JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

The more you read about this case the more you come to see the FBI (and Hoover in particular) as nothing like the kind of super-efficient organisation that he wanted everyone to believe, so we really should take what Hoover said with a pinch of salt.

While the CIA had a series of bungled assassinations against Cuba.

But that's the real world, not the world of conspiracy theories. In the world of CTs, large organizations are led by competent people with clear objectives and completely unified. In the messy real world, leaders are fallible, goals may be vague, self-contradictory, counterproductive, or even non-existent. Decisions are made based on partial information, incorrect information, and feelings. Personal agendas and miscommunication affect all levels of organizations.

That's before we get to the friction between organizations. Branches of the government compete with each other. Intelligence agencies compete with each other. Law enforcement agencies compete with each other. Branches of the military compete with each other.

So far, no one has provided reasons why the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, Dallas Police Department, etc would gain anything from assassinating JFK. "Regime change" still doesn't cut it. There have to be goals that they believe are worth the risk of execution that believe could never be achieved under JFK, could be achieved under LBJ, and are so urgent they can't wait until the next election.

[Fiver]

The problem with assuming that the caller was Oswald is that Oswald spoke fluent Russian.

(CIA)

Oswald did not speak fluent Russian. He insisted that Marina speak to him only in Russian so he didn't lose what little of the language that he had.

As Herlock has shown, the CIA had a lot of incorrect information about Oswald.

For the Mexico visit, there are 2 possibilities.

1) It was Oswald, but people people had imperfect memories.
2) The Conspiracy spent a lot of time and effort sending an Oswald imposter who did not look like Oswald in order to undermine their own lone gunman theory by having him contact both the Cuban and Russian Embassies.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Oswald did not speak fluent Russian. He insisted that Marina speak to him only in Russian so he didn't lose what little of the language that he had.

That's wrong.

There is plenty of evidence that Oswald spoke Russian well.

[Fiver]

Why don't you finish what you started writing, Herlock?

I'm sure everyone would be interested to know the identity of the

Someone who thought that he/she was far more important that he/she actually was. Someone that felt that the world didn’t give him/her the respect that he/she deserved. Someone unbalanced [and who] sounds familiar.

Why don't you identify the person you have in mind?

Did you not understand that Herlock was referring to Lee Harvey Oswald?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Did you not understand that Herlock was referring to Lee Harvey Oswald?

I don’t think that he did Fiver. I have an essay in a book that I have describing Oswald’s background. He was pretty much textbook assassin type. His mother was a horrible person. Mark Lane was straight in there to represent her for free though. She had plenty of stuff to feed him.

[cobalt]

I have often suggested that Oswald was far from fluent in Russian- even if the ‘White Russian’ community in Dallas claimed otherwise.

However I would assume Oswald was ruled out as being the caller to the embassy not just in terms of his command of the Russian language but also by the timbre of his voice, which was quite specific. The actor Gary Oldman, known for his diligent research for film roles, spent much time mastering Oswald’s voice. Which, if you really want a conspiracy, Oldman thought might have had traces of Polish- the same language that Marina Oswald thought Oswald spoke when she first heard him attempt to speak Russian in Minsk.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"No, that’s one angle that’s very confusing, for this reason—we have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there."

(Hoover to Johnson)


The problem with assuming that the caller was Oswald is that Oswald spoke fluent Russian.

(CIA)


The CIA advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual identified himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring as to any messages. Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above, and have listened to a recording of his voice. These special agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald.

(FBI memo)

I’m well aware of the photographs and the tapes but we need to look deeper than just what they appear to mean. We need to examine the background to get the the crux of the matter. But first I’ll re-iterate that it’s important to note some of the incompetence that I’ve already listed from Hoover and the Bureau. It’s vital that we understand this.


There are several sources that appear to suggest, as you do, that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City. For example, there’s another memo from Alan Belmont to Clyde Tolson and one from Belmont to William Sullivan. Many of these use the same or similar language and phrasing. All of the accounts from Washington came through Alan Belmont, who phoned Gordon Shanklin (Special Agent in charge of the Dallas FBI - Hosty’s boss) So, when Belmont heard the story about the tapes it was disseminated among bureau officials. So when we read of Hoover telling LBJ or Rowley about this they weren’t independent accounts. They all came from what Belmont heard (or thought that he’d heard) from Shanklin. So there’s a clear chain. This is also vital in understanding this story.

So we have to ask what those in Dallas actually said? The Church Committee spoke to Shanklin and Elbert Rudd (Rudd was the FBI agent who bought the photographs and the transcripts from Mexico to Dallas) Neither Shanklin nor Rudd were aware of any tape recording of Oswald’s voice and Shanklin couldn’t explain the statement about tapes in Belmonts memo (and remember, Belmont got the story from Shanklin) . So this of course raises the very serious probability (or we should really say certainty) that Belmont simply misheard Shanklin during their phone call.

When Rudd delivered the materials from Mexico City on the early morning of the day after the assassination he produced a memo describing the material. It lists as ‘attached’…photos of a man visiting the embassy (clearly not Oswald) it also noted that: “the CIA has advised that these tapes have been erased and are not available for review.” The following pages of the memo were transcripts of the phone conversations thought to involve Oswald. There was no mention of any tapes. And this was of course well before anyone could have had the need for a cover up or an impostor.

The HSCA didn’t just question Shanklin on the issue (the origin of the alleged story of the ‘tape’) they questioned James Hosty, John W. Fain, Burnett Tom Carter and Arnold J. Brown, all of whom were Dallas FBI special agents who had all, at some point, talked to Oswald in person. All testified that they had never heard of any tape supposedly from Mexico City supposedly with Oswald’s voice. So: “On the basis of an extensive file review and detailed testimony by present an former CIA officials and employees” the HSCA came to the conclusion that CIA headquarters had never had recordings of Oswald’s voice.

So the real source of the story that the CIA had tapes of Oswald’s voice was Alan Belmont. No one could seriously accuse him of purposely promoting a conspiracy theory but what we can suggest, because there is no other explanation, is that he simply confused ‘tapes’ with ‘transcripts of tapes’ from his call with Shanklin.

The evidence clearly shows us that Hoover was simply repeating an error and certainly not for the first time.

[Fiver]

Thanks, but Edwards' description of the man does not match Oswald and his report of the number of shots does not match the number of cartridge cases found, either.

Roberts description was not detailed enough to rule Oswald out.

"...his hair was rather short,; I thought he might be something around twenty-six." - Robert Edwards

"Shortly after President Kennedy’s car passed his position, he heard shots, which he thought were three or four in very rapid sequence." - Robert Edwards

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have often suggested that Oswald was far from fluent in Russian- even if the ‘White Russian’ community in Dallas claimed otherwise.

However I would assume Oswald was ruled out as being the caller to the embassy not just in terms of his command of the Russian language but also by the timbre of his voice, which was quite specific. The actor Gary Oldman, known for his diligent research for film roles, spent much time mastering Oswald’s voice. Which, if you really want a conspiracy, Oldman thought might have had traces of Polish- the same language that Marina Oswald thought Oswald spoke when she first heard him attempt to speak Russian in Minsk.

Peter Paul Gregory testified that he thought Oswald spoke Russian with a Polish accent.

It has been speculated that Oswald received private lessons in the Russian language from a Polish woman in 1959.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Roberts description was not detailed enough to rule Oswald out.

"...his hair was rather short,; I thought he might be something around twenty-six." - Robert Edwards

"Shortly after President Kennedy’s car passed his position, he heard shots, which he thought were three or four in very rapid sequence." - Robert Edwards

In his affidavit, Edwards stated that he heard four shots and that the suspect wore a white or yellow sport shirt.

[FISHY1118]

While the CIA had a series of bungled assassinations against Cuba.

But that's the real world, not the world of conspiracy theories. In the world of CTs, large organizations are led by competent people with clear objectives and completely unified. In the messy real world, leaders are fallible, goals may be vague, self-contradictory, counterproductive, or even non-existent. Decisions are made based on partial information, incorrect information, and feelings. Personal agendas and miscommunication affect all levels of organizations.

That's before we get to the friction between organizations. Branches of the government compete with each other. Intelligence agencies compete with each other. Law enforcement agencies compete with each other. Branches of the military compete with each other.

So far, no one has provided reasons why the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, Dallas Police Department, etc would gain anything from assassinating JFK. "Regime change" still doesn't cut it. There have to be goals that they believe are worth the risk of execution that believe could never be achieved under JFK, could be achieved under LBJ, and are so urgent they can't wait until the next election.

Something about "Splintering the CIA into a thousand pieces and scattering them into the wind".For one .

JFK after the failed bay of pigs episode .

[Herlock Sholmes]

In his affidavit, Edwards stated that he heard four shots and that the suspect wore a white or yellow sport shirt.

Would you say that we should dismiss any witnesses that give evidence at any time that was contradictory?

[Fiver]

I have an essay in a book that I have describing Oswald’s background. He was pretty much textbook assassin type. His mother was a horrible person. Mark Lane was straight in there to represent her for free though. She had plenty of stuff to feed him.

His older brothers, John Pic and Robert Oswald, gives a good idea if how toxic their mother was and how maladjusted Lee was. Lee took it a step further and wasn't just verbally abusive to his wife, he was physically abusive as well.

[cobalt]

'Would you say that we should dismiss any witnesses that give evidence at any time that was contradictory?'

We don't have that luxury otherwise we would be left with no witnesses at all. I can't think of any key witness who did not modify their original DPD testimony after a series of interviews with the FBI, and even then they sometimes came up with a slightly different angle when interviewed by media. To take one example, I think Bonnie Ray Williams made 5 statements and gave at least one interview at the time. Some of them made subsequent statements to the Church Committee and further interviews then as well.

[Herlock Sholmes]

'Would you say that we should dismiss any witnesses that give evidence at any time that was contradictory?'

We don't have that luxury otherwise we would be left with no witnesses at all. I can't think of any key witness who did not modify their original DPD testimony after a series of interviews with the FBI, and even then they sometimes came up with a slightly different angle when interviewed by media. To take one example, I think Bonnie Ray Williams made 5 statements and gave at least one interview at the time. Some of them made subsequent statements to the Church Committee and further interviews then as well.

I agree. We have to assess them. This is why I don’t understand why PI will try and dismiss a witness like Calloway who saw Oswald at close range just after Oswald was shot. He even spoke to him, though Oswald didn’t respond. All that he got wrong was the colour of Oswald’s jacket. Tan instead of grey. Both a light colours but aren’t as different as, say, red and blue. He went on to pick him out of a line up. In any investigation he would have been considered about as good an eye-witness as you can get. When interview at the London Trial he came across as a very sensible, down to earth man.