More proof Oswald not at the Cuban Embassy - LITAMIL-9

[Peter Lemkin]

Oswald WAS in M.C. a few months BEFORE that time - and some few people saw him there. There is endless mystery about the last visit because while I think he may have been in M.C. then too [or perhaps not - certainly not doing the things the CIA claimed he did], someone else was pretending to do the things he was doing to set him up. The problem with the paperwork from the Oswald in M.C. time is that the same people that were setting him up were creating and re-creating / destroying the paper trail. Trustworthy eyewitness or other proofs are better than govt docs in this instance IMHO. Nagell knew Oswald was in M.C. earlier - few others did, but Nagell had been detailed to trail Oswald everywhere he went to figure out who he was and who he was working for. But then one has to trust Nagell. I for one do. He tried very hard to tell the truth of what he knew of the plot [a hell of a lot!]....and it was NOT easy as 'they' kept threatening him - to take away his children and his own life. In the end, they did murder Nagell....the VERY day he had received a subpoena to appear in D.C. about the JFK assassination - something he had always said he'd not avoid. Few know that Garrison and Nagell met in NYC in Central Park. Garrison thought Nagell was the best evidence of the plot, but he knew he couldn't use him in his trial, as they'd not let him live to testify.

That said, yes, most of the fudged paperwork even makes the case against the plotters in M.C. - they didn't fudge the paperwork enough for all time - only enough for the short haul.....

It is my understanding that the man you refer to was LEE Oswald and not the man Ruby killed.

I have little doubt LEE went both to Mexico and Cuba... and that's who Hoover is talking about...

What we are left with regards to Mexico City Evidence is exactly as Peter mentions...

You bring up a very important aspect. We know there was one main 'Oswald' double - and many lesser ones (used for single events or just a few). Of the two main 'Oswalds' [Harvey and Lee, lets call them] it is NOT clear from any document or any perspective - even from Nagell's accounts exactly which person we are really being told about. The plotters and their minions [some naive and some not to what was to occur or had just occurred] only a very select few knew there were more than one such person using that name - and even those persons using that name often used other names or variants of that name...so the waters are very muddy. However, we are making progress and all progress only further degrades the 'official' version's veracity or believability. No reason to wonder why they have been and continue to be 'shy' and reticent to release documents on this case and related matters.