Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: JFK Conference: James DiEugenio made clear how Foreign Policy changed after November 22, 1963 [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)243. Newman is profound.
Oswald, the CIA and Mexico City
By John Newman, Ph.D.
Copyright ©1999 by John Newman.
All Rights Reserved.
I. The Rosetta Stone
The Assassination Records Review Board finished its search more than a year agoa search for records relating to the murder of a president thirty-six years ago. Surprisingly, the passage of time has not managed to erode or cover over all of the important evidence. On the contrary, the work of the Review Board has uncovered important new leads in the case. I will leave medical and ballistic forensics to others. I will confine myself to document forensics, an area for which the work of the board had been nothing less than spectacular. More specifically, I will confine myself to the documentary record concerning Lee Harvey Oswalds 1963 visit to Mexico City.
In 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) completed its work, including a report on Oswalds activities in Mexico written by Eddie Lopez and Dan Hardway. Our first glimpses of their report began shortly after the 1993 passage of the JFK Records Act. Not even all the redactions of those early versions could hide the seminal discoveries in that work. While Lopez couched his words in careful language, he suggested that Oswald might have been impersonated while he was in Mexico City just weeks before the assassination. Lopez was more forthright when I interviewed him about this in 1995. Armed with more CIA documents and the first Russian commentary (Nechiporenkos book, Passport to Assassination), I went further in my own Oswald and the CIA (Carroll & Graf: 1995) in advancing the argument that Oswald was impersonated in the Mexican capitol. Specifically, someone pretending to be Oswald made a series of telephone calls between 28 September and 1 October, allegedly to and from the Cuban and Soviet consulates in Mexico City.
I concluded then, that, based on the content of the CIA Mexico City telephone transcripts alone, the speaker purporting to be Oswald was probably an impostor. I will not repeat my lengthy discussion here, other than to summarize it in this way: the speakers words were incongruous with the experiences we can be reasonably certain Oswald underwent. For reasons still obscure, the CIA has lied consistently for these past several decades about the tapes from which those transcripts were made. The Agency concocted the story that the tapes were routinely destroyed before the assassination. It is perhaps true that some tapes were destroyed before the assassination. But Lopez uncovered FBI documents containing detailed accounts of how two of the tapes were listened to after the assassination by FBI agents familiar with Oswalds voice.
More evidence would come in time. Shortly after the passage of the JFK Records Act, the public gained access to a telephone transcript the day after the assassination in which FBI Director Hoover informs President Johnson that it is not Oswalds voice on the tapes. The Review Board diligently followed these leads and settled the matter when they found CIA documents in which the Agency itself explicitly states that some of the tapes were reviewed after the assassination. The CIAs continued silence on the matter of the tapes stands, like a giant beacon, pointing the way forward to the investigator. The impersonation of Oswald in Mexico by someone who drew attention to an Oswald connection to a KGB assassination officer may prove to be the Rosetta stone of this case.
Before going further, I once again pay tribute to Peter Dale Scott, who wrote of these matters as early as 1995, advancing his "Phase I-Phase II hypothesis" on largely deaf ears. I will not repeat his lengthy discussion here, other than to summarize it in this way: In Phase I, immediately after the assassination, previously planted evidence of a Cuban/Kremlin plot surfaced in Oswalds files; this, in turn, precipitated Phase II, in which a lone-nut cover-up was erected to prevent a nuclear war.
In Oswald and the CIA, I deliberately steered clear of the conspiracy-anti-conspiracy vortex in order to set out some of the facts concerning Oswalds pre-assassination files. Since then, the cumulative weight of the evidence uncovered by the Review Board has led me to the conclusion that the Oswald impersonation can best be explained in terms of a plot to murder the president. I remain open to other interpretations and fresh analyses by fellow researchers, and I understand that new evidence could corroborate or undermine this hypothesis. What follows is a first stab at explaining, in a short and simple way, how those plotting the presidents murder may have left their fingerprints in the files.
CONTINUED...
http://www.ctka.net/pr999-osciamex.html
BTW: Got a link or source for any of your allegations about John Newman, Bolo Boffin? I'd like to know who would libel a good man, a patriot and scholar.
By John Newman, Ph.D.
Copyright ©1999 by John Newman.
All Rights Reserved.
I. The Rosetta Stone
The Assassination Records Review Board finished its search more than a year agoa search for records relating to the murder of a president thirty-six years ago. Surprisingly, the passage of time has not managed to erode or cover over all of the important evidence. On the contrary, the work of the Review Board has uncovered important new leads in the case. I will leave medical and ballistic forensics to others. I will confine myself to document forensics, an area for which the work of the board had been nothing less than spectacular. More specifically, I will confine myself to the documentary record concerning Lee Harvey Oswalds 1963 visit to Mexico City.
In 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) completed its work, including a report on Oswalds activities in Mexico written by Eddie Lopez and Dan Hardway. Our first glimpses of their report began shortly after the 1993 passage of the JFK Records Act. Not even all the redactions of those early versions could hide the seminal discoveries in that work. While Lopez couched his words in careful language, he suggested that Oswald might have been impersonated while he was in Mexico City just weeks before the assassination. Lopez was more forthright when I interviewed him about this in 1995. Armed with more CIA documents and the first Russian commentary (Nechiporenkos book, Passport to Assassination), I went further in my own Oswald and the CIA (Carroll & Graf: 1995) in advancing the argument that Oswald was impersonated in the Mexican capitol. Specifically, someone pretending to be Oswald made a series of telephone calls between 28 September and 1 October, allegedly to and from the Cuban and Soviet consulates in Mexico City.
I concluded then, that, based on the content of the CIA Mexico City telephone transcripts alone, the speaker purporting to be Oswald was probably an impostor. I will not repeat my lengthy discussion here, other than to summarize it in this way: the speakers words were incongruous with the experiences we can be reasonably certain Oswald underwent. For reasons still obscure, the CIA has lied consistently for these past several decades about the tapes from which those transcripts were made. The Agency concocted the story that the tapes were routinely destroyed before the assassination. It is perhaps true that some tapes were destroyed before the assassination. But Lopez uncovered FBI documents containing detailed accounts of how two of the tapes were listened to after the assassination by FBI agents familiar with Oswalds voice.
More evidence would come in time. Shortly after the passage of the JFK Records Act, the public gained access to a telephone transcript the day after the assassination in which FBI Director Hoover informs President Johnson that it is not Oswalds voice on the tapes. The Review Board diligently followed these leads and settled the matter when they found CIA documents in which the Agency itself explicitly states that some of the tapes were reviewed after the assassination. The CIAs continued silence on the matter of the tapes stands, like a giant beacon, pointing the way forward to the investigator. The impersonation of Oswald in Mexico by someone who drew attention to an Oswald connection to a KGB assassination officer may prove to be the Rosetta stone of this case.
Before going further, I once again pay tribute to Peter Dale Scott, who wrote of these matters as early as 1995, advancing his "Phase I-Phase II hypothesis" on largely deaf ears. I will not repeat his lengthy discussion here, other than to summarize it in this way: In Phase I, immediately after the assassination, previously planted evidence of a Cuban/Kremlin plot surfaced in Oswalds files; this, in turn, precipitated Phase II, in which a lone-nut cover-up was erected to prevent a nuclear war.
In Oswald and the CIA, I deliberately steered clear of the conspiracy-anti-conspiracy vortex in order to set out some of the facts concerning Oswalds pre-assassination files. Since then, the cumulative weight of the evidence uncovered by the Review Board has led me to the conclusion that the Oswald impersonation can best be explained in terms of a plot to murder the president. I remain open to other interpretations and fresh analyses by fellow researchers, and I understand that new evidence could corroborate or undermine this hypothesis. What follows is a first stab at explaining, in a short and simple way, how those plotting the presidents murder may have left their fingerprints in the files.
CONTINUED...
http://www.ctka.net/pr999-osciamex.html
BTW: Got a link or source for any of your allegations about John Newman, Bolo Boffin? I'd like to know who would libel a good man, a patriot and scholar.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
288 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
JFK Conference: James DiEugenio made clear how Foreign Policy changed after November 22, 1963 [View all]
Octafish
Nov 2013
OP
DiEugenio is one of the most interesting guys out there still working this subject,
stranger81
Nov 2013
#1
He brought up Edmund GULLION, US diplomat whom JFK counseled in Vietnam in 1951...
Octafish
Nov 2013
#2
Thanks for the corrective to the magical, naive thinking being espoused in the OP.
stopbush
Nov 2013
#7
Kennedy increased the number of Americans in Vietnam from under a thousand to 16,000.
Spider Jerusalem
Nov 2013
#276
And you know this, how?? Were you a friend of JFK, there during his administration?
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#48
I'm going to say this again: I'm interested in discussing JFK's assassination.
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#45
Sad that so many DUers act as apologists for Oswald, the bastard that killed JFK.
stopbush
Nov 2013
#212
You acccused me of sympathizing with the killer of JFK. Either retract that or prove it. I have
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#235
If you're saying that Oswald was the killer of JFK, then sure, I'll retract it and apologize.
stopbush
Nov 2013
#236
You made an egregious accusation. There are no 'conditions' under which an apology
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#237
It's an interesting take on the Cuban Missile Crisis that JFK's real opponents were Americans.
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#44
Audio tape: LBJ urged taking "every step that we can" to support overthrow of Joao Goulart
Octafish
Nov 2013
#158
You must have missed the OP about the change in foreign policy between administrations.
Octafish
Nov 2013
#179
"The record" shows that there wasn't much change between DDE's foreign policy and JFK's FP.
stopbush
Nov 2013
#180
"little evidence that JFK would have pulled American troops out of Vietnam"
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#165
Our man Diem: How America Came To Back South Vietnam's Despised And Doomed President (by Seth Jacobs
bobthedrummer
Nov 2013
#144
Bolo Points Out That Forrestal Is Not Bundy Which Jim Appears To Be Confused About
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#254
But, wait! You didn't tell us the name of the university you mentor doctoral candidates for!
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#270
It bothers me that DiEugenio never managed to mention the university he works for.
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#277
DiEugenio said Kennedy was attacked bitterly in Washington for siding with democracy in Congo...
Octafish
Nov 2013
#18
The French had been kicked out of Vietnam for nine years when Diem was killed
alcibiades_mystery
Nov 2013
#108
"What does that have to do with the French colonialists?" Nothing, of course
YoungDemCA
Nov 2013
#110
I'm sorry. I assumed readers had a basic understanding of the history of Vietnam.
Octafish
Nov 2013
#164
Only ridiculous if you value supporting Diem, whose power came from corrupt colonialist money.
Octafish
Nov 2013
#170
Diem was a brutal tyrant supported by the US, including Kennedy, until he became inconvenient
alcibiades_mystery
Nov 2013
#172
Translation: here's a bunch of evidence-bereft CT books I've read before writing my own
stopbush
Nov 2013
#25
In the past, I've spent (wasted?) plenty of time showing you where you are wrong.
stopbush
Nov 2013
#92
Your problem is that you give way too much credence to little tidbits of opinion
stopbush
Nov 2013
#142
Have you even read Bugliosi? Be honest, because I don't see how you would make such a statement
stopbush
Nov 2013
#143
No, I haven't read his book. The great DUer H20 Man did and wrote interesting things about it.
Octafish
Nov 2013
#146
DiEugenio blasted Bill O'Reilly and his Nixon-stained GOP boss, Roger Ailes...
Octafish
Nov 2013
#22
David Talbot called Dulles, ''the Chairman of the Board of the Assassination.''
Octafish
Nov 2013
#191
That is a great question. What is this poster implying? The Conserva-Dems have been
rhett o rick
Nov 2013
#49
DiEugenio has written about the Right killing off the JFK Legacy (New Frontier), too...
Octafish
Nov 2013
#34
Re E. Howard Hunt's forged diplomatic cables tying Kennedy to the Diem assassination:
Mc Mike
Nov 2013
#73
That doesn't change the indisputable fact that Kennedy let the coup happen.
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#88
Actually, yes. What JFK wanted was different than what Pentagon, State and CIA delivered.
Octafish
Nov 2013
#135
"dozens of right wing gun nuts turned out to a restaurant in Dallas" - wasn't that incredible?
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#209
I'd say we agree on a lot of good Democratic issues, if not the one brought up by the o.p.
Mc Mike
Nov 2013
#239
"seriously deficient historically" - feel free to back that up any time now.
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#60
Chomsky: "Changes of Administration, including the Kennedy assassination, had no large-scale effect
ucrdem
Nov 2013
#61
Wow, a nation on a criminal path since November 22, 1963, and since the Gulf of Tonkin, a series of
indepat
Nov 2013
#33
You are right. I deleted my post. I just find that the obsession to lock or hide posts to
rhett o rick
Nov 2013
#75
Oh I see it. It's the conservatives that want to believe that Oswald acted alone.
rhett o rick
Nov 2013
#106
IMO those that are open-minded and willing to listen to different views are usually liberals.
rhett o rick
Nov 2013
#136
There is nothing liberal or conservative about thinking Oswald acted alone.
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#113
Not what I said at all. I said conservatives want to believe that Oswald acted alone.
rhett o rick
Nov 2013
#139
Most Democrats I know are furious the perpetrators have not been brought to justice.
Octafish
Nov 2013
#156
The perpetrator (singular) in the JFK case was Oswald. Case closed. The evidence is overwhelming.
stopbush
Nov 2013
#176
I'm not claiming there were "not conspiracies in any of the assassinations." Just in JFK's case.
stopbush
Nov 2013
#175
Everyone should read "JFK and the Unspeakable" by Jim Douglass to clear up the Cold Warrior thing.
Zen Democrat
Nov 2013
#81
Warren Commission Member John J. McCloy certainly helped to change/shape policies pre/post 11-23-63.
bobthedrummer
Nov 2013
#86
Some of US will never forget that simple fact, will we, despite what the perception managers peddle.
bobthedrummer
Nov 2013
#188
Did Sabato say anything about his study that showed the Dictabelt evidence is useless?
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#215
''Stop hijacking your own freaking OP to discuss me and get back to the topic.''
Octafish
Nov 2013
#226