Declassified: The CIA "Oswald" and Mexico City

[Anthony Thorne]

Scott, those new links work fine, thank you.

[Scott Kaiser]

Um, this may explain my father's early involvement with the anti-Castro Cubans and why my father was nowhere to be found on 11/22/1963. Jose Ramon is also found in my father's address book. Just to refresh my memory again, where was my father staying in 1964? Norwalk Conn. That's where I was born.

There is nothing but contradiction, the ticket sales person was not a reliable source of selling Oswald a ticket to Mexico, the CIA made up the Oswald trip and taped conversation that was never produced, and Oswald simply got set up. It's as simple as that, Here is Lee H. Oswald's entire file of his alleged trip into Mexico. Is it no wounder Dallas was investigating my father? Must be terrific information in there in order to redact the entire page about my father.

I already knew Oswald was not in Mexico when the CIA said he was, and I knew that the alleged tape recorded conversation the CIA says they captured Oswald and gave that tape to the FBI which was never produced by the FBI, then the CIA says the tape may have been destroyed is nothing more then pure bullshit, Oswald never called Mexico to acquire about trip to Russia or Cuba.

Funny, how the Commission was planning on subpoenaing Osborne as a witness about the alleged Oswald trip to Mexico, we know he was lying, and Dallas was planning on subpoenaing my father in 1974 just two years prior to the establishment of the HSCA. Don't tell me that the FBI or the CIA didn't know about the up and coming HSCA. When my father was suppose to testify in 1977, he was killed.

Get the picture now? No pun intended.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?...1&tab=page

[Scott Kaiser]

Scott, those new links work fine, thank you.

You're welcome.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Getting back to the WR and HSCA.

One of the most curious parts of the WC, was its attempt to discredit Sylvia Odio:

"The third problem, the one that bothered Sprague, was that the dates of the visit clashed with the dates that Oswald was supposed to be going to Mexico. Odio twice told the Commission that, to her best remembrance, the men were there on a Thursday or Friday in the last week of September.[SUP]41[/SUP] This would mean either the twenty-sixth or twenty-seventh. Even if we choose the earlier date, this contradicts the Commission. For they state that, on the 26th, Oswald was on a bus headed from the Mexican border town of Nuevo Laredo to Mexico City.[SUP]42[/SUP] This is why pro-Commission authors like Vincent Bugliosi try to move the date to the twenty-fifth. But even if one does that, it creates a problem for the official story since the Warren Report has Oswald in Houston that night calling the socialist editor of a magazine.[SUP]43[/SUP] The Odio incident took place around 9: 00 P.M.[SUP]44[/SUP] Yet the alleged call to the editor came either at that time, or a bit later. And the drive time from Dallas, where Odio was located, to Houston is about four hours. And as the report reads, there is no indication of this being a long distance call.


Because of all these problems, the Commission decided that Odio's story could not be accepted. "

I think that was the reason. They could not admit that the official dates of the MC trip and Odio's recall of the visit by Leon Oswald and the two Cubans made it almost a certainty that someone was being impersonated. And that would be powerful evidence of a conspiracy. Plus the things that Leopoldo told Odio about Oswald on the call back was very suspicious of a frame up seven weeks in advance. But looking at the evidence today, including David Josephs work on the buses, its harder than ever to place Oswald in Mexico City. Which is probably why Slawson and Coleman didn't do a real investigation.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Now, how about this one:

"After Oswald left New Orleans, four events occurred very close to each other. The confluence of which suggest Oswald was being impersonated on the eve of his Mexico City trip. They are the Henry McCluskey testimony about Oswald being in Dallas on the 25th or 26th of September; the Oswald to Horace Twiford phone call in Houston on the evening of the September 25th; the Mrs. Lee Dannelly testimony about Oswald being in Austin on the 25th and, of course, the famous Odio Incident where Sylvia Odio saw a man named Leon Oswald with two anti-Castro Cubans in Dallas on September 25th or, more likely, the 26th. It is physically impossible for all these incidents to occur if one believes the Warren Commission. The Commission writes that Oswald left New Orleans by bus on the 25th, a little after the noon hour. He then arrived in Houston at 10: 50 PM.[SUP]34[/SUP] From there, early on the morning of September 26, Oswald got on a Continental Trailways bus and departed for Laredo, Texas. He then crossed over into Mexico at Nuevo Laredo that afternoon.[SUP]35"

Is it just a coincidence that all those things happened as Oswald was allegedly leaving for Mexico?

Or is there something there that is meant to distract and confuse us about where he is going and how he is getting there? If so, does that not connote some kind of covert action? Especially if Oswald did not actually go there.[/SUP]

[David Josephs]

Getting back to the WR and HSCA.

One of the most curious parts of the WC, was its attempt to discredit Sylvia Odio:

"The third problem, the one that bothered Sprague, was that the dates of the visit clashed with the dates that Oswald was supposed to be going to Mexico. Odio twice told the Commission that, to her best remembrance, the men were there on a Thursday or Friday in the last week of September.[SUP]41[/SUP] This would mean either the twenty-sixth or twenty-seventh. Even if we choose the earlier date, this contradicts the Commission. For they state that, on the 26th, Oswald was on a bus headed from the Mexican border town of Nuevo Laredo to Mexico City.[SUP]42[/SUP] This is why pro-Commission authors like Vincent Bugliosi try to move the date to the twenty-fifth. But even if one does that, it creates a problem for the official story since the Warren Report has Oswald in Houston that night calling the socialist editor of a magazine.[SUP]43[/SUP] The Odio incident took place around 9: 00 P.M.[SUP]44[/SUP] Yet the alleged call to the editor came either at that time, or a bit later. And the drive time from Dallas, where Odio was located, to Houston is about four hours. And as the report reads, there is no indication of this being a long distance call.


Because of all these problems, the Commission decided that Odio's story could not be accepted. "

I think that was the reason. They could not admit that the official dates of the MC trip and Odio's recall of the visit by Leon Oswald and the two Cubans made it almost a certainty that someone was being impersonated. And that would be powerful evidence of a conspiracy. Plus the things that Leopoldo told Odio about Oswald on the call back was very suspicious of a frame up seven weeks in advance. But looking at the evidence today, including David Josephs work on the buses, its harder than ever to place Oswald in Mexico City. Which is probably why Slawson and Coleman didn't do a real investigation.


Now, how about this one:

"After Oswald left New Orleans, four events occurred very close to each other. The confluence of which suggest Oswald was being impersonated on the eve of his Mexico City trip. They are the Henry McCluskey testimony about Oswald being in Dallas on the 25th or 26th of September; the Oswald to Horace Twiford phone call in Houston on the evening of the September 25th; the Mrs. Lee Dannelly testimony about Oswald being in Austin on the 25th and, of course, the famous Odio Incident where Sylvia Odio saw a man named Leon Oswald with two anti-Castro Cubans in Dallas on September 25th or, more likely, the 26th. It is physically impossible for all these incidents to occur if one believes the Warren Commission. The Commission writes that Oswald left New Orleans by bus on the 25th, a little after the noon hour. He then arrived in Houston at 10: 50 PM.[SUP]34[/SUP] From there, early on the morning of September 26, Oswald got on a Continental Trailways bus and departed for Laredo, Texas. He then crossed over into Mexico at Nuevo Laredo that afternoon.[SUP]35"

Is it just a coincidence that all those things happened as Oswald was allegedly leaving for Mexico?

Or is there something there that is meant to distract and confuse us about where he is going and how he is getting there? If so, does that not connote some kind of covert action? Especially if Oswald did not actually go there.[/SUP]

Thanks for the shout out Jim....

From the earlier work I did on Mexico I was still under the assumption SOMEONE had made the trip from Houston... I have since learned that our Oswald was not involved in this trip to Mexico City, but to Dallas via Austin, to Odio's, possible at the Rifle range and ultimately at the YMCA

From Mexico City Part 2: http://www.ctka.net/2014-Josephs/Mexico%...t%201.html
There is evidence available which places an Oswald at the Selective Service System Office in Austin, TX just after lunch on September 25
th at about the same time he'd be leaving NOLA on the only bus the FBI could conclude he used, bus 5121 leaving at 12:20pm. The WCR, on the following page 732, explains that since there is no corroboration for Mrs. Dannelly's story (which is eerily the same as our conclusion regarding his trip from NOLA to Houston) she must have heard the news and "all of the information she furnished <snip> could have been derived from news media". (CE2137 http://www.history-matters.com/archive/j..._0375b.htm)

[size=12]

Austin Texas is 80 miles to the north west of the trip from Houston to Laredo, which in itself is about 325 miles and a 10 hour trip to the south. What will become clear is that HARVEY Oswald traveled from NOLA thru Austin on his way to Dallas and Sylvia Odio while LEE Oswald traveled AWAY from Dallas to Houston and caught the 2:35am bus early in the morning of Sept 26th To avoid corroborating her story we find the FBI once again trying to discredit witnesses. While they all give Mrs. Dannelly (and Jesse Skrivanek) the benefit of the doubt, they determine that two more people could not be right. One of these witnesses, a waitress who claims to have served Oswald stated she has Wednesdays off. Sept 25th was a Wednesday and the day Mrs. Dannelly sees Oswald, so by process of elimination Mrs. Norman could not have seen Oswald. [size=12]When shown a photo of HARVEY, both Ronnie Dugger and Mrs. Stella Norman claim the person they met was "identical with Oswald".

[/SIZE]While the possibility remains that it was Lee coming down from Dallas who was seen in Austin on the 25th there would be no need to backtrack 165 miles East to Houston when Lee could have caught a bus in San Antonio 80 miles to the SW. Depending of course on how he gets from Dallas to Houston. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/j..._0377b.htm

[size=12]

The Texas Employment Commission building is but 4-5 miles from the café where Mrs. Norman worked, L.B. Day confirms her story while "Leon" HARVEY Oswald is not at Sylvia Odio's in Dallas until the early evening of the 26thSylvia's testimony suggests that the 26th or 27th was possible and that she had been to work that day (although she finally does settle on the evening of the 26th as the time and date). HARVEY Oswald being seen in Austin while LEE, or another Oswald impersonator makes his way to Houston for a trip to Mexico begins to take shape.
There is nothing offered to deny the possibility of HARVEY Oswald staying in Austin until the following day when on the morning of Thursday the 26
th Mrs. Norman could be serving Oswald coffee, alone. Given Harvey's cheap ways, milking a $.10 cup-a-joe while waiting for his comrades to get ready to leave for Dallas can explain the sighting and trip to Austin just as easily as the FBI dismissing it on such weak grounds. (NOTE: The story of Oswald's guilt is craftily told by prosecuting attorneys the explanation of why this telling of the tale is so skewed is no better told in a lawyerly, assumptive fashion. Guilt requires proof…. Innocence is one of the rare human qualities which civilized society purposefully "assumes" within its basic rule of law. One is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If the guilt can be shown to have come from inauthentic evidence, the presumption must remain. Oswald was presumed guilty with evidence supporting that conclusion brought front and center while all other evidence is buried, altered, destroyed or simply ignored. When this selective evidence is shown to be inauthentic in the years after his murder, the presumption of innocence MUST be a foregone conclusion).

[size=12][size=12]
Hamilton interviews Oswald but not same man https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html...PageId=511 [/SIZE]Mr. Olin Hamilton of the AL SEMTNER Drug Dept in Dallas was reported by the FBI to have interviewed LEE OSWALD just after Sept 23, 1963 when the WCR tells us he was not in Dallas during that time. Much like the WCR's statement that no one saw Oswald between 11:50 and 12:30 on 11/22, the above declaration that Oswald was not in Dallas at all in the month of September is easily disproved. Oswald was in NOLA all summer so one wonders how the TEC has recent Dallas information on this man, and is able to send him on this interview.













[/SIZE]

[/SIZE][/SIZE]

[Albert Doyle]

Wow.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Like I said Dave, it sure seemed to me like a covert op was beginning.

But consider what happened in officialdom:

"Now, all of these conflicts and questions are in the record before Oswald has even left New Orleans! And, in fact, the record is so confusing that Bugliosi and his first ghostwriter Fred Haines are forced to write the following: "It has never been conclusively established precisely when Oswald left New Orleans, what route he took from New Orleans to the Mexican border, or even what mode of transportation he took out of New Orleans."[SUP]46[/SUP] The ambiguity about the unemployment check and the address card change are part of it. So is the fact that there is no bus ticket or receipt in evidence for Oswald from New Orleans to Houston. Thus, the Commission cannot even tell us the bus he left on.[SUP]47[/SUP] And the person whose testimony they use to say he left New Orleans by bus is, of all people, Marina Oswald! Who happened to be in Texas at the time.[SUP]48[/SUP] It is one thing to use a witness with credibility problems who has direct testimony on a matter. But to use such a person when she has no direct knowledge of the event is completely unjustified. And the Commission had to know that. But this is how desperate they were to get Oswald on a bus and out of New Orleans. So they had to cover up the fact that in her first Secret Service interviews, Marina said she had no knowledge of Lee going to Mexico City![SUP]49[/SUP] Therefore her testimony in not just irrelevant, its contradictory. Recall, Bugliosi has said Marina's credibility was good at the start. Did he forget about this issue?

By making this unproven claim, the Commission takes care of all four events I described above. They discard them all except for the phone call by Oswald to the Twiford home. Yet, when the sighting of Oswald in Austin with Selective Service employee Lee Dannelly was researched by journalist Ronnie Dugger, and he found two other witnesses to Oswald being there.[SUP]50[/SUP] Henry McCluskey wrote a letter to the Commission saying Oswald was at the Texas Employment Commission in Dallas on the 25th or 26th to change the address on his unemployment claim. That letter disappeared.[SUP]51[/SUP] But he also said that Oswald's presence there in September and on October 3rd could be verified by Oswald's Interstate Claims Card. This card did exist. The FBI and Warren Commission secured it. But when they printed it in the volumes they cut off the bottom of the card, which would have revealed the dates Oswald was at the TEC.[SUP]52[/SUP] As everyone knows, the Commission said that Sylvia Odio was wrong about Oswald being at her apartment. It was really Bill Seymour, Larry Howard, and Loran Hall. Which, of course, was all later discredited."

Deny, deny, deny. Even if your denial is BS.

[Scott Kaiser]

I just learned something so funny that I pissed my pants, and I'm going to let you in on it. When someone records someone to get the story, the truth, folks says "he's full of shit", but if something is discovered on documents it becomes the holy grail. Now, isn't that funny or what?

[David Josephs]

I just learned something so funny that I pissed my pants, and I'm going to let you in on it. When someone records someone to get the story, the truth, folks says "he's full of shit", but if something is discovered on documents it becomes the holy grail. Now, isn't that funny or what?

ALL the Evidence IS the Conspiracy until it can be authenticated...

Docs, verbal accounts, films, photos... EVERYTHING. It's all FoS until proven. T

he only items I have found which are indicative of the actual assassination are the shirt and Jacket holes... everything else I've seen to date describes the Conspiracy