JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[GBinOz]

Hi all,

I genuinely know nothing about this, but I must admit it's piqued my curiosity. Can someone put up a link or two to any articles on this particular matter?

Cheers.

Hi Al,

Not sure if this is what you are after. It's a memo from the head of the CIA to the head of the Secret Service saying that Oswald was a CIA asset and his activities in Russia were part of his CIA mission. With regard to his activity in Mexico, I think Edwin Lopez explains it best here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w_vJqHPJHc&ab_channel=DavidVonPein%27sJFKChannel

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

For the third time….the bullet wasn’t pristine. You keep looking at a photograph taken from one side. It’s not difficult Fishy.

Single Bullet Theory has been confirmed.

That reminds me….you claimed with emphasis that the shots had never been duplicated and I proved that they had not only been duplicated but one guy actually bettered them…..you forgot to respond.

Firstly you havent shown ce399 Warren Commission evidence bullet from the side [ the ''''side'' not the butt end of the bullet that the firing pin struck] you claimed was damaged ! . second , blood , bone , skin tissue evidence from the bullet that matched the two victims it supposidly struck causing all the wounds inflicted.

Ive showed evidence that it has never been duplicated by experts whos testimony i believe, just as you have choosen to belive your.

AUDREY BELL i believe she was there , you believe a computer simulation ,what does that tell everyone ?

[GBinOz]

Blatant dodging. I’ve responded about the packaging. Forget the packaging for a second.

DID THEY BOTH LIE ABOUT LEE HARVEY OSWALD SAYING THAT HE INTENDED TO PICK UP CURTAIN RODS AND THEN THAT THE PACKAGE ACTUALLY CONTAINED CURTAIN RODS?

Surely you can answer one simple question George. It’s not that hard.

It is that hard when answers are not read. As I have replied before, the answer to this question can only be speculated upon. The answers are in my long post, for which we were both pinged over moderator approval on external references, and contains all the speculative possibilities (Why do you bother quoting a post you haven't read?). I'm not posting it again because I promised JM that I would be more careful in future about such things. It contains answers, most of which rebut your claims, replete with references to WC testimony.

[GBinOz]

A well used phrase. How many witnesses only mentioned seeing stuff years later because they were in fear of their lives? All those death squads on Dealey Plaza fuming with anger because they kept tripping over Garrison’s 20 assassins.

Nice use of sarcasm. .....or is this an expansion from open insults to include snide remarks?

[GBinOz]

I had to refresh my memory on the Mexico City second Oswald nonsense. The evidence that Oswald (the real one) went to the Cuban consulate and the Russian Embassy to secure an in-transit visa to Cuba to be used on his way back to the then Soviet Union is cast iron.

Ive posted the whole story to let all know the background.

Oswald entered Nueva Laredo at around 2pm on September 26th, 1963, and bus company records showed that he arrived in Mexico City around 10.00 am next day. He checked into the Hotel del Comercio, according to the owner/manager between 10.00 and 11.00 paying for 5 nights stay ($1.28 per night.)

Oswald left Mexico City for Laredo, Texas on the Transportes del Norte bus line at 8.30 am October 2nd and crossed into Texas around 1.35 am October 3rd.

At the Cuban consulate Silvia Tirado de Duran processed Oswald’s visa request on September 27th. In her statement to Mexico’s Federal Security Police she positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald and told them about the reason for his visit (stated above) Oswald had told Duran that he was a friend of the Cuban Revolution and that he felt that the documents that he provided (that he’d lived and worked in Russia, marriage to a Russian, member of Fair Play For Cuba, letters to the USA Communist Party) should entitle him to a visa. Duran, whilst sympathetic, told him that she couldn’t grant him a visa until he got a Russian one which would take time. Oswald became so angry that she had to call for assistance from a man called Eusebio Azcue who was the former Cuban consul in Mexico. He listened to Oswald but repeated what Duran had told him - that it would take 10 to 20 days.

Azcue testified before the HSCA that the first time that he’d seen Oswald in connection with the assassination was around 2 months after the incident when he’d seen him on TV being shot by Jack Ruby an it wasn’t the same man. He described the man at the consulate as “ over 30 years of age and very thin, very thin-faced,” unlike the younger and fuller faced Oswald on TV. Azcue did admit though “ 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 the pain, it is conceivable that I might be mistaken.” When the HSCA showed Azcue the photograph of Oswald attached to the visa application he said that the man in the film more closely looked like the man in the photograph than the man he saw at the consulate, though he added: “fifteen years have gone by so it is very difficult for me to be in a position to guarantee it in a categorical form,” though he still didn’t think that the man in the photograph was the man at the consulate.

Azcue didn’t testify before the WC and it’s possible that he was influenced by Jim Garrison’s claim that there was an Oswald imposter around. Azcue however claimed that Garrison merely confirmed his opinion.


So, the reasons why it was the real Oswald……


…… Duran spent much more time with Oswald than Azcue and never wavered in her belief that the man really was Lee Harvey Oswald.


……. Alfredo Mirabal Diaz, who was training to replace Azcue and was one of only three people who saw Oswald at the consulate positively identified that the man seeking the visa was definitely Lee Harvey Oswald.


…… Oswald’s visa application bears the date stamp September 27th, 1963, the day he arrived in Mexico City. September 27th was also typed on in Spanish.


…… Duran told Oswald that he needed a photograph for his application and recommended a few places nearby. He returned on the afternoon of the same day with the photos which Duran checked to ensure they matched the man in front of her. They did. The photo is definitely Oswald.


…..CIA handwriting experts confirmed that the writing on the application. The HSCA also had their experts check the handwriting. They confirmed that it was Oswald’s.


…..Duran said that Oswald became angry and red and was almost in tears. Oswald was known to get like this when he didn’t get his own way. (This was a man who beat his wife remember)


….. Would a man trying to pass himself off as Oswald and con himself a visa really have wanted to behave like this and draw attention to himself, possibly causing them to look even closer or more unfavourably at his application?


…..The WC and the HSCA confirmed that the handwriting on the hotel register was Oswald’s


…..The owner/manager of the hotel and the maid identified the man that stayed there as Lee Harvey Oswald.


….The desk clerk and the watchman who got the guest a taxi both identified him as Lee Harvey Oswald.


…..The woman that owned the place near the hotel where the guest ate several times identified him as Lee Harvey Oswald,


…… All of the witnesses who saw him said that he was always alone.


…..In a letter to the Russian Embassy Oswald recounted the trouble that he’d had at the Cuban consulate.


…..On the 27th and the 28th Oswald also went to the Russian Embassy. The three staff that he spoke too all identified him as the man that they saw on TV being killed by Jack Ruby.


…… Oswald told his wife about his plan to go to Cuba and his trip to Mexico and the red tape problems that he had there.


… After his arrest Oswald told Postal Inspector Harry Holmes during his interrogation that he’d gone to Mexico to try to get to Cuba.


……..Duran wanted to help him even though she couldn’t at the time so she gave him her name and the consulates number on a piece of paper which was found in Oswald’s possession.


So we know that it was the real Oswald and we know why he was there and what happened.

……..

So that’s yet another one I’ve answered. Let’s have a look……have any of mine been answered?

Nope.

No reference (as usual) but it has Bugliosi stamped all over it. He tried this on Edwin Lopez here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w_v...%27sJFKChannel

Lopez was a special investigator for the House Committe on Assassinations in 77/78.
Lopez questioned Duran for hours and she admitted that she had not witnessed Oswald sign his application and could not describe even one of Oswald's physical features. There were three cameras 24/7 in the Cuban Embassy, but not one photo of Oswald.

I encourage everyone to watch that 9 minute video. Lopez worked in the CIA for a time and was fully aware of their black op capabilities. He demolishes every ambush question thrown at him by Bugliosi.

[cobalt]

So J. Edgar Hoover lied to LBJ, the new POTUS, on the evening of the assassination when he claimed Oswald had been impersonated in Mexico City?

Let us be clear. Hoover never said Oswald had not been in Mexico City at that time as Bugliosi was keen to ascertain. But he stated that Oswald had been impersonated. For what purpose? Hoover seemed to be puzzled himself. What had Bugliosi to say on this matter? I am not sure since Bugliosi seems not to have known that Oswald was a fake defector- something the Soviets established from day one in Moscow- or was an asset of the CIA- something Oswald's mother knew by 1964.

[GBinOz]

I posted that quote, with a full admittance that I couldn’t recall where it came from except that it wasn’t from Bugliosi. And very obviously because I didn’t know where it came from I had no way of verifying it’s validity. I just posted it because you asked for it. If he wasn’t a reliable witness then fine but then again I don’t just take the word of one quote that dismisses it. Maybe it’s crap, maybe there’s more to it?

A very fair and reasonable statement. It is not always possible to remember a source and it is often too time consuming to try to relocate it. We finally agree on something.

Each of our posts points to a diametrically opposite conclusion. Can't both be right, could both be wrong, so in the absence of more evidence it might be wisest to discontinue any reference to either??

[GBinOz]

The Edgewood Arsenal report was commissioned by LBJ to conduct tests on Oswald's rifle involving the effect on a bullet being shot through live goats and the wrist of a human cadaver. Below is the result of the tests involving the latter only. The effect of impact with two ribs in addition to the cadaver's wrist would be cumulative. Does anyone think that these bullets look like the magic bullet?
Source: https://www.maryferrell.org/

[FISHY1118]

The Edgewood Arsenal report was commissioned by LBJ to conduct tests on Oswald's rifle involving the effect on a bullet being shot through live goats and the wrist of a human cadaver. Below is the result of the tests involving the latter only. The effect of impact with two ribs in addition to the cadaver's wrist would be cumulative. Does anyone think that these bullets look like the magic bullet?
Source: https://www.maryferrell.org/

NO !


''Lone gunman'' believers answers to the following .



Audrey Bell was lying = yes

Audrey Bell didnt exist =yes

Audrey Bell was an idiot = yes

[FISHY1118]

The Edgewood Arsenal report was commissioned by LBJ to conduct tests on Oswald's rifle involving the effect on a bullet being shot through live goats and the wrist of a human cadaver. Below is the result of the tests involving the latter only. The effect of impact with two ribs in addition to the cadaver's wrist would be cumulative. Does anyone think that these bullets look like the magic bullet?
Source: https://www.maryferrell.org/

'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman


Never more Applicable than right here .

[Herlock Sholmes]

No reference (as usual) but it has Bugliosi stamped all over it. He tried this on Edwin Lopez here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w_v...%27sJFKChannel

Lopez was a special investigator for the House Committe on Assassinations in 77/78.
Lopez questioned Duran for hours and she admitted that she had not witnessed Oswald sign his application and could not describe even one of Oswald's physical features. There were three cameras 24/7 in the Cuban Embassy, but not one photo of Oswald.

I encourage everyone to watch that 9 minute video. Lopez worked in the CIA for a time and was fully aware of their black op capabilities. He demolishes every ambush question thrown at him by Bugliosi.

How much evidence is required? How many witnesses need to positively ID Oswald. Even when they are Cuban and Russian? You still go for one of the numerous others.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is that hard when answers are not read. As I have replied before, the answer to this question can only be speculated upon. The answers are in my long post, for which we were both pinged over moderator approval on external references, and contains all the speculative possibilities (Why do you bother quoting a post you haven't read?). I'm not posting it again because I promised JM that I would be more careful in future about such things. It contains answers, most of which rebut your claims, replete with references to WC testimony.

During many discussions on the ripper case you have fully accepted, and have often quite rightly been the one to state, that witnesses can be mistaken; especially when thinking back to make estimations. It does seem strange though George that, in the JFK case (and more specifically in the case of the identification of the package) you appear to have abandoned that belief as you are unwilling to accept the possibility of an estimation error in the case of Frazier and Randle. Ok.

You’ve quoted the WC and that’s fine of course but we are often told that a witnesses first impression is likelier to be the more accurate. Memory is fresh, time has had less time to play tricks on the memory and the witness is less likely to have been affected by other things like the opinions of others or other evidence which might cast doubt on their initial impression or images seen in subsequent photographs or on TV.

With the above in mind the following is from the FBI’s interview with Randle at the Police station on the day of the assassination.


FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Date 11/23/63

LINNIE MAE RANDLE, 2439 West Fifth Street, Irving, Texas, phone Blackburn 3-8965, was interviewed at the Dallas Police Department.

RANDLE advised that she is the sister of BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, who is employed by the Texas School Book Depository and resides at her residence, stated that she met LEE HARVEY OSWALD through her brother, and has known OSWALD and his wife for about six weeks. RANDLE advised that OSWALD's wife is MARINA OSWALD, who resides at 2515 W. Fifth, Irving, Texas, and that OSWALD spends the weekends with his wife at the above mentioned address. Her brother, WESLEY FRAZIER, customarily drives LEE HARVEY OSWALD to 2515 West Fifth, Irving, Texas, on Friday night, and takes him back to work on Monday morning. He stated that OSWALD is also employed at the Texas School Book Depository.

On the night of November 21, 1963, she observed FRAZIER letting LEE HARVEY OSWALD out of FRAZIER's car at 2515 West Fifth. Subsequently, she asked FRAZIER why OSWALD was visiting his wife on Thursday evening, as he usually did not visit her until Friday evening each week. FRAZIER told her that OSWALD claimed he was visiting his wife the night of November 21, 1963, because he is fixing up his apartment and RUTH PAINE, with whom his wife resides at 2515 West Fifth, Irving, was going to give him some curtain rods.

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.

RANDLE stated while at the Dallas Police Department on the evening of November 22, 1963, officers of the Dallas Police Department had exhibited to her some brown package paper, however she had not been able to positively identify it as being identical with the above-mentioned brown package, due to the fact she had only observed the brown package from her residence window at a distance.

on 11/22/63 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 89-43

by Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT/cah/tjd

Date dictated 11/23/63

…..

As you can see I’ve emboldened 2 parts. Firstly that Randle says that her brother had said that Oswald had told him that he was fixing up his apartment and that Marina was going to give him some curtain rods. This was confirmed by her brother of course and he also added that on the morning of the assassination Oswald told him that the package contained curtain. You would surely have to agree that it would be preposterous to suggest that these 2 people lied about such a thing? But no one on here wants to acknowledge this point and for very obvious reasons. It shows that Lee Harvey Oswald lied about this package. Why would he feel the need to lie about a package that he later claimed was just his lunch. It really couldn’t be more obvious that Oswald lied because the package contained his rifle.

Then we have Randle’s first impression of the packages length. 3 feet. If we work on the thinking that a witnesses first impression is likely to have been the more accurate then here we have it. Isn’t it possible that she subsequently reduced her estimate to be more in line with her brothers? This was the early 1960’s where, unlike today, women often deferred to men especially on things that might be labelled ‘technical.’ Might she not simply have begun to doubt herself and thought that a man’s estimate would be more likely to have been correct?

That indecision about the length of the package existed is also evident from this FBI interview (Agents Bardwell Odum and Gibbon McNeely) on 12.2.63. This is the relevant excerpt:

“Frazier designated an approximate spot on the back seat where he felt the package extended to from the right rear door and measurements by Special Agents Bardwell. C. Odum and Gibbon. E. McNeely determined that this spot was 27 inches from the inside of the right rear door, indicating that Frazier estimates that as the length of the package.”

…..

So…..

Two people with no reason to lie or with any grudge against Oswald say that he told them that he had come to the Paine’s a day earlier than usual for the purpose of collecting some curtain rods from his wife. He then said that the package in the car were the said curtain rods. He mentions curtain rods to no one else and certainly none are found at the BSDM. The package is estimated variously at 24 inches + or - a bit, 27 inches and 36 inches (to contain the disassembled rifle it needed to have been 38.6 inches long) We note that the longer estimate was from an interview on the actual day of the assassination.

Inescapable conclusion. Lee Harvey Oswald clearly lied about the contents of the package that he took from the Paine’s to the TBSD (it’s also worth recalling that the rifle, kept in Ruth Paine’s garage, was no longer there after the assassination. Frazier and Randle then underestimated the size of the package but….Randle’s initial opinion was that it was 36 inches long and Frazier immediately noticed that the package was much too large to have been Oswald’s lunch.

An innocent man wouldn’t lie. He lied because he was very clearly guilty.

[Herlock Sholmes]

'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman


Never more Applicable than right here .

Your usual level of contribution Fishy. Simply being a cheerleader for another poster. First Fisherman, then Trevor, now it’s George. Who’s turn will it be next?

[Herlock Sholmes]

A very fair and reasonable statement. It is not always possible to remember a source and it is often too time consuming to try to relocate it. We finally agree on something.

Each of our posts points to a diametrically opposite conclusion. Can't both be right, could both be wrong, so in the absence of more evidence it might be wisest to discontinue any reference to either??

Fair enough

[FISHY1118]

Your usual level of contribution Fishy. Simply being a cheerleader for another poster. First Fisherman, then Trevor, now it’s George. Who’s turn will it be next?

Yes, but as usual for you , you missed / ignored the ''Evidence ''that proves the Warren Commission lied about the Magic Bullet, and there for is wrong . Its that simple Herlock ,

No need any more for big long drawn out ''he said she said'' post that go nowhere and prove nothing .

Im in good company then as Fisherman and George are correct in the topics they discussed , Hmmmm Trevor well 50/50 on him