kind of help with his visa.
Rankin is just trying to clarify whether or not it is unusual to have a visa issued within 4 or even 2 days of being applied for (the fact of the matter is that it is granted within 24 hours). And his query is never really answered. The CIA take over two months to get back to him and offer no clarification whatsoever.
I was completely unfamiliar with Oswald's stay in Helsinki.
It was news to me and I just wanted to explore it but just looking into a matter has the TruNutters tearing there hair out.
There are many odd issues about Oswald's defection to the USSR and it is definitely worth looking into even if it upsets some of the more fragile forum members.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that Oswald had any CIA or intelligence connections. When Georges De Morenschildt describes first meeting the Oswalds they are living in truly abject poverty, in a shack on the side of a dusty road. I don't know much about 'spycraft' but I suspect espionage is tricky while you're constantly trying to keep your head above water and trying to feed a young family.
The fact of the matter is I will still explore any issue regarding the JFK case I feel like even if it means having to deal with the mental health issues of others.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tRmtf8Vx/Nuttersbirdfeed.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Yuri Nosenko said somewhere that the KGB overlooked Oswald, didn't fully interrogate him because they were busy monitoring a, I believe it was a US/USSR trade show (or some East/West event) that was taking place in Moscow at the time. That they were occupied with that event and Oswald went largely unnoticed. So, a conspiracist would argue that Oswald's handlers wanted to rush him to Moscow to take advantage of this diversion. Cue spooky background music.
I am not a conspiracist but I can play one on the internet (like just now). Heck, why do they get to have all of the fun? We've got one miserable crackpot to work with; they have all sorts of shiny things to play with.
You are obviously referring to Robert Webster, a Rand Corporation employee who had scientific knowledge about plastics that was of interest to the Soviets, who became enamored with a Russian woman even though he was married, who defected for romantic reasons at the time of the American Exhibition in Moscow in September of 1959, and who returned when informed that his mother had suffered a nervous breakdown and his father was struggling to provide support for his children. (He is, nevertheless, likewise viewed as some sort of CIA plant by conspiracy fans.) Webster's defection had been in the works long before Oswald arrived in Helsinki, and I'm not aware of any suggestion by Nosenko that Webster's case diverted attention from Oswald. This is, however, an excellent example of playing conspiracist because it Makes No Sense,
-
You are obviously referring to Robert Webster, a Rand Corporation employee who had scientific knowledge about plastics that was of interest to the Soviets, who became enamored with a Russian woman even though he was married, who defected for romantic reasons at the time of the American Exhibition in Moscow in September of 1959, and who returned when informed that his mother had suffered a nervous breakdown and his father was struggling to provide support for his children. (He is, nevertheless, likewise viewed as some sort of CIA plant by conspiracy fans.) Webster's defection had been in the works long before Oswald arrived in Helsinki, and I'm not aware of any suggestion by Nosenko that Webster's case diverted attention from Oswald. This is, however, an excellent example of playing conspiracist because it Makes No Sense,
I was referring to Nosenko's testimony excerpted below as to why "No one [in the KGB] was working on Oswald" at that early time. He said that an "American exhibition" and the visit of other tourists offered numerous targets for the KGB to go after or watch. And because of this Oswald was overlooked (my word; not his). Webster talked to the Soviets at a July 11, 1959 exhibit, one that lasted until September. Oswald arrived in Moscow around October. So either Nosenko was referring to a second/different exhibit or he was confused. Or perhaps, more likely, the agents were still preoccupied with the "targets" from the earlier exhibit.
I'll amend my theory: Angelton knew they were still working on the targets from the exhibit a month earlier and that's why he expedited Oswald's defection to Moscow. This is conspiracy world: it doesn't have to make sense, it just has to promote a conspiracy.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12259723628/Key37qbjycdr3n9/nosenko on oswald.JPG)
-
Nutters don't see anomalies anywhere.
The Warren Commission has done the thinking for you and you swallow it down hook, line and sinker.
The irony here is that it is Rankin who raises this potential anomaly. He believes the speed of the issuance of Oswald's visa "may have some significance" but true Nutters don't accept that this might be an anomaly.
What is Rankin's concern?
Obviously, that Oswald might be getting some kind of help with his visa.
Rankin is just trying to clarify whether or not it is unusual to have a visa issued within 4 or even 2 days of being applied for (the fact of the matter is that it is granted within 24 hours). And his query is never really answered. The CIA take over two months to get back to him and offer no clarification whatsoever.
I was completely unfamiliar with Oswald's stay in Helsinki.
It was news to me and I just wanted to explore it but just looking into a matter has the TruNutters tearing there hair out.
There are many odd issues about Oswald's defection to the USSR and it is definitely worth looking into even if it upsets some of the more fragile forum members.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that Oswald had any CIA or intelligence connections. When Georges De Morenschildt describes first meeting the Oswalds they are living in truly abject poverty, in a shack on the side of a dusty road. I don't know much about 'spycraft' but I suspect espionage is tricky while you're constantly trying to keep your head above water and trying to feed a young family.
The fact of the matter is I will still explore any issue regarding the JFK case I feel like even if it means having to deal with the mental health issues of others.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tRmtf8Vx/Nuttersbirdfeed.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Quite wrong. The speedy issuance of Oswald's visa is indeed an anomaly. Rankin recognized it, just as I do. (Rankin's pursuit of it cuts against the notion that the WC was a stacked deck, no?) It's just not an anomaly that is inevitably suspicious. When viewed in context, a non-conspiratorial explanation is far more plausible than a conspiratorial one. I myself have experienced at least three travel anomalies that I would characterize as Damn Near Miraculous, but I had no reason to regard them as suspicious. (I was thinking of these just yesterday, for reasons entirely unrelated to the JFKA.)
The JFKA is chock-full of interesting anomalies. The alignment of the holes in the clothing with the back and throat wounds is a fascinating anomaly that demands an explanation. The Magic Bullet is a fascinating anomaly. Oswald's entire life, even to a Lone Nutter, is rife with anomalies. The challenge is to apply logic, rationality and critical thinking to these anomalies and to the case as a whole and NOT to follow them down the Conspiracy Rabbit Hole.
OK, the Helsinki issue is new to you, which would suggest you haven't dived too deeply into the JFKA. But it has been beaten to death since the WC. In three hours of online research, I (or you) could probably assemble a reasonably scholarly analysis using citation-worthy sources. What reason is there to think that a bunch of goofballs on an internet forum - including me, of course, unless the issue happens to be one I've researched - are going to have anything worthwhile to say?
As I suggested in the snarky post I deleted, this is one of the great puzzles to me of internet forums. On the ones on which I've participated the most, someone will pose a genuinely deep philosophical, theological or historical question about which I own perhaps a dozen serious books. I will respond along the lines of "You're not going to get meaningful input on an issue like this on an nternet forum. Here are five scholarly books to get you started." Does anyone EVER follow through? Noooooo, which tells me the purpose of internet forums is mostly just mental masturbation.
To someone like you I would say: DO YOUR RESEARCH. Take it to an internet forum only when you know what you're talking about and either have something substantive to contribute or have reached a dead end and are seeking input on a narrow, focused aspect.
I lurked at the Ed Forum for at least a few years, practically in awe of the vast knowledge of the "experts." I was, I thought, unworthy to contribute. Then I happened to do my own research on a particular factoid that caught my interest. I discovered then, and again and again ever since, that the "experts" have no clothes. Some of the most high-profile "experts" are, in my opinion, Grade A hucksters and purveyors of baseless factoids. Before I knew it, I was on the CIA payroll, had been issued my Autograph Model Factoid Buster cape, and was an absolute legend in my own mind.
You are astute in questioning how Oswald's life squares with his supposed spycraft. They were keeping their baby in a dresser drawer and then in a cardboard box. Even if "appearing to be destitute" might be a clever intelligence cover in some circumstances, it scarcely makes any sense in Oswald's unless there was some Swiss bank account no one knows about. This is why conspiracists inevitably have to reinvent Oswald and insert this cardboard figure into the conspiracy. The real Oswald just doesn't fit - not in the USSR and not in Dallas.
-
I was referring to Nosenko's testimony excerpted below as to why "No one [in the KGB] was working on Oswald" at that early time. He said that an American exhibition" and the visit of other tourists offered numerous targets for the KGB to go after or watch. And because of this Oswald was overlooked (my word; not his). Webster talked to the Soviets at a July 11, 1959 exhibit, one that lasted until September. Oswald arrived in Moscow around October. So either Nosenko was referring to a second/different exhibit or he was confused. Or perhaps, more likely, the agents were still preoccupied with the "targets" from the earlier exhibit.
I'll amend my theory: Angelton knew they were still working on the targets from the exhibit a month earlier and that's why he expedited Oswald's defection to Moscow. This is conspiracy world: it doesn't have to make sense, it just has to promote a conspiracy.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12259723628/Key37qbjycdr3n9/nosenko on oswald.JPG)
You missed this part:
Mr. Klein: So your testimony today, Mr. Nosenko, is that Oswald essentially slipped through the cracks because the KGB was preoccupied with other defectors?
Mr. Nosenko: Yes, and the fact that his Helsinki visa had been granted so quickly we knew he had to be part of the LCIMPROVE technique to encourage counter-espionage opportunities aimed at the Soviet intelligence services - and all of them seemed like harmless goofballs.
CIA Document N47-80783A, released 3/20/2025, www.nara.com/imaginarystuff/CIA (http://www.nara.com/imaginarystuff/CIA)
I made that up, but who cares? This is Conspiracy World! Google it in two weeks - it will be on its way to Factoid status.
-
Yuri Nosenko said somewhere that the KGB overlooked Oswald, didn't fully interrogate him because they were busy monitoring a, I believe it was a US/USSR trade show (or some East/West event) that was taking place in Moscow at the time. That they were occupied with that event and Oswald went largely unnoticed. So, a conspiracist would argue that Oswald's handlers wanted to rush him to Moscow to take advantage of this diversion. Cue spooky background music.
I am not a conspiracist but I can play one on the internet (like just now). Heck, why do they get to have all of the fun? We've got one miserable crackpot to work with; they have all sorts of shiny things to play with.
Yuri Nosenko was a false-defector-in-place-in-June-1962, sent to the CIA in Geneva to discredit what true defector Anatoliy Golitsyn was telling Angleton about possible penetrations of the CIA, the FBI, and the intelligence services of our NATO allies. Nonsenko was a rogue-physical-defector-to-the-U.S.-in-February-1964, whose bona fides the KGB had no choice but to support in the U.S. through FEDORA, KITTYHAWK, and Vitaliy Yurchenko, et al., because he was telling the CIA and the FBI the same story he'd been sent back to Geneva in late January 1964 to tell his two CIA case officers (Tennent H. Bagley and probable KGB "mole" George Kisevalter), i.e. that the KGB had absolutely nothing to do with sharpshooting, U-2 radar operator Oswald during the two-and-one-half years he lived two blocks from a KGB school in Minsk.
Why in the world would anyone believe anything Nosenko (and Russia-born Kisevalter) said about anything?
You can read Bagley's 2007 Yale University Press book, "Spy Wars: Moles, Mysteries, and Deadly Games," and his 2014 follow-up article, "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," for free by googling "spy wars" and "archive" simultaneously and "ghosts of the spy wars" and "archive" simultaneously.
-
Quite wrong. The speedy issuance of Oswald's visa is indeed an anomaly. Rankin recognized it, just as I do. (Rankin's pursuit of it cuts against the notion that the WC was a stacked deck, no?) It's just not an anomaly that is inevitably suspicious. When viewed in context, a non-conspiratorial explanation is far more plausible than a conspiratorial one. I myself have experienced at least three travel anomalies that I would characterize as Damn Near Miraculous, but I had no reason to regard them as suspicious. (I was thinking of these just yesterday, for reasons entirely unrelated to the JFKA.)
The JFKA is chock-full of interesting anomalies. The alignment of the holes in the clothing with the back and throat wounds is a fascinating anomaly that demands an explanation. The Magic Bullet is a fascinating anomaly. Oswald's entire life, even to a Lone Nutter, is rife with anomalies. The challenge is to apply logic, rationality and critical thinking to these anomalies and to the case as a whole and NOT to follow them down the Conspiracy Rabbit Hole.
OK, the Helsinki issue is new to you, which would suggest you haven't dived too deeply into the JFKA. But it has been beaten to death since the WC. In three hours of online research, I (or you) could probably assemble a reasonably scholarly analysis using citation-worthy sources. What reason is there to think that a bunch of goofballs on an internet forum - including me, of course, unless the issue happens to be one I've researched - are going to have anything worthwhile to say?
As I suggested in the snarky post I deleted, this is one of the great puzzles to me of internet forums. On the ones on which I've participated the most, someone will pose a genuinely deep philosophical, theological or historical question about which I own perhaps a dozen serious books. I will respond along the lines of "You're not going to get meaningful input on an issue like this on an nternet forum. Here are five scholarly books to get you started." Does anyone EVER follow through? Noooooo, which tells me the purpose of internet forums is mostly just mental masturbation.
To someone like you I would say: DO YOUR RESEARCH. Take it to an internet forum only when you know what you're talking about and either have something substantive to contribute or have reached a dead end and are seeking input on a narrow, focused aspect.
I lurked at the Ed Forum for at least a few years, practically in awe of the vast knowledge of the "experts." I was, I thought, unworthy to contribute. Then I happened to do my own research on particular a factoid that caught my interest. I discovered then, and again and again ever since, that the "experts" have no clothes. Some of the most high-profile "experts" are, in my opinion, Grade A hucksters and purveyors of baseless factoids. Before I knew it, I was on the CIA payroll, had been issued my Autograph Model Factoid Buster cape, and was an absolute legend in my own mind.
You are astute in questioning how Oswald's life squares with his supposed spycraft. They were keeping their baby in a dresser drawer and then in a cardboard box. Even if "appearing to be destitute" might be a clever intelligence cover in some circumstances, it scarcely makes any sense in Oswald's unless there was some Swiss bank account no one knows about. This is why conspiracists inevitably have to reinvent Oswald and insert this cardboard figure into the conspiracy. The real Oswald just doesn't fit - not in the USSR and not in Dallas.
Quite wrong. The speedy issuance of Oswald's visa is indeed an anomaly. Rankin recognized it, just as I do. (Rankin's pursuit of it cuts against the notion that the WC was a stacked deck, no?) It's just not an anomaly that is inevitably suspicious. When viewed in context, a non-conspiratorial explanation is far more plausible than a conspiratorial one.
There is nothing wrong exploring an anomaly to see if there is anything suspicious or not. Exploring it is how we determine whether it's suspicious or not.
Not really knowing about the anomaly of the visa issue it started off as not really suspicious, then I realised Oswald arrived late on the night of the 10th and couldn't apply for the visa until the 12th. This meant the visa was issued in 2 days which did seem really suspicious (let alone it was issued in 24 hours).
Then I started to get the information on Gulob and his ability to grant a visa in "minutes" and how Costille was sending Americans his way and he would deal with their visas really quickly, so it didn't seem that suspicious after all.
That's why I posted this in REPLY#6
Maybe Oswald rocked up to the US Embassy in Helsinki on Monday morning, expressed his desire to enter the USSR and his case was put to Golub by Costille.
However, even though I acknowledged this totally non-suspicious possibility as part of my own journey learning about this issue, it appears that some people don't believe I even have a right to look into these issues. In there minds its all done. No more questions need asking.
I very much resent this presence on the forum.
Take it to an internet forum only when you know what you're talking about
I'll use the forum as a research tool if that's alright with you.
I'll learn as I post and part of that is looking into areas of research raised by those more knowledgeable than myself about these things.
I learn by debating.
The only problem with that is having to deal with trolls who just want to close all debate down (why they are part of this forum is a mystery)
I discovered then, and again and again ever since, that the "experts" have no clothes.
Even in the short time I've been looking into this issue I've found exactly the same thing.
Josiah Thompson did a little piece on a documentary debunking the Umbrella Man and he made a point that (to paraphrase) there is how things look on the surface, but if you stare at something hard enough and for long enough, a kind of quantum world of interconnections and coincidence emerges that obscures the reality of what you're looking at.
The visa issue is explicable even though the finest of details aren't available. Golub was handing out visas in "minutes" around the time Oswald showed up.
The hotels Oswald stayed were some of the most prestigious in Helsinki and that really does go against his tightfisted nature, not to mention the fact he was running out of money - but that doesn't prove anything.
He did seem to know he would only be staying for 5 nights when he first booked into the Torni but that might be just a coincidence.
Two takeaways from this are that Helsinki seemed like a proper 007 espionage hotbed in '59 and Oswald wasn't just some lowly order-filler working in a textbook warehouse.
-
I'll use the forum as a research tool if that's alright with you.
I'll learn as I post and part of that isto deal with trolls who just want to close all debate down (why they are part of this forum is a mystery)
It's fine with me, but as someone who made his living doing serious research, I can only caution you that it's an almost complete waste of time. Pick the brains of Bill Simpich, Jim DiEugenio, et al., and you'll end up stupider than when you started - but if you don't do your own research, how will you know it?
The hotels Oswald stayed were some of the most prestigious in Helsinki and that really does go against his tightfisted nature, not to mention the fact he was running out of money - but that doesn't prove anything.
No, they really weren't. Here is a short piece by Fred Litwin that confirms my own research of several years ago: https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-oswald-stay-at-a-luxury-hotel-in-helsinki
Two takeaways from this are that Helsinki seemed like a proper 007 espionage hotbed in '59 and Oswald wasn't just some lowly order-filler working in a textbook warehouse.
Hello? Did your logic go off a cliff there at the end? What does the issuance of his Helsinki visa have to do with his status at the TSBD?
Helsinki was indeed a hotbed of KGB, CIA and Finnish security activity during the Cold War. The issue is, does this have anything to do with Oswald?
A more interesting question to me would be why he listed the University of Turku (Finland) on his U.S. passport application in September of 1959 in the first place. He had actually applied to the Albert Schweitzer College in Switzerland in March and paid his registration fee in June, so why did he add the U of T to his passport application in September? That might be an anomaly actually worth pursuing.
-
Quite wrong. The speedy issuance of Oswald's visa is indeed an anomaly. Rankin recognized it, just as I do. (Rankin's pursuit of it cuts against the notion that the WC was a stacked deck, no?) It's just not an anomaly that is inevitably suspicious. When viewed in context, a non-conspiratorial explanation is far more plausible than a conspiratorial one.
There is nothing wrong exploring an anomaly to see if there is anything suspicious or not. Exploring it is how we determine whether it's suspicious or not.
Not really knowing about the anomaly of the visa issue it started off as not really suspicious, then I realised Oswald arrived late on the night of the 10th and couldn't apply for the visa until the 12th. This meant the visa was issued in 2 days which did seem really suspicious (let alone it was issued in 24 hours).
Then I started to get the information on Gulob and his ability to grant a visa in "minutes" and how Costille was sending Americans his way and he would deal with their visas really quickly, so it didn't seem that suspicious after all.
That's why I posted this in REPLY#6
Maybe Oswald rocked up to the US Embassy in Helsinki on Monday morning, expressed his desire to enter the USSR and his case was put to Golub by Costille.
However, even though I acknowledged this totally non-suspicious possibility as part of my own journey learning about this issue, it appears that some people don't believe I even have a right to look into these issues. In there minds its all done. No more questions need asking.
I very much resent this presence on the forum.
Take it to an internet forum only when you know what you're talking about
I'll use the forum as a research tool if that's alright with you.
I'll learn as I post and part of that is looking into areas of research raised by those more knowledgeable than myself about these things.
I learn by debating.
The only problem with that is having to deal with trolls who just want to close all debate down (why they are part of this forum is a mystery)
I discovered then, and again and again ever since, that the "experts" have no clothes.
Even in the short time I've been looking into this issue I've found exactly the same thing.
Josiah Thompson did a little piece on a documentary debunking the Umbrella Man and he made a point that (to paraphrase) there is how things look on the surface, but if you stare at something hard enough and for long enough, a kind of quantum world of interconnections and coincidence emerges that obscures the reality of what you're looking at.
The visa issue is explicable even though the finest of details aren't available. Golub was handing out visas in "minutes" around the time Oswald showed up.
The hotels Oswald stayed were some of the most prestigious in Helsinki and that really does go against his tightfisted nature, not to mention the fact he was running out of money - but that doesn't prove anything.
He did seem to know he would only be staying for 5 nights when he first booked into the Torni but that might be just a coincidence.
Two takeaways from this are that Helsinki seemed like a proper 007 espionage hotbed in '59 and Oswald wasn't just some lowly order-filler working in a textbook warehouse.
You of all people are playing the victim card after telling me to FO and STFU for questioning your implications? LOL. That's a gas. No one has suggested in any way that you shouldn't raise or discuss the issue. I've merely pointed out how you mischaracterized Rankin's words and the absurdity of anyone needing to expediate Oswald's visa. In response, I've gotten a blizzard of insults and rants.
-
It's fine with me, but as someone who made his living doing serious research, I can only caution you that it's an almost complete waste of time. Pick the brains of Bill Simpich, Jim DiEugenio, et al., and you'll end up stupider than when you started - but if you don't do your own research, how will you know it?
No, they really weren't. Here is a short piece by Fred Litwin that confirms my own research of several years ago: https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-oswald-stay-at-a-luxury-hotel-in-helsinki
Hello? Did your logic go off a cliff there at the end? What does the issuance of his Helsinki visa have to do with his status at the TSBD?
Helsinki was indeed a hotbed of KGB, CIA and Finnish security activity during the Cold War. The issue is, does this have anything to do with Oswald?
A more interesting question to me would be why he listed the University of Turku (Finland) on his U.S. passport application in September of 1959 in the first place. He had actually applied to the Albert Schweitzer College in Switzerland in March and paid his registration fee in June, so why did he add the U of T to his passport application in September? That might be an anomaly actually worth pursuing.
What does the issuance of his Helsinki visa have to do with his status at the TSBD?
Nothing.
It was a more general comment about the information I'd come across while researching this topic.
I was very struck by Oswald being only 19 years old when he defected.
It seems this move was something he'd decided on a lot earlier as he had to save the money in order to make it happen and, as I understand it, he wasn't making a vast amount as a Marine. But if Oswald was anything he was frugal. It is a very 'driven' thing to aim for and achieve. Very disciplined.
He'd already started learning to read and write Russian which, again, seems to suggest a really focused and determined nature, not to mention intelligence.
I think this is in contrast to how Oswald is often perceived in his role as a bit of a nobody working at some dead-end job at the TSBD.
-
You of all people are playing the victim card after telling me to FO and STFU for questioning your implications? LOL. That's a gas. No one has suggested in any way that you shouldn't raise or discuss the issue. I've merely pointed out how you mischaracterized Rankin's words and the absurdity of anyone needing to expediate Oswald's visa. In response, I've gotten a blizzard of insults and rants.
I've merely pointed out how you mischaracterized Rankin's words and the absurdity of anyone needing to expediate Oswald's visa
Mischaracterized Rankin's words?
I was the one who posted Rankin's words. Not you.
Just because I misquoted what I'd already posted you jumped on it because you had nothing else. No argument, No evidence.
That's all you had to troll the discussion with.
Zero contribution. Just trolling.
And you pointed out the absurdity of anyone needing to expedite Oswald's visa??
But Oswald's visa WAS EXPEDITED!
It was done in 24 hours!
What don't you understand about things being expedited?
The only thing "absurd" is your presence on this forum.
In response, I've gotten a blizzard of insults and rants.
Stop playing the victim.
You're nothing but a troll.
If you want respect do something worthy of it.
-
What does the issuance of his Helsinki visa have to do with his status at the TSBD?
Nothing.
It was a more general comment about the information I'd come across while researching this topic.
I was very struck by Oswald being only 19 years old when he defected.
It seems this move was something he'd decided on a lot earlier as he had to save the money in order to make it happen and, as I understand it, he wasn't making a vast amount as a Marine. But if Oswald was anything he was frugal. It is a very 'driven' thing to aim for and achieve. Very disciplined.
He'd already started learning to read and write Russian which, again, seems to suggest a really focused and determined nature, not to mention intelligence.
I think this is in contrast to how Oswald is often perceived in his role as a bit of a nobody working at some dead-end job at the TSBD.
I think this is the key Oswald Problem and one of the keys to the assassination. He actually was quite intelligent and politically oriented, but he had no educational credentials, did have an unappealing personality and could never get anyone to take him as seriously as he felt he should be taken. When he defected, he hoped to be sent to Moscow State University and to emerge as a significant political figure - but he ended up as a factory grunt in the backwater of Minsk. His pathetic U.S. job history had to be frustrating and demeaning for someone with his intelligence and ambitions, hence his fantasy of becoming one of Castro's right-hand men. He was on a treadmill to nowhere, the TSBD being about as low as things could get.
But forget all that. I am now enamored of my very own factoid:
What is with this University of Turku stuff? I find no meaningful discussion anywhere, even on the Helsinki threads at the Ed Forum. Let's think about it: He applies to Albert Schweitzer College in March, pays his fee in June, but then on September 4th (before he's even out of the Marines) he adds the U of T to his passport application in Los Angeles. WHY? Does he know at that point that Helsinki is where he'll be going for a visa? WHY and HOW? Was it common knowledge that Helsinki was the "quick visa" office? I doubt it; there were several European cities where one could obtain a Soviet tourist visa. Why would he have particularly cared if his visa were issued in two days or a week anyway? For that matter, why did the idiot even list Cuba and Russia as among his intended travel destinations when there was no need??? I find it all quite mysterious, yet it seems to get no attention.
Chew on this, conspiracy fans! If anything will convert me to your cause, it will be a factoid of my very own! (In fact, I have now started a separate thread to give you an opportunity to really strut your stuff.)
-
There are two ways that Oswald's eccentric conduct can be explained. Most CTers would suggest that there was some unspecified guiding hand behind his conduct which was using Oswald as an intelligence asset to obtain information from Russia and Cuba and/or to be groomed as a patsy to be framed based on his political background. Alternatively, most LNers would suggest that Oswald's eccentric behavior was exactly that of some mentally unbalanced person who would be of the type to assassinate the president. Those are equally plausible theories to explain Oswald's conduct. What is determinative of the matter is the evidence. The evidence is conclusive that LHO assassinated JFK on Nov. 22, 1963. After 60 years and counting, there is no credible evidence that lends itself to the conclusion that Oswald conspired with anyone else to commit that crime. With that said, some folks will always take the position that there were just too many real or more often imagined anomalies to accept the simpler and most obvious explanation as supported by the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. They will forever subscribe to the notion that "where there is smoke, there must be fire" and that something else (rarely specified because they allege the authorities covered it up) must have happened. There is no dissuading those people because this is largely a faith-based belief. Thankfully, the truth is not determined based upon everyone agreeing upon it.