(PART 718)


David goes as far as admitting that: "The Garland Slack/rifle range incident and the Sylvia Odio incident are not quite as easy to dismiss, however."


David *certainly* won't tell you *why* these impersonations are so difficult to dismiss. Tell everyone David, why aren't you willing to explain *why* these impersonations are so difficult to dismiss?


I DO dismiss the idea of "Oswald Imposters" in the Slack and Odio incidents. But what I do not dismiss entirely is the idea that the REAL OSWALD (not an impersonator) was the person seen by Garland Slack and Sylvia Odio.

(Get it now, Ben?)

In fact, I've always very much enjoyed the notion of the real Oswald being at the rifle range with Garland Slack, because such an occurrence (if it could somehow be proven) would forever shut the traps of the conspiracy theorists who love to talk about how Oswald couldn't have shot JFK because he never practiced with his rifle prior to the assassination. But if the real Oswald was at the Sports Drome Rifle Range, such a claim by CTers would go flying out the window forever. (And I'd love for that to happen.)


Yep... I sort of figured that you'd refuse to tell everyone the truth.

Or that you'd continue to refuse to answer the original question.

Such cowardice simply illustrates the "weakness of your position".


I answered the original question by pointing to two links [THIS ONE and

And then later I also said the "Oswald-like" person that was seen by Slack and Odio might very well have been the REAL Lee Oswald. You're the one who keeps insisting that I believe the man Slack and Odio saw was an "imposter". I've never said that and never will.


Why do you, Holmes, keep insisting that I believe the person Slack and Odio saw was an "impersonator"? I don't believe that---and never have.

The person they each saw was either the real Oswald or it was another case (among many in this case) of mistaken identity.

Got it yet?


A *claim* that it's been answered is not an answer.

Where's the answer David?

What is *YOUR* explanation for the many impersonations of Oswald in the weeks leading to the assassination?


I don't believe there were any Oswald "impersonations"--ever.

How many times do I have to say that, Holmes?


That's funny - I've seen a number of photos of an Oswald impersonator down in Mexico City.


Yeah, that was a brilliant plan indeed. Let's try and make everyone in Mexico think this heavyset and much older man was the skinny and much younger Lee Harvey Oswald. What better plan could there be to convince people the real Oswald was in Mexico, right?

Whoever headed up that part of the "Let's Frame Oswald" plot really had a lot of brains, didn't he?

And if we're to believe Edwin Lopez, the REAL Oswald and his "imposter" were running around Mexico City at the SAME time.

Any idea why they needed to have a fake Oswald down there even though the real McCoy was also there as well? (Just to complicate matters, huh?)

I've often wondered what the brainless plotters would have done if the alleged "imposter" Oswald had gotten his visa to Cuba right away? Would the "imposter" have gone to Cuba and continued his little meaningless masquerade there in Castro's country? And if so, how can you frame a patsy for a murder in Dallas if the patsy/(imposter) is really in Cuba? You'd have to be a really crackerjack marksman to make that shot--from Cuba all the way to Dealey Plaza.

But Ben doesn't care about logic or about the stupid, brainless fools who were allegedly impersonating Oswald.

And Ben doesn't care about CE2564 either. How did "they" manage to fake this document in multiple ways? With LHO's picture? And his signature?

Or was Silvia Duran and others at the Cuban Embassy part of the "Let's Get Oswald" plot too? Didn't Duran even notice that this picture of Oswald didn't look anything like that heavyset, older man that was impersonating him?

So many stupid theories. All of which fall completely apart when just a small amount of logical thought is applied to them, plus evidence like Commission Exhibit No. 2564 and Commission Exhibit No. 2480 and Commission Exhibit No. 15.



Any idea why they needed to have a fake Oswald down there even though the real McCoy was also there as well?


Because the real Oswald wouldn't be doing what the fake Oswald was doing.




And thus, your implication that an impersonator couldn't be in the same city at the same time - wiped out in an instant.

Indeed, you *NEVER* make this same stupid argument about Dallas. 'Why impersonate Oswald in Dallas - he's already there!'

Your stupidity appears to stop at the U.S. border. It's only in Mexico that you raise this dumb argument... never in Dallas.

Tell us David - do you suppose that if you raised the same argument about Dallas - that people might figure out just how dumb your argument is?


I might not have mentioned it previously (except when I quote Vince Bugliosi, who quotes John Armstrong's hilariously idiotic theory on this matter), but yes, it IS stupid and dangerous and reckless in Dallas too to have an "imposter" and the "real" Oswald walking around in the same building at the same time.

And that's exactly what Armstrong thinks happened. He's got "Lee" and "Harvey" (one of whom is, I guess, the "real" LHO) in the TSBD on Nov. 22 at the same time. Hilariously silly. At any time during the day, a TSBD employee could have seen the two "Oswalds" at the same time. And then---bye bye, Patsy Plot!

I guess the plotters just got lucky that didn't happen. Or did they chain the "real" LHO to the telephone or the Dr. Pepper machine to make sure he wouldn't bump into "Harvey" all day long?

BTW, Ben, any idea what you're going to do with CE2564, CE2480, and CE15? Or have you already tossed all three items in the trash can you've reserved for "fake evidence" (which is where you place all the evidence that hangs Oswald, of course)?


So really, the word "imposter" has no real meaning... since it would be silly to have an "imposter" where you clearly never were, and equally silly, according to you, to have an imposter in the same city.


Earth to Ben....

I'm talking about proximity to each other when I say it would be stupid and reckless and suicidal for any plotters who were setting up Super Schnook Oswald to have an imposter Oswald and the real Oswald in the same place (i.e., the same BUILDING) at the very same time, as author John Armstrong asserts.


And you're *STILL* refusing to tell everyone just what evidence you used to determine that the Warren Commission was wrong.


Care to explain what you mean by this? I must've forgotten. Are you suggesting that the Warren Commission did say they believed someone was impersonating Oswald prior to the assassination?


[I'm] amused that you pretend to forget, and *STILL* refuse to answer the question.

I'll make it more difficult for you...

1. Did the Warren Commission believe that Oswald was at the Rifle Range... yes or no.
2. Did the Warren Commission believe that Oswald was at Odio's... yes or no.
3. Have you stated that you believe that Oswald was at the Rifle Range... yes or no.
4. Have you stated that you believe that Oswald was at Odio's... yes or no.

Now, why do *YOUR* answers differ from the Warren Commission's?

On *WHAT EVIDENCE* have you come to this different conclusion?

Or, if you prefer, you can continue illustrating the cowardice that's led you to refuse to answer this question four times in a row now.


Oh, I see....I'm not allowed to have a different opinion from that of the Warren Commission on anything connected to the JFK case. Is that about the size of it, Ben H.?

Gee, you'd think I'd get a couple of bonus points from the CTers for "thinking outside the WC box" on occasion, huh? Aren't LNers always being raked over the proverbial hot coals for not disagreeing more with the WC boys? And yet when I do disagree with them on something, I'm still being criticized. Ya just can't win for losin' I guess.


The Oswald impostor in Mexico City was using Oswald's name on a taped phone conversation and heard by the Dallas FBI office where all agents agreed it wasn't Oswald. There are also photos of that individual leaving the Russian embassy and Cuban consulate in [Mexico City] where he made a commotion which was finalized by stating, *Maybe I'll shoot Kennedy for this* when denied a visa to Cuba.


The statement quoted [above] is attributed to Fidel Castro (CD 1359), and I wouldn't think it would have been in Castro's interest to make this up.


And even if Oswald did make such a statement as Castro alleges in Warren Commission Document No. 1359, how in the world does that lead toward Lee Oswald's innocence in JFK's murder? When, in fact, such an outburst by LHO would actually provide the elusive "motive" for Oswald wanting to kill Kennedy -- with that motive being: 'I'm going to kill the head of the U.S. Government which is refusing to let me go to Cuba without waiting four months'.

Very similar to the Garland Slack/Rifle Range incident, I've always kind of hoped Oswald did threaten JFK while in Mexico. I have large doubts that he ever did so, however.

Naturally, the conspiracy clowns would insist it wasn't the real LHO making the threat, but was one of his handy imposters. Even though there's evidence a mile deep--with Oswald's own signature attached to much of it!--to prove that the real Lee Harvey Oswald was in Mexico City at the embassies in September of 1963.


Of course, we have PHOTOGRAPHS of an imposter... but this still doesn't convince David.


Of course those photos don't convince me that an "imposter" was posing as Lee Oswald in Mexico City. And those photographs shouldn't convince you either, Ben. Those pictures should probably convince you of just the opposite. Because what kind of silly conspirators would have the man in these pictures pretending to be Lee Harvey Oswald? It's like Hardy trying to pass himself off as Laurel....

The logical explanation is: The officials who looked at those photos and thought it might have been Lee Oswald were simply mistaken (i.e., they were wrong). No cover-up needed. No plot. No sinister intent. Just some people being mistaken. Nothing more. And that type of explanation is precisely the one laid out by FBI agent James Hosty during his testimony at the television docu-trial in London in July of 1986. Maybe you should watch it. Then you can call Mr. Hosty a rotten liar too....


Jeepers, David,

Although I never agreed with the lone gunman scenario, I respected you for your extensive contributions with this subject.

Therefore, PLEASE tell me I'm misreading your recent comment. Are you implying there couldn't have been an Oswald imposter in Mexico City if the real Oswald was there simultaneously, perhaps on some phoney pretext just so there'd be his signature on hotel bills, etc?


Come now, asdfg. The conspiracy theorists who scream "imposter" have their "imposter" doing exactly the same things that we know (and can prove) the real Lee Oswald did in Mexico -- e.g., visiting the embassies, arguing with the officials there, trying to get an in-transit visa to Cuba, and signing the hotel register (which is a signature that CTers like Jim DiEugenio are convinced is a phony signature).

And Commission Exhibit No. 2564 proves that it was the real Oswald who applied for the visa. It's Oswald's picture and Oswald's signature on the visa application that was retrieved from the files of the Cuban Embassy. Is CE2564 supposedly fake too?

Ergo, the alleged "imposter" and the "real" Lee Oswald are doing the very same things--at the same time in Sep/Oct '63--in the same place--Mexico City.

What is a rational person supposed to think given these facts? Should I believe an imposter was ALSO doing the very same things that it has been proven the real LHO did in Mexico?

Such a belief is an illogical one. In fact, it's downright nutty.

David Von Pein
June 2014