22-06-2015, 05:47 PM
Here is the passage from my second essay that I think is so incriminating of Goodpasture:
One of the most fascinating parts of the Lopez Report is its description of Goodpasture's role in the famous Mystery Man photo debacle. This is a photo the Warren Commission printed that was allegedly identified by the CIA as Oswald outside the Russian compound. Yet it was clearly not Oswald. Lopez and Hardway tried to find out why this happened. There had been a search of the photographic surveillance for Oswald the first week of October in order to link his picture to a call allegedly from him to the Soviet Embassy.[SUP]137[/SUP] But the delay in finding the photo of Oswald supposedly resulted in the cable not getting to CIA HQ until October 8, 1963. Yet, even after the delay, this photo was not of Oswald. So why was it sent? The excuse Goodpasture gave in the Lopez Report is that it was the only photo of a non-Latin taken the day of the call, i.e. 10/1/63.[SUP]138[/SUP] (Goodpasture also testified that, in these situations, they would check the photos for a few days in advance of the call. [SUP]139[/SUP]) Goodpasture testified that since that photo was the only one of a non-Latin male during this period, this is why she chose to send it to CIA HQ. It is imperative to note here that Bugliosi accepts this same rationale from David Phillips in Reclaiming History. Which clearly implies that he and Goodpasture collaborated on this excuse.[SUP]140[/SUP]
But it's not true. Lopez and Hardway discovered that there was another non-Latin male photographed on 9/27, and he had not been identified at that time.[SUP]141[/SUP] Why was his photo not considered or sent? What makes this lie even worse is that the authors write that Goodpasture tried to change this man's name to a Latin sounding one to conceal this fact from them.[SUP]142[/SUP]
But further, the photo of the Mystery Man was not taken on October 1st or prior to that. It was taken on 10/2/63, the day after the call.[SUP]143[/SUP] Why is this important? If the photo was taken on October 1st, it could conceivably be of Oswald, since he was still in Mexico City. But if it was taken on 10/2 it likely could not have been him since he left early that morning. Goodpasture tried to explain all this as benign and not devious: a simple error in reading a log sheet. But unfortunately for her Lopez and Hardway found the log sheet. It is in black type with the separate days being marked off in columns typed inred percentage marks![SUP]144[/SUP] Under those circumstances Lopez and Hardway termed this "mistake" implausible. They found it even more implausible that Goodpasture would not realize this rather large identification error for 13 years- -that is until 1976. What cinched the case for this being another lie was that the authors discovered a CIA cable to Mexico City dated 11/23/63. It said that the photo Goodpasture sent to them of Oswald outside the Russian Embassy was not Oswald. The cable then requested a recheck of the photos.[SUP]145[/SUP] It turns out the Mystery Man was photographed two more times in October, and the CIA probably knew who he was: KGB officer Yuri Moskalev.[SUP]146[/SUP] After analyzing the situation, Lopez and Hardway concluded that Goodpasture actually knew by October 11th that the Mystery Man was not Oswald.[SUP]147[/SUP] But she couldn't admit that. The illusion had to be maintained that they were confused down there.
But there is another possible reason for Goodpasture's "mistake". There was no CIA phone transcript of Oswald to link the photo to on October 2nd. So she had to push it forward a day to make the link between the photo and transcript stick.
One of the most fascinating parts of the Lopez Report is its description of Goodpasture's role in the famous Mystery Man photo debacle. This is a photo the Warren Commission printed that was allegedly identified by the CIA as Oswald outside the Russian compound. Yet it was clearly not Oswald. Lopez and Hardway tried to find out why this happened. There had been a search of the photographic surveillance for Oswald the first week of October in order to link his picture to a call allegedly from him to the Soviet Embassy.[SUP]137[/SUP] But the delay in finding the photo of Oswald supposedly resulted in the cable not getting to CIA HQ until October 8, 1963. Yet, even after the delay, this photo was not of Oswald. So why was it sent? The excuse Goodpasture gave in the Lopez Report is that it was the only photo of a non-Latin taken the day of the call, i.e. 10/1/63.[SUP]138[/SUP] (Goodpasture also testified that, in these situations, they would check the photos for a few days in advance of the call. [SUP]139[/SUP]) Goodpasture testified that since that photo was the only one of a non-Latin male during this period, this is why she chose to send it to CIA HQ. It is imperative to note here that Bugliosi accepts this same rationale from David Phillips in Reclaiming History. Which clearly implies that he and Goodpasture collaborated on this excuse.[SUP]140[/SUP]
But it's not true. Lopez and Hardway discovered that there was another non-Latin male photographed on 9/27, and he had not been identified at that time.[SUP]141[/SUP] Why was his photo not considered or sent? What makes this lie even worse is that the authors write that Goodpasture tried to change this man's name to a Latin sounding one to conceal this fact from them.[SUP]142[/SUP]
But further, the photo of the Mystery Man was not taken on October 1st or prior to that. It was taken on 10/2/63, the day after the call.[SUP]143[/SUP] Why is this important? If the photo was taken on October 1st, it could conceivably be of Oswald, since he was still in Mexico City. But if it was taken on 10/2 it likely could not have been him since he left early that morning. Goodpasture tried to explain all this as benign and not devious: a simple error in reading a log sheet. But unfortunately for her Lopez and Hardway found the log sheet. It is in black type with the separate days being marked off in columns typed inred percentage marks![SUP]144[/SUP] Under those circumstances Lopez and Hardway termed this "mistake" implausible. They found it even more implausible that Goodpasture would not realize this rather large identification error for 13 years- -that is until 1976. What cinched the case for this being another lie was that the authors discovered a CIA cable to Mexico City dated 11/23/63. It said that the photo Goodpasture sent to them of Oswald outside the Russian Embassy was not Oswald. The cable then requested a recheck of the photos.[SUP]145[/SUP] It turns out the Mystery Man was photographed two more times in October, and the CIA probably knew who he was: KGB officer Yuri Moskalev.[SUP]146[/SUP] After analyzing the situation, Lopez and Hardway concluded that Goodpasture actually knew by October 11th that the Mystery Man was not Oswald.[SUP]147[/SUP] But she couldn't admit that. The illusion had to be maintained that they were confused down there.
But there is another possible reason for Goodpasture's "mistake". There was no CIA phone transcript of Oswald to link the photo to on October 2nd. So she had to push it forward a day to make the link between the photo and transcript stick.