05-08-2015, 10:17 PM
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:AD: Very important. If you read JVB's response she now admits she believes there was an Oswald double.
​How is anything she says "very important"?
I guess in the way that she is hanging herself with the obvious flaws in her Oswald Mexico City accounts. She doesn't seem to grasp that the Oswald Silvia Duran insisted she saw was the short curly haired non-Lee. Baker tries to say the context of Duran is that she lied about seeing Lee in order to avoid admitting an affair because she was married (as if the CIA torture brought her around to the truth). But that's not the correct order or how it happened. The true context is Duran refused to say it was Lee and was jailed by CIA until she finally changed her story and admitted it was Lee. Which means Oswald never went to the Consulate, which means he couldn't have described the goings-on at the Consulate as Baker claimed. The real context is Duran saw an obvious impostor. Which also means Lee could not have possibly described this Consulate experience as she claims. In her classic way Baker is trying to wiggle in the suggestion that Duran did see Lee in the Consulate and later was forced to tell the truth by CIA torture. That also makes Baker uncredible because that really stands the truth on its head.
David has done good work.