Declassified: The CIA "Oswald" and Mexico City

[David Josephs]

Jim - the phone calls and the visits to these embassies do NOT include the Oswald Ruby killed. That man was not there per the testimonies of Azcue and Duran as well as the evidence offered from Mexico.

Duran is very specific that this person does not return after Friday's visits

CORNWELL - Let's just talk hypothetically for a moment. Is there any chance that he was at the Consulate on more than one day?
TIRADO - No. I r[B]ead yesterday, an article in the Reader's digest, and they say he was at the Consulate on three occasions. He was in Friday, Saturday, and Monday...That's not true, that's false.
[/B] CORNWELL - All right. Let's try a different hypothetical. If the one in the Reader's Digest is definitely wrong, is it possible that he first came on like a Thursday, and then came back on a Friday?
TIRADO - No, because I am positively sure about it. That he came in the same day.and Azcue tells us he was not the man on TV who Ruby killed - he watched that scene...

Mr. THONE. Consul Azcue, did I understand, and I may not have gotten it right
this morning, that when you went back to Cuba you saw a film which depicted the
shooting by a Mr. Ruby of Lee Harvey Oswald, and at the time you were concerned
that this wasn't the same person at all that was at the consul applying for a
visa?
Senor AZCUE. Exactly. Only 2 months back I had seen the individual who
appeared at the consulate. So I had his image clearly engraved in my mind, and I
did not recognize him in the movie.
Mr. THONE. Exactly. Now my question. Did
you report this to the Cuban Government, and if so to whom and what happened on
your report in this regard?
Senor AZCUE. I reported this to some of my
friends in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But in fact, in truth I was aware of
the fact that it was testimony of my own, it was of my own imagination. And that
the conditions under which I had seen him in the film at the time he was killed,
with distorted features as a result of pain, it is conceivable that I might be
mistaken. I reaffirmed my view when Attorney Garrison of New Orleans stated that
the Oswald who visited or was at the consulate was not the one who allegedly
killed Kennedy, because of the date he departed New Orleans and the date he had
visited the consulate in Cuba. So that confirmed my own view, and at that point
I believed that as being the truth. And then I communicated this. And that was
probably filed, recorded. I did not write a report. I made an oral report. But
it would be necessary to investigate whether such a report in writing exists or
does not. But that was the time when I saw my own views confirmed in my opinion
that there were two Oswalds. Garrison shares the same opinion.

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.

I hate to do this Jim but the photo in the WCR is from Oct 4th, not the 2nd.... and you are correct, no photos were taken on Oct 1st. It was also WILLARD C CURTIS (Win Scott) who reconfirms the lie...
The white shirt Mystery Man photos are from the 2nd, while the black shirt photos are the 4th... he was also photographed on the 15th, twice.

FBI investigation claims he left the hotel on the 1st, not the 2nd... and since the reports place these photos supposedly of Oswald on the 1st, the bogus bus manifest which has him leaving in the afternoon of the 2nd made sense... until that bus didn't work due to the late departure timing.

In the face of this report, the FBI still has him leaving prior to the 4th and informing the CIA that the man in the photo is not Oswald on Oct 22.
They all knew it was not Oswald's photo or voice... yet the conclusion that their Oswald had been there was never changed or dropped.

Since our Oswald was never there we have to accept that the entire charade has at least two if not many purposes... Bill's mole hunt is very possible and supported by the evidence.. Incrimination of Oswald and/or creating bona fides for him as an FPCC informant...






-----------------------

Michael...

This is the slip where Scott is asking that P-8573, a "P" file be set up on Lee Henry and that all docs would be cc's to that file among many others.

What I'd like to know and I think Bill has the answer... the redacted line just below that reads "50-2-4-1" with "1" having the number "5" handwritten in...