Wednesday, December 31, 2014

It is December 31, the last day of 2014. And after giving it much thought, I have decided not to continue writing this blog in 2015. There are several reasons why. 

First, I have another writing project to do which is unrelated to JFK but which I am also passionate about, and my time is limited. But secondly, when it comes to JFK, my focus has always been on the Altgens photo and Oswald in the doorway because I consider it the most compelling evidence in the case. And I have never tried to embrace every aspect of the case or profess proficiency about every aspect of the case. And, with the limited focus that I have had, there probably aren't too many things left to uncover about the Altgens photo and Oswald's presence in it. 

Of course, the Oswald Innocence Campaign will continue and that includes the OIC website at http://www.oswald-innocent.com

I will continue to maintain the OIC website, and as the need arises, I will make announcements about changes on the website, such as the installation of new members, but it will be on the OIC Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Oswald-Innocence-Campaign/322459544515376   

But, I am not moving this blog there. That will just be for announcements. Likewise, I am through participating on John McAdams' forum. 

I thank everyone who has supported me. And keep in mind that there is not the slightest doubt in my mind about the rightness of this cause and the fact that we are on the right side of history. It will be common knowledge that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent and that he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots- that he was the Altgens Doorman. Will it reach universality in my lifetime? That I can't say. But, I am still very confident that it will happen, and it gives me satisfaction to know that. 

To my friends, again, I say thank you. And to my adversaries, a little decency at this time would be appreciated.  Food for thought.
And to everyone who seeks the truth, regardless of what you currently believe, good night and good luck.   






Monday, December 29, 2014

Just to take a break, here is Nat King Cole singing Nacio Herb Brown's You Stepped Into A Dream with lyrics by Gus Kahn and orchestrated by the great Nelson Riddle. This is going to be around forever. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYVRaSVUq-0

Sunday, December 28, 2014



Joseph Backes, you asked what I was advertising on Craigslist. First, I advertised for subjects to participate in the Altgens reenactment in Dealey Plaza. Then, I advertised for people to attend the OIC JFK Truth Conference in Santa Barbara. 

And if you had seen the ads, you would have known what they were and would not have had to ask. But, you didn't see the ads. What you saw were the notices I received from Craigslist about renewing the ads, and you saw those notices in the inbox of my email account. 


You hacked into my email account, Backes. Either that, or somebody else did and gave you the entry information which you used. You illegally, criminally entered my email account and saw those notices. 

And I have technical proof that my computer was hacked into and my email account information stolen. It is recorded. 

And I have filed a complaint against you with the FBI and the Internet Crime Complaint Center. And I have spoken to an agent at the FBI, who has been very nice and very supportive, and I am now going to forward him your latest rant so that he can see who and what you are. And I am doing more than that, Backes, which I won't reveal at this time. But, I am going to put this up on all the places I blog so that the world knows what a vicious, evil scumbag you are. Researcher? Don't honor yourself with the title, Backass. You're not a researcher. You are just a wretched wicked traitor to the cause of JFK truth.  

Backes actually accused me of collaborating with David Reitzes just because I obtained some information from his website. But, that is not collaborating. Information is information, and if it's true information, if it's valid, it doesn't matter where it came from. The source doesn't determine the validity of something. If it's factual information which can be confirmed, and which the rational mind finds compelling, then it stands on its own merit, regardless of where it's found or who cited it. 

But, collaborating with Oswald accusers is what Backes does, day-in and day-out, such as when he had the the back of Hank Sienzant, also known as Joe Zircon, one of the many Ops on Amazon forum who are working the cover-up there in earnest.   



Yes, Sienzant is a rabid Oswald accuser and defender of the Warren Report, but Backes has got his back. And collaborating with bpete, who has Oswald "locking and loading" on the 6th floor is what Joseph Backes does all the time. What you do: THAT is collaborating, Backes. Remember, your lads? You said it was a pleasure working with them. 

And what it shows is that they are working the JFK cover-up as fiercely today in 2015 as they were in 1964, with some Ops posed as LNs but a great many posed as CTs. And that's because they know that it's CTs that they have to influence. They know they can't destroy or defeat the conspiracy movement, but if they can dampen its strongest evidence, such as Oswald in the doorway, and particularly Oswald in the doorway, then at least they can kick the can down the road a while and keep the official story from collapsing- immediately. So yes, there are a lot of phony CTs out there doing damage control. 

The fact is that it is utterly ludicrous and preposterous for anyone to deny Oswald in the doorway in light of all the evidence- including compelling photographic evidence- that we have compiled. 

And that's why they resort to crimes, including internet crimes, because they are that desperate.  And so help me, they won't hesitate to kill again if they deem it necessary. How many have they killed so far? How many did they kill in the 1960s to silence JFK truth? How many did they kill in association with the Garrison investigation, such as David Ferrie? How many did they kill in association with the HSCA, such as Billy Lovelady, George DeMohrenschildt, David Sanchez Morales, and Richard Case Nagell? How many FBI agents died mysteriously during the HSCA? It was quite a few. And how many did they kill during the AARB, including probably James Altgens? And I'm sure that killing Ralph Cinque has crossed their minds and may be in the works. And I live with the reality of that possibility every day of my life. 

But, one thing is absolutely certain: the official story of the JFK assassination is going down. It will not endure. It will not survive. The truth about that dastardly crime will become public knowledge. And I'm not talking about them faking a bus ride and cab ride for Oswald. That's just a stupid mind-game of the imbecilic, cast as noise- a numbing distraction. I am talking about the fact that Oswald was a completely innocent patsy who was set up to take the fall for killing Kennedy shortly after he returned from Russia.   

We all know how this is going to end, and there isn't a smidgen of doubt about it: Oswald innocent; Oswald in the doorway; and as the Altgens Doorman. It shall prevail, despite the vile crimes of the bloodied. 


  



This is from the famous compilation of Oswald statements by Mae Brussells. It shows that Oswald denied going to Mexico City, saying that he had only been to Tijuana. 

2:25 - 4:04 P.M. Interrogation of Oswald, Office of Capt Will Fritz

"My name is Lee Harvey Oswald. . . . I work at the Texas School Book Depository Building. . . . I lived in Minsk and in Moscow. . . . I worked in a factory. . . . I liked everything over there except the weather. . . . I have a wife and some children. . . . My residence is 1026 North Beckley, Dallas, Tex." Oswald recognized FBI agent James Hosty and said, "You have been at my home two or three times talking to my wife. I don't appreciate your coming out there when I was not there. . . . I was never in Mexico City. I have been to Tijuana. . . . Please take the handcuffs from behind me, behind my back. . . . I observed a rifle in the Texas School Book Depository where I work, on Nov. 20, 1963. . . . Mr. Roy Truly, the supervisor, displayed the rifle to individuals in his office on the first floor. . . . I never owned a rifle myself. . . . I resided in the Soviet Union for three years, where I have many friends and relatives of my wife. . . . I was secretary of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans a few months ago. . . . While in the Marines, I received an award for marksmanship as a member of the U.S. Marine Corps. . . . While living on Beckley Street, I used the name 0. H. Lee. . . . I was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building, I have been employed there since Oct. 15, 1963. . . As a laborer, I have access to the entire building. . . . My usual place of work is on the first floor. However, I frequently use the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh floors to get books. I was on all floors this morning. . . . Because of all the confusion, I figured there would be no work performed that afternoon so I decided to go home. . . . I changed my clothing and went to a movie. . . . I carried a pistol with me to the movie because I felt like it, for no other reason. . . . I fought the Dallas Police who arrested me in the movie theater where I received a cut and a bump. . . . I didn't shoot Pres. John F. Kennedy or Officer J. D. Tippit. . . . An officer struck me, causing the marks on my left eye, after I had struck him. . . . I just had them in there," when asked why he had bullets in his pocket.


Of course, Officialdom doesn't say that Oswald went to Mexico City to deliver a bio-weapon to kill Castro. Officialdom says he went there to obtain a Cuban visa and also a Russian one because his heart longed to return to a Communist land. 

It's interesting that they couldn't get Marina to say that Oswald went to Mexico City. She always denied it.

And here is someone else who denies it, JFK researcher Michael Swanson.  This was written in 1994, but Michael is still active. The bottom line of this article (literally) is that it's just a myth that Oswald went to Mexico City. 

Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City

Copyright © 1994 by Michael Swanson

Probably the most controversial event in the life of Lee Harvey Oswald preceding the assassination of President Kennedy is his trip to Mexico City during late September and early October of 1963.
Officially, we are told Oswald traveled to Mexico City and visited the Soviet and Cuban consulates so that he could travel to Cuba and then on to the Soviet Union. However, there is much evidence that Oswald did not visit these consulates, but someone else impersonating him did. One proponent of this theory is Philip Melanson who writes, "Whatever he did in Mexico City, whatever he thought his mission was, he was being impersonated while he was there: someone flitted between the Cuban and Soviet consulates posing as a desperate Oswald. If Oswald was directed to Mexico by his handlers so that he could be set up, then someone was working to create for him an image of motive and madness for the impending assassination of the President."[1] However, other authors such as Gerald Posner, who promote the idea that there was no conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy, claim that it was indeed Oswald who visited these consulates.
Oswald's trip to Mexico City starts out strange at its preliminary stages. When Oswald applied for a visa to travel to Mexico the man who stood in line in front of him was William Gaudet, an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). In his own words Gaudet claims that he ran "errands" for the CIA. Gaudet testified to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) that the fact that Oswald got his visa right after him was simply a "coincidence".[2] Gaudet worked in New Orleans and in interviews he has claimed that he saw Oswald hand out Fair Play for Cuba Committee leaflets in front of the New Orleans Trade Mart. Gaudet also has claimed that he knew that Oswald worked for Guy Banister and David Ferrie.[3] Both men where important figures in the Jim Garrison investigation. It is not surprising that Gaudet would know this information because he worked in an office at 544 Camp Street.[4] Guy Banister held his office at 544 Camp Street and it is the same address that Oswald stamped on his pro-Castro pamphlets.
After obtaining his visa, Oswald boarded a bus and traveled to Mexico City. His fellow passengers remembered that he was quite talkative, in contrast to the mad loner portrayed by such people as Gerald Posner. He struck up a conversation with two Australian girls who later remembered that he sat next to an Englishman who told them that he was a retired school teacher who had taught in India and Arabia.[5]
The Warren Commission located this man who identified himself as John Howard Bowen. They found that he was lying and that his actual name was Albert Osborne. Osborne denied having sat next to Oswald, but the Warren Commission found his answers to their questions "inconsistent and untrue."[6]
Osborne is one of the many bizarre characters to enter the life of Lee Harvey Oswald. Osborne traveled around the United States selling rugs and then settled down in Mexico in 1939 after claiming to be an ordained Baptist minister. During WWII Osborne was found by the FBI to be a fanatical supporter of Adolf Hitler.[7]
It also seems that Osborne was not the only person to use the alias Bowen. A co-worker of Oswald, John Grossi, who was an assistant art director at the Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall company, used the alias Jack Bowen.
Another possible person who used the Bowen alias was David Ferrie. After the assassination Ferrie learned that the FBI was looking for him because his name was on Oswald's library card. Ferrie turned himself in and was let go after he denied knowing anything about the card. This is puzzling because on the only known library card that the FBI had Oswald used the name Bowen as a reference and not Ferrie. It's possible that Ferrie used the name Bowen as an alias on the card and someone in the FBI knew this.[8]
Also, Lee Harvey Oswald used the name Osborne when he ordered his Fair Play Cuba Committee literature. The real Albert Osborne left from Mexico City to Texas a day after Oswald did. He also left the United States for Spain and Italy nine days after the assassination.[9]
When he reached Mexico City, Oswald allegedly visited the Cuban and Soviet embassies were he attempted to once again defect to the Soviet Union. As mentioned before, this matter has been a bone of contention between Warren Commission defenders and critics who believe it was not Oswald, but an imposter who visited the two embassies. The Warren Commission did very little to investigate the matter itself. According to the HSCA "The Warren Report limited its discussion of Oswald's contacts with the Soviet and Cuban diplomatic missions to information obtained from Sylvia Duran and the Cuban Government."[10]
Duran was an employee of the Cuban Consulate. The Warren Report also claimed that her information was confirmed by "confidential sources of extremely high reliability." [11] But the HSCA found that the Warren Commission "did not print anything in the twenty-six volumes of evidence to support its statement that Sylvia Duran's testimony was confirmed by "confidential sources of extremely high reliability." [12] Despite the claims of Warren Commission defenders, such as Gerald Posner, the information from Sylvia Duran goes far from proving that Oswald was the one who visited the embassies.
The HSCA placed two of its best investigators, Edwin Lopez and Dan Hardway, in charge of investigating the adventures of Oswald in Mexico City. They penned a report for the HSCA titled Lee Harvey Oswald, The CIA, & Mexico City (referred to in the footnotes as The Lopez Report), which for many years was classified for reasons of "national security." The report was so super-secret that it had to be written in a super-secure security room. Even though it has been declassified a great deal of the report is still blanked out by CIA censors. Despite the censorship it still helps to provide a better picture than has ever been provided before of what actually happened in Mexico City.
A man claiming to be Oswald visited the Cuban embassy and requested an "in-transit" visa to allow him to travel through Cuba and on to the Soviet Union. He was informed by Sylvia Duran that he would have to obtain a visa to enter the USSR before such a visa would be granted. Then this man also contacted the Soviet Embassy by phone and in person.
This individual, during these encounters with embassy personal, put on a vivid display of leftism. He frantically talked about returning to the Soviet Union. He also displayed Communist material to prove his commitment to Castro's Cuba. He became so arrogant and persistent in getting visas that Cuban consul Eusebio Azcue got in a shouting match with him.[13]
Sylvia Duran, remarried as Ms. Tirado, testified that:
Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Cuban Consulate three times on September 27, 1963, not twice as the Warren Commission previously reported. Oswald first visited the Cuban Consulate at approximately 11:00 a.m., requesting an intransit visa to Cuba with Russia as the final destination. He showed her some documents, then left to obtain photographs needed for his application.
Oswald returned at approximately 1:00 p.m. with four photographs. Ms. Tirado typed the application in duplicate, stapled a picture on top of each and had Oswald sign each in her presence. As identification, Oswald showed her documents he had brought: his Russian labor card, marriage certificate with the name of his Russian wife, his American Communist Party membership card and his Fair Play for Cuba membership card.
Ms. Tirado found Lee Harvey Oswald's behavior suspicious because normally a Communist traveled only with his passport as belonging to the Communist Party was illegal in Mexico, and Oswald flashed his Communist Pary card to her.
There was a procedure whereby the American Communist Party would arrange matters for their members with the Cuban Communist Party. The American would then come to Mexico, visit the Cuban Consulate, and receive his visa immediately. When Tirado asked Oswald why he did not have the American Communist Party arrange his trip to Cuba, he stated that he had not had the time.
After explaining to Oswald that he had to acquire a Russian visa before he could receive a Cuban visa, Tirado jotted her name and business number on a piece of paper and gave it to Oswald who had left to get his Russian visa.
Oswald returned to the Cuban Consulate between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., which was after normal working hours. The guard called Tirado, stating that someone who did not speak Spanish was at the gate inquiring about a visa. As routine procedure, she asked the guard to escort the individual to her office. Oswald told her that he had acquired a Russian visa. Since he did not produce it when asked, she called the Russian Consulate. The Consul told Duran that Oswald had been to the Consulate requesting a visa and had been told that the reply would take approximately four months. When she relayed the message to Oswald, he got very upset, insisting that as a person who had been in jail because of the Cuban Revolution he should receive a visa. Oswald stated that he could not wait that long because his Mexican visa expired in three days. At this point, Ms. Tirado informed Consul Eusebio Azcue of the situation. Azcue had been in his private office which he shared with the man who would soon replace him, Alfredo Mirabal Diaz. Azcue politely explained the requisites for an intransit visa to Oswald. When he realized that Oswald was a stubborn man he told Oswald that he was obviously not a friend of the Cuban revolution because he would otherwise understand that Cuba had to be extremely careful with the people it allowed in the country. Azcue and Oswald yelled at each other. Then Azcue went to the door, opened it and asked Oswald to leave. Oswald did not revisit or telephone the Consulate. Ms. Tirado described the man identifying himself as Lee Harvey Oswald as approximately five feet six, with sparse blond hair, weighing about 125 pounds.[14]
The real Oswald had brown hair and was not a member of the Communist party and thus had no Communist Party membership card. In 1979 Ms. Duran spent several hours with Anthony Summers viewing footage of the real Lee Harvey Oswald. She concluded that the real Oswald was "not like the man I saw here in Mexico City."[15]
However, Alfredo Mirabal Diaz testified that the man was actually Oswald, although he said that he "caught only glimpses of the man" and that he felt his visit "was a case of provocation."[16]
Eusebio Azcue, who argued with Oswald, claimed that Oswald "was not the same individual who had visited the Cuban Consulate in 1963." He described the man as "a white male, between 5'6" and 5'7", over 30 years of age, very thin long face, with straight eyebrows and a cold look in his eyes. He also said the man had blond hair.[17] Azcue alleged that he would never have identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who visited the Cuban Consulate in 1963."[18]
So two out of three of the Cuban Consulate personnel claim that the man who visited the embassy was not Oswald. The one man who says it was only got a few fleeting glimpses of him.
After the assassination, the CIA Mexico City Station requested the Mexican government to arrest Sylvia Duran.[19]
They did and released her on November 24. On November 27 they arrested her again. The next day the CIA Headquarters sent a cable to the Mexico City Station ordering them "to insure that neither Sylvia Duran nor the Cubans would have any basis for believing that the Americans were behind her rearrest." The cable stated, "We want the Mexican authorities to take responsibility for the whole affair."[20]
While she was arrested the Mexican authorities beat her "until she admitted that she had an affair with Lee Harvey Oswald."[21] They also got her to sign a statement which they forwarded on to the CIA Mexico City Station. According to the Lopez Report,

Upon learning about the assassination she and her husband speculated that President Kennedy might have been assassinated for racial reasons. Then she became aware that the assassin was Lee Harvey Oswald, she ascertained that it was the same man who approximately two months prior had been to the Cuban Consulate to solicit an intransit visa to Russia...She checked the data in the Consulate archives and became certain that it was the same individual who was blonde, short, dressed inelegantly, and whose face turned red when angry.[22]

When the Warren Commission convened, the CIA provided this statement to prove that Oswald visited the Cuban embassy, but "had deleted Duran's description of Oswald as blonde and short."[23] The Warren Commission relied on this statement and used it as the sole evidence that Oswald visited the Cuban embassy. The HSCA found that "Sylvia Duran's description of Oswald did not resemble Oswald's true physical appearance. This description, which appeared early in the reporting of information obtained from Ms. Duran was deleted from subsequent reports and was not at all mentioned in the Warren Report."[24] The Warren Commission based the fact that Oswald visited the Cuban embassy on a lie. Gerald Posner, because of either naivety or knavery, also used this statement to claim that Ms. Duran "positively identified the visitor as Oswald" in his book Case Closed.[25]
Although most of the Cuban embassy personnel claim that they did not meet Oswald, two other witnesses did. One such person is Elena Garro de Paz. She claimed to have seen Oswald at a party with "two-other beatnik-looking boys."[26] The HSCA was unable to prove or disprove her story.
A more serious claim was that of a reporter named Oscar Contreras. In 1967, he told the American Consul in Tampico a story of meeting a man who called himself Lee Harvey Oswald. "The reporter alleged that he and some fellow students had met Lee Harvey Oswald as they exited the Cineclub at the Escuela de Filosofia at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Oswald told the group that he had gone to the National Autonomous University of Mexico looking for pro-Castro students who might help him persuade the Cuban Embassy to grant him a visa. Oswald claimed that he was from California and was a member of a pro-Castro group in New Orleans."[27] Contreras was very suspicious of this man and wondered how he was able to pick him and the students out as leftists. Contreras was five-foot nine and remembered that this Oswald was short enough that he could look down on him. Contreras also recalled that this man was over thirty years old. The real Oswald was five-foot nine and in his twenties.[28] The real Oswald was five-foot-nine, too.
The CIA decided to investigate the Contreras story when the Garrison investigation broke out. But according to a CIA dispatch its motive was to "confirm that several of Garrison's allegations about involvement of anti-Castro Cubans, the CIA, etc. are false."[29]
Oswald also visited the Soviet embassies and in contrast to the personnel at the Cuban Consulate, KGB officials there have recently claimed that it was indeed Oswald who visited them.
One of these KGB officers, Oleg Nechiporenko, has written a book titled Passport to Assassination, in which he claims that it was indeed Oswald who visited the embassy. However, several statements by KGB officers at the Soviet Embassy came out right at the perfect time close to the anniversary of the assassination and the US media fixation of Gerald Posner and the Warren Report. It is difficult to take the statements of these KGB officers at face value, especially when there is much contradictory evidence, and because of recent KGB propaganda ploys to curry favor with the United States. A recent such ploy was the KGB report that American MIA's from Vietnam were used by a North Vietnamese official in slave labor camps. The document was exposed as a forgery by the CIA, ironically. Also Nechiporenko's story has been duplicated by Nikolai Leonnov, except Leonnov claims that the visit was one day later and that he was the only person to receive Oswald. Nechiporenko also described the Oswald he met as wearing shabby clothes.[30] The Cuban embassy photograph depicts him as wearing a tie and sweater in a clean-cut fashion. In the final analysis KGB officers, and intelligence officers of other nations, have been known to lie or spread what they call disinformation. To take their statements at face value is naive. However, such statements can be used if it backs hard evidence to come to a conclusion. These statements do not.
Tape recordings were made by the CIA Mexico City station of conversations between the man who called himself Oswald and Soviet embassy personnel. Transcripts of these conversations were also made. On the 9/28 transcript is the notation that the individual spoke in "hardly recognizable Russian."[31] The real Lee Harvey Oswald spoke Russian quite well. Unfortunately these tapes have vanished. David Phillips, who was in charge of photo surveillance at Mexico City CIA Station, stated that the tapes were "routinely destroyed" before the assassination.[32] However, the HSCA concluded that based on cable traffic from Mexico City to Langley CIA headquarters "after the assassination raised a possibility that at least one tape of Oswald's voice existed as late as 16 October 1963." Warren Commission staff lawyer W. David Slawson has claimed to have listened to these very tapes.[33] His belief that the tapes existed after the assassination is shared by the CIA Chief of Branch responsible for Mexico City who testified that he "believed the tapes did exist after the time of the assassination."[34] Also, David Belin, another Warren Commission staffer and longtime defender of its conclusions, said in an interview with Ted Koppel on Nightline, "The Warren Commission had access to the tape."[35] Then why was the tape said to be destroyed before the assassination by the CIA?
The CIA forwarded photographs from surveillance cameras of the individual calling himself Oswald to the Warren Commission. When it was discovered that the man in the pictures was not Oswald, the CIA claimed that it was a mistake and that they did not have a picture of the man at all. David Phillips testified that the cameras were not in operation at the time Oswald visited. However, based on CIA cables HMMA-22307, HMMA-2433, and MEXT 9940 the HSCA was forced to conclude "that it is probable that the pulse camera was in operation on the days that Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Cuban Consulate."[36] The Cuban government also lent to doubt of the CIA's claims by supplying pictures taken by their spies showing the cameras in operation during the time in question.[37]Again, David Phillips testified to something that was not true.
"A retired CIA employee who was Deputy Chief of Mexico City Station from 1967 to 1969, told the HSCA staff that he had seen a file on Oswald in Mexico City that contained only one or two transcripts and surveillance photographs of Oswald." He "also told HSCA staff investigators that Win Scott [Chief of CIA Mexico City Station] had a private personal safe in which he maintained especially sensitive materials....these materials were removed from the safe by James Angleton at the time of Scott's death."[38]
In this safe was an unpublished manuscript by Win Scott titled It Came to Little. In it Scott wrote about Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City: "These visits and conversations were not hearsay; for persons watching these embassies photographed Oswald as he entered and left each one; and clocked the time he spent on each visit."[39] Officially this did not happen.
As already mentioned, James Angleton took these alleged photographs from Mr. Scott's desk after he died. He also took this manuscript. In order to do so, he visited Mr. Scott's family before his funeral and threatened that he wanted the manuscript or else "we have ways of getting it from you." [40] The photographs and audio tapes of the man calling himself Oswald were shanghaied by James Angleton. Since Angleton is now dead their current location is unknown.
They could prove conclusively whether or not the person who visited the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City or if an imposter did. A released FBI memo signed by J. Edgar Hoover on November 23, 1963 states:


The Central Intelligence Agency advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source reported that an individual identified himself as Lee Harvey 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 to above and have listened to a recording of his voice. These Special Agents are of the opinion that the above referenced- to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald.[41]
If the man was not Oswald, then who was he? An analysis of the evidence seems to support the theory that someone was impersonating Oswald in order to paint Oswald as a dangerous Communist fanatic. It does seem that CIA agents David Phillips and James Angleton had a role in these events because of their need to repeatedly intervene in order to protect the myth that Oswald visited the embassies.

Saturday, December 27, 2014

This concerns the whole claim about Oswald being a secret agent working on a bio-weapon with which to kill Castro and then smuggling it into Mexico AND at the same time being an undercover agent and informant in the JFK assassination. Is there any truth to either story? I say no, and Oswald's own words tells us so. 

Here is an incontrovertible point that weighs heavily on the whole matter: OSWALD DID NOT SAY ANYTHING TO AUTHORITIES ABOUT ANY OF THE CLAIMS THAT JUDYTH MAKES.

Don't you think that after he was arrested and charged with two murders, and after he realized that he was framed, that he would have told them everything? About his activities for the CIA?  If he was working for the CIA to create a bio-weapon to kill Castro, why wouldn't he tell them? If he also worked as an undercover agent to infiltrate the JFK assassination plot and be an informant, why didn't he tell them that? What was he waiting for?

And we know he didn't tell them any of that, and here's how we know: BECAUSE AUTHORITIES WERE WILLING TO PUT HIM IN FRONT OF WORLD MICROPHONES. They never would have done that if he had been telling them anything really damaging or revealing. And what did he say to the world when he got the chance? All he said was this:

"I really don't know what this situation is about. Nobody has told me anything... except that I am accused of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that. I do request that someone come forward to give me legal assistance."

If you are an Oswald defender, do you have any reason to think that he was lying when he said that? Watch him saying it, and see if he looks and sounds sincere.  I think he does. 


How could he possibly know all the things that Judyth Baker claims and say nothing about them? When was he going to speak up? When they were strapping him into the electric chair?

And as I have said repeatedly, Oswald never went to Mexico City. Mark Lane says he didn't go there, and Oswald himself said he didn't go. Now, if Oswald, on behalf of the CIA, went to Mexico City to deliver a bio-weapon to kill Castro, why wouldn't he tell Dallas Police? Why would he lie to them about that? It wasn't a bad thing; it was a good thing. So, why wouldn't he tell them? It's because he didn't go there, and he wasn't going to lie by saying that he did.  Yet, Judyth insists he went there to deliver a bio-weapon. But, if she is wrong about that, what else is she wrong about?

I just finished reading Dr. Mary's Monkey by Edward Haslam, and about half the book is devoted to Judyth Baker. He claims that in the early 70s there was someone else in New Orleans claiming to be Judyth Baker whom he met, but she wasn't the Judyth that we know. So yes, believe it or not, we've gone from Oswald doubles and Marguerite doubles to Judyth doubles. 

But, Haslam is definitely a Judyth Baker supporter, meaning the one we know, and he quite thoroughly related her story and just as she presented it. I don't think he came up with any corroborations of his own. But, he made a remark that I find interesting and very telling. He relayed how Lee and Judyth lived close to each other in New Orleans, and they boarded the same bus every morning and rode to work at the Reilly Coffee Company. Lee got on first because of where he lived, and then Judyth got on. And Haslam said that they sat next to each other on the bus and held hands. 

Held hands? Now, that struck me as odd because they were both, supposedly, secret agents, right? And secret agents know about the need to be discreet, right? Considering that they were both married to other people, why would they hold hands out in public? It would only take one wrong person to see them, and it could have compromised everything. Wouldn't they have been discreet about their relationship on a public bus? 

But, the remark that Haslam made that struck me as funny is that since they did that every day going to work, that the bus driver must have gotten used to seeing them together and could recognize them and could probably confirm that they acted very cozy and romantic, and that this would be evidence of their relationship. 

Well, I couldn't agree more that a bus driver recalling Lee and Judyth holding hands on the bus- regularly or even once- would be very impressive evidence of their relationship. But, the problem is that there is no such bus driver. So, your clever point actually argues 180 degrees opposite to what you're saying, Mr. Haslam. What we have is the absence of any such bus driver. I don't think you thought it through. 

How much of Judyth's story actually reaches the threshold of solid evidence? The only thing I know of is the fact that Judyth did work at the Reilly Coffee Company as a secretary from May until July 1963. There is documentation to support that. 



  
Here is an interview of President and Doctor Bashar al-Assad of Syria. He isn't a terrorist. He is fighting terrorists, and as he says, they are "proxies" for the US and the West. 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdH4JKjVRyA#t=97
I wrote to John Hankey to applaud him for his brilliant film, The Assassination of JFK Jr., and he responded. Then I responded to him again, and I'll let you read the exchange. Know that John Hankey is both a brilliant and courageous researcher. Really, I think he is one of the heroes of the whole movement, and he is #1 in the world when it comes to John F. Kennedy Jr.  

John Hankey:

Thanks Ralph. Always glad to hear from you, but with such nice words it is especially sweet.

I am conducting a narrow survey among people whose brains I respect. As I am sure you know, Larry Rivera and many others have worked to put together a really incontrovertible case about the limousine having come to a stop, and therefore that the Zapruder film has been very extensively altered. But the killers left in a very overt, and dramatic shot from the knoll. Given the years that passed before anyone, outside the highest levels of the government, was able to view the film, this inclusion of a shot from the knoll must be viewed as deliberate. For me, one of the absolutely central questions that must be answered, if we are to learn anything of any significance from John Kennedy's death, is: "to what purpose?". Why did they leave in the shot from the front? What are they hoping to achieve? So far I have not received a response from anyone, so any response would be appreciated.

John


Ralph Cinque:

That's a good question, John, and the best answer I can come up with is that they left in the "back and to the left" head movement simply because they couldn't get rid of it. If they had gotten rid of it, they'd have had nothing to replace it with. It would have left an obvious hole in the film. And to try concoct a different movement for his body just wasn't possible. I don't know if it's even possible today, but it definitely wasn't possible then.

Remember also that they never intended to release the Zapruder film to the public. The mere fact that it wasn't shown to the public until 1975 tells you that they didn't want to do it.

I don' t know if you have read Head Shot by G. Paul Chambers, the Navy physicist, but he explains how the Laws of Physics dictate that the fatal head shot must have come from the Grassy Knoll.

John, it has reached the point of farce for anybody to claim that Oswald killed Kennedy. The power of officialdom is the only thing holding the preposterous story up. Cheers, Ralph 
No, Backes. To be precise, they added 4 people to the Altgens photo, and they are: Black Tie Man who was crammed next to Oswald, Roy Lewis who was placed below him, and the Woman and Boy who were placed in front of Fedora Man. And that's it. 



And note that some of the detail that we see above must have been added afterwards. For instance, on Black Tie Man, we actually see the line of his shirt collar above. But, take a look at the AP version that Robin Unger put up:

https://app.box.com/s/j60z96v2b4kqo1ruh7ud

When you get there, use the + icon to telescope in, and you can make it as large as you want. This is the AP's version, and it's their photo, and it goes to show that even in their photo, the resolution isn't there. It never was. There was some enhancing done after the fact just to make that guy look photographic. 



Think about how far Altgens was away, and think about how poor the resolution was overall. Do you really think that Altgens would have captured the distinction of that collar? I assure you he didn't. That's just photoshopping. If you look at Black Tie Man as he actually looks in the photo- and I have the actual physical photo from AP; I paid $60 for it- all you see are two white stripes. It is extremely crude.  

And a lot of people, when asked, don't even take Black Tie Man's image as that of a human being. Above you do, but again, that's because it's doctored; it is enhanced.

Black Tie Man wasn't there. He is overlapping Doorman's shoulder in an impossible manner, and I mean that it is both physically and photographically impossible. On the right below, you see how Doorman was before they pasted Black Tie Man in there. 


  
And on the left, you can see that Doorman is not anatomical. That is an impossible anatomical configuration. He is a freak.  

Friday, December 26, 2014

You can watch and listen to the interview of Police Inspector JH Sawyer here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrPhED9YhlE





We know now that he was the police officer talking to the Oswald-like figure after the assassination in the Three Tramps photo.






You know, anyway you look at this, it stinks. Because even if you want to claim that there was someone else there who just happened to look like and be dressed like Oswald, how would Sawyer know that? Why didn't he have a Roger Craig reaction that he saw Oswald OR at least may have seen him? How come he didn't say a word about this? I still think the man talking to him was Oswald.  

In his film, The Assassination of John F. Kennedy Jr., John Hankey alleges that George W. Bush was involved in the murder. And John Hankey is not the only one who says so.  

It's based on the fact that George W. Bush went missing the weekend of JFK Jr.'s death. He was seen flipping pancakes at an Iowa eatery on the Friday, and then he didn't surface again until the Monday. A nervous spokeswoman of his had to express his condolences to the press over the weekend without providing any clue as to his whereabouts. But, there were witnesses who saw Bush and his father at the small New Jersey airport with two Mossad agents in advance of JFK Jr's flight. Here is how investigative reporter Tom Flocco put it:

"Two witnesses said they saw George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush at the Essex County, New Jersey airport with Israeli Mossad agent Michael Harari and another Mossad agent who were both seen standing next to JFK Jr.’s Cessna--all four were at the airport just two days before the doomed plane took off with JFK Jr., his pregnant wife and her sister."

But, my point is that there was a big difference between killing JFK and killing JFK Jr.- in terms of justification. To the plotters in the JFK assassination, JFK was perceived as a traitor. I really think they looked upon his murder as the execution of a traitor during war. The penalty for treason is death. And according to them, Kennedy appeased Castro, where instead of deposing him at the Bay of Pigs, he paid him off millions of dollars, in humiliation of our country. Kennedy also conducted unauthorized negotiations with Khrushchev about disarmament. And Kennedy's whole drive to end the Cold War with the Soviets was perceived by them as treason.

So, when they killed JFK, even though he was a family man with a beautiful wife and two young adoring children, they justified it on the basis of "national security." And that is why OIC senior member Vincent Salandria characterizes JFK's execution as a "national security event." 

But, fast-forward to the killing of JFK Jr. What had he done? And it's not that I am saying that I think there was anything traitorous about what JFK did, but I can at least understand how Cold Warriors might perceive his actions that way. 

But, in the case of JFK Jr., what had he done that could possibly be construed as deserving the death penalty? There was nothing! Not by the wildest stretches of the imagination could his murder be justified as punishment for traitorous acts. There was no remote way to frame any of JFK Jr.'s actions, at any time in his life, as disloyal to the United States. 

And at least when they murdered his father, they went out of their way to avoid killing or harming his wife. But, with JFK Jr., there was no such courtesy. That is, his pregnant wife. 

My point is that when it came to the raw evil of it, there weren't even any mind games they could play to justify it.  They knew exactly what they were doing and what it represented.  It was pure gangsterism. They couldn't dress it up as a patriotic act, as duty to one's country, as I'm sure they did the first time. This was just the case of a crime gone wrong in which they had to double-down 36 years later by killing the son of the man they killed in 1963. 


  

Thursday, December 25, 2014

I am very pleased with this concise statement I thought of:

The state murder of JFK Jr. is proof of the state murder of JFK. 

You know from watching Hankey's movie that JFK Jr. was murdered. It was no accident. He contacted the Tower in Martha's Vineyard at 9:39. At that point, he was just minutes away from landing. But then, his plane disappeared, and they quickly issued a statement that there was never any contact. They didn't even have the decency to announce that their previous statement was "inoperative".  It was like they never made it. In other words, it was right out of Orwell. 

Then, they delayed the start of a search for many hours. They did nothing. Even when Senator Ted Kennedy called the FAA at 11:30 PM, they still wouldn't do a thing.  Then another Kennedy relative, out of desperation, called the Coast Guard at 2:15 AM. But then, the Air Force stepped in and neutralized any effective action by the Coast Guard. Finally, Ted Kennedy called the White House and woke up Clinton. That was at 7 AM the next morning. And Clinton ordered the Air Force to start searching. And they searched alright: they sent two planes and two helicopters to cover an area of over 20,000 square miles. The man was about to land at Martha's Vineyard for Christ's sake! Yet, the Air Force had them searching this vast expanse for the next 5 and 1/2 hours. But, they already knew from the radar reports that the plane made a sudden plunge 19 miles off Martha's Vineyard! But, they actually waited until a piece of Carolyn Bisset's luggage washed up on the shore of Martha's Vineyard before they started looking around there!

Look: Why would they want to kill JFK Jr.? And not just want to kill him but actually do it, actually go through with it. Two reasons jump out: 1) he was just entering the serious political phase of his life, and it was obvious that he was going to be a powerhouse; and not just because of his status as a Kennedy and the son of JFK, but because, on his own right, and as his own man, the public loved him immensely. He was going to be the Republican Party's worst nightmare. But 2) John was already delving seriously into assassination research. He did a detailed interview of Oliver Stone; he covered the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in more depth than any establishment media; and, he was planning to cover Attorney William Pepper's wrongful death lawsuit concerning Martin Luther King, which was upcoming in Memphis. With that much interest in assassinations, how long would it have been before JFK Jr. blew the roof off the official story of his father's assassination? And 3) what if he actually became President? And it wasn't far-fetched. He was talking about running for New York Senator, and he would have won that as handily as his Uncle Robert did. In fact more so, because unlike RFK, he actually lived in New York for a long time and was a favorite son of the city of New York. How could he possibly have lost?  And once he became a Senator, he could have conceivably ran for President before he even finished his first term. And if not then, if it took a little longer, so what? He was young! He had plenty of time.

They just couldn't take the chance that JFK Jr. would blast the official story of JFK to the high heavens. They had to kill him because they very well knew the truth about what they did to his father.  And they also had no doubt that he would succeed. Yes;


The state murder of JFK Jr. is proof of the state murder of JFK. 
  

Howard Blenner is doing some good work over on McAdams' forum. He put up these images of Oswald. On the right is from Dallas; center is from New Orleans when he was 9 pounds heavier than Dallas; and left is supposedly from Minsk. 


I say supposedly because I have never been comfortable with that image. It just doesn't look like Oswald. He seems too stocky. His posture is different; he is extending his head on his neck. His nose seems wrong. I'm just not buying it. 

One thing is for sure: if you are going to look at images of Oswald without considering the possibility of photographic alteration then you are looking at them blind. 

Here it is alongside another image of him from Minsk. 


Now, that looks like Oswald on the right, and he looks typically thin. Obviously, the guy on the left was much huskier. Could Oswald's weight have fluctuated that much in Russia? Again, I think there is a very different head/neck balance between the two of them.  Their hair is parted on opposite sides. 


That settles it for me: that left image is bogus. The noses are different. And look at the difference in the lip pursing. Oswald, on the right, had a strong habit of pursing down hard, which you see him doing on the right. But, he's not doing it at all on the left. The right ears are different with a thicker helix on the guy on the left and more pitch on Oswald on the right.

So, who is that guy on the left? It may be the other Oswald, "Lee" as per John Armstrong. How did he wind up in Minsk? He didn't. But, the other possibility is that it's another composite photo with "Lee" on our left and "Harvey" on our right. The most famous composite photo is this one:

 Of course, this one is bad. Look how the hairline zig-zags, and look how different the tone of the skin is. You can really see how they stuck those two pieces together. It's "Lee" on our left and "Harvey" on our right. Awful, isn't it? 
As Stephen Requa requested, I put up the link to John Hankey's excellent film "The Assassination of John F. Kennedy Jr." in the previous post, and I'll post it again here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vehk03v23y4


And here's why it is so upsetting: 

Coast Guard Petty Officer Todd Bergun informed local television that Kennedy's plane contacted the tower at 9:39 PM when he had descended to 2500 feet on his approach to Martha's Vineyard.

And that is exactly what JFK Jr. was required to do. When you are descending your plane, when you get to 2500 feet, you have to stop descending and contact the tower and wait for permission to land. That is exactly what JFK Jr. did.


    
You see where it says Petty Officer Todd Burgun, right? Here is what he said: 

"All I really know is that his last communication was at 9:39 PM with the Air Traffic Control Tower when he was on his final approach to Martha's Vineyard."

And after JFK Jr. made contact at 9:39, if he didn't land within 5 minutes, it should have automatically set off alarms and started an investigation.  

But, Burgun's report disappeared after that, and the story became that JFK Jr. never contacted the tower. Multiple spokesmen, of high military rank, stated that there was no contact with the Tower. Burgun's report got buried. It was like he never said it. 

After that, the Pentagon took over communication. They brought out Colonel Steven Roark who said that Kennedy's plane never made contact with the tower. His exact words were: "They never made contact with the tower at Martha's Vineyard." In fact, Colonel Roark said that JFK Jr. failed to contact any of the radar centers along the route. He also claimed that John failed to file a flight plan, which is something that John always did. Always. Every single previous trip. 



Colonel Roark was the head of the National Search and Rescue Center and the former director of the Air Force's Rescue Coordination Center. So, he was very high up. And other high-ranking officials said the same thing: that Kennedy's plane never made contact with the tower.

And what happened to Todd Burgun? He disappeared. I don't say they killed him, and I don't know that he lost his job either. But, he disappeared from public view. We never heard a word from him again. It was as though he never spoke. 

And it wasn't just Todd Burgun. There must have been individuals at the Martha's Vineyard Tower- air traffic controllers- who received the actual contact that JFK Jr. made with the tower on his final approach to land. How haunted must those people be today knowing, as they do, the ugly truth?

But, what enabled someone like Colonel Roark to lie the way he did? Where does it come from? Undoubtedly, he was told to do it, to say what he did, but why did he actually do it? Why didn't he say no? Why didn't he go ballistic? Why didn't he blow the case wide open?  Why did he submit to such evil? Why didn't he resist?







Wednesday, December 24, 2014

On Veterans Today, they are making some very good headway getting the truth out this Christmas Eve.

First, there is an excellent article by Jim Dean about the CIA torture revelations and the false intelligence reports that resulted from torture: 

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/12/21/insiders-mislead-us-based-on-false-cia-interrogation-reports/


Then, there was piece about Sargent Paul Shuraga, the first cop to arrive at the scene of the RFK murder. Shuraga encountered an older couple who told him they overheard a young couple, including a young woman wearing a polka-dot dress, saying that they had killed Kennedy. Shuraga filed multiple reports about it, but they all vanished.  



An RFK campaign worker named Sandra Serrano witnessed and reported the exact same thing. Here she is describing it:


And here is a tape of the a policeman harassing Sandy Serrano, telling her, in no uncertain terms, that it didn't happen:


I'd be willing to bet that the exact same thing happened after the JFK assassination to any witness who tried to claim to seeing Oswald in the doorway. I'm sure they shut him up fast.  

So, Paul Shuraga and Sandy Serrano, who were completely unconnected to each other, reported the exact same thing in minute detail.  


Here is how OIC senior member Stephen Requa put it in a communication to assassination attorney William Pepper just today:

"A critical factor for your Sirhan case is related to the CIA interrogation of the witness to the Polka Dot Dress Lady who must have been managing Sirhan Sirhan. As you know, Sirhan was "key word prompted" to start firing as a distraction from the front to the real assassin who was crouched behind and below RFK, which your CNN-broadcast second witness testified to. The interrogation tape surfaced and shows how CIA/LAPD plant Hernandez "grotesquely" abused Sandy Serrano. He terrorized and browbeat the poor woman.  Hernandez, a long time CIA Operative, was planted (with another) into the LAPD to organize the RFK assassination. This is a key, perhaps "the" key, to breaking your Sirhan case wide open. I will send you the transcript of  the Hernandez recording."

"You'll hear this former CIA agent's interrogating of the female witness about her seeing the Polka-dot Dress Lady managing Sirhan just before he was "key word prompted" to start firing in rote-programmed mode. The interrogating CIA agent Hernandez was put into the LAPD just before the assassination to organize the assassination and cover it up. You'll cringe when you hear an LA cop describe it as "the most grotesque abuse" of LAPD police power that he had ever seen. The LAPD also falsified and fabricated this officer's reports on witnesses who saw the Polka-dot Dress Lady flee."

"These are the critical facts that have a bearing on the RFK case and all the 1960's assassination cases. I say that it is not enough to prove that Sirhan could not have shot RFK.  IMO, the involvement of the CIA needs to be brought into it and made crystal clear. And these revelations about a corrupt LAPD cop with ties to the CIA does it 100%. This needs to be seen and heard by one and all. And it dove-tails beautifully with the lead article above in VTN News today."

"With the above VTN lead today, we are at a critical juncture."

Ralph Cinque: 

Reading Stephen's reference to Sirhan's "key word prompting" brings to mind one of my favorite movies The Manchurian Candidate starring Frank Sinatra. That was the original. The remake that came later starring Denzel Washington was very different. 

But, in the original, the programmed assassin, played by Laurence Harvey, who was a real life refugee from Lithuania, was key word prompted too, but it wasn't really a word. It was a playing card: the Queen of Diamonds. 

So, when they wanted him to act, they would invite him to relax by playing Solitaire, and when he turned over the Queen of Diamonds, it would trigger the submissive state of his mind which they controlled, and then they would give him the order to kill whomever they wanted killed.

That was from 1962, and it was fiction. However, we know that the CIA MK-Ultra Program was real. Sirhan Sirhan was programmed that way, and I have absolutely no doubt that Mark David Chapman, the accused assassin of John Lennon, was programmed that way too. 

What about John Hinckley? And what about the instructor pilot who was sitting next to JFK Jr. in the cockpit of his plane as it approached Martha's Vineyard? Yeah, I wonder about them too. 

Rapid response from Stephen Requa:

"Ralph: Great job. Just what is needed. This was most welcome for Christmas. All the assassination realities can and are finally coming out now. Of course JFK Jr.'s plane was brought down by the MK ULTRA instructor programmed also like Sirhan. They had to prevent JFK Jr. from attending Pepper's 1999 Memphis trial and covering for his George Magazine all the military brass in on the MLK assassination in 1968. JFK Jr. would have covered that and then very likely have won the next election he decided to enter to bring down the Bush Cabal.  The military had to prevent being exposed in Pepper's 1999 trial with JFK Jr. going there and covering it for the press. He interviewed Oliver Stone, and he also covered Rabin's assassination. Both were no-no's, and his doing that in Memphis was a real no-no for the brass, hence all the things they did to cover up their bringing down JFK Jr's airplane. John Hankey nailed them in his film as completely as they could be. You might put in links on that."

"The VTN lead, and all this on RFK/CIA, can really now expose this Shadow Government of assassins. The RFK assassination is perfectly and completely, and rather simply, exposed in all its details for anyone to see. There is not the slightest doubt that the CIA organized it through LAPD. We have all the proof we need."


Ralph: here, as Stephen requested, is the link to John Hankey's brilliant film "The Assassination of JFK Jr."  It is a masterpiece of investigation and discourse. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vehk03v23y4






There is a reason why it is necessary to expose Judyth Baker as a false priestess. It's because we know that the official story of the JFK assassination is false, but, if we replace it with another story about Oswald that is also false, but false in a different way, then it's not going to be hard for the other side to expose it as false. And then, credibility is going to default back to their original false story. And therefore, they win, and they benefit from Judyth Baker. 

So, that's why I say that Judyth Baker is the best friend the official story of the JFK assassination ever had. 

And she tells a lot of falsehoods. Oswald most certainly did not send that telex. And Oswald did not go to Mexico City. He said he didn't. He said that he had only been to Tijuana in Mexico. 

Look, if he was doing the bidding of the CIA to deliver a poison to Mexico City to be used to kill Castro, why wouldn't he admit it? But, he never went to Mexico City. Oswald said he didn't. Mark Lane says he didn't. And according to Mark Lane, even David Atlee Phillips admitted to him that Oswald never went to Mexico City. Mary Ferrell referred to the idea as "spurious." James Richards rejects it, and so do James Douglass and John Armstrong. Many other researchers do as well. There are multiple images of Oswald in Mexico City, and all of them are false. You know none of these men were Oswald, so come on:  


   
So, where was Oswald during this period? I don't know. Some say he was in Houston looking for a job. But, he definitely was not in Mexico City. 

And the whole idea of Oswald as undercover agent and informant is false. It's true that he was depicted that way in the movie JFK by Oliver Stone, but that was a mistake, and we shouldn't compound it.  Oswald was just a patsy.

And he said so himself. Just listen to him, as he says, 

"I really don't know what this situation is about. Nobody has told me anything except that I am accused of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that. And I do request that someone come forward to give me legal assistance."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaS-UV-BsdY

So, who are you going to believe, Lee Harvey Oswald or Judyth Vary Baker? You can't believe both because they can't both be telling the truth. I believe Oswald.