(PART 131)


Oswald was not in MC [Mexico City].

Anyone who in this day and age tries to make the case that Oswald was in MC is simply not aware of the latest research on that subject.

David Josephs made a very good presentation at Gary Aguilar's private seminar on December 15th [2018] in SF.


As I said many months ago, his work on this subject is going to make a new paradigm in the field. What he does is called real research. He is one of the very few guys who is going through the newly declassified files. In some ways, he has gone beyond the Lopez Report.


LHO was not in MC, and a false trail was later set up by Phillips, Ochoa, and Echeverria. The latter got a big payoff: he became president of Mexico.

Let us never forget what Hoover wrote six weeks after the assassination. In his personal marginalia he wrote that he would not trust the CIA anymore due to the snow job they gave him on Oswald in MC. That is one of the single most important discoveries of the ARRB.

And it has turned out to be true.


When I first saw this thread title, my first thought was that Jim was trying to say....

Oswald was not in the Marine Corps.

I was all ready to get out this icon --- --- when I then realized that "MC" was short for "Mexico City".

Maybe Jim should change the title so that others like me won't be confused and want to pull out the eyeroll emoji. :)

Although, the eyeroll icon can most certainly still be used even though the initials MC = Mexico City. Because it couldn't be clearer from the bulk of the evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald definitely DID travel to Mexico City in September of 1963.

More facts HERE and HERE.


It appears that Oswald was a good little soldier in this charade and did not give away his alliances. Does anyone then ask - if you were not in Mexico, where were you?


You bet someone's been asking that question --- Me!

I've been asking conspiracy theorists that very question for at least eight years now, including this post from 2010. No CTer has ever provided any kind of a reasonable or sensible answer to my inquiry either. And I can't even recall any CTer even TRYING to provide a reasonable answer. My question is usually just ignored entirely.


A worthy reprise.....

"Question for conspiracy theorists:

If Lee Harvey Oswald was not in Mexico between the dates of September 25 and October 3, 1963, then where was Lee Harvey Oswald during that time period?

Nobody that I am aware of places Oswald anywhere EXCEPT in Mexico (or on the busses going to and from Mexico) during that eight- to nine-day period in question.

Marina Oswald certainly didn't say that her husband was with her during that period of time. In fact, quite the opposite. Marina knew darn well that Oswald was going to Mexico City at that time.

And Ruth Paine has never said she saw Oswald during that period just prior to his returning to the Dallas/Irving area on October 3rd.

This might seem like a minor point to some people, but I think it deserves some attention and is a valid and reasonable question that I just asked. I mean, everybody's got to be SOMEWHERE.

So, if Lee Oswald didn't travel to Mexico from Sep. 25 to Oct. 3, 1963, then where the heck was he concealing himself for those eight or nine days after he was last seen in New Orleans?"
-- DVP; September 18, 2010


Oh please. This is the problem with you guys, you do not do any research. You do not know what it is.

1. There is no photo of Oswald either coming or leaving at the Cuban embassy.

2. There is no photo of Oswald either coming or leaving at the Soviet embassy.

3. At least ten chances for a photo--negative result. We actually have the CIA checks on this today. This is why Goodpasture lied about the Mystery Man photo. She could not find a pic of LHO.

4. The voice on the tapes is not LHO. Complete mismatch. This was so bad the CIA later lied about the tapes being destroyed prior to the assassination. They were not!

5. Duran's description is not LHO.

6. The Saturday call had to be phony per reasons stated above.

7. The two CIA plants in the Cuban embassy were shown the picture of LHO. Both said he was not there. The CIA did not want to accept this, so they tried again, came up empty twice.

8. David [Josephs'] new discovery is the CIA monthly phone bank summary. No listing of anyone who matches Oswald's description in the calls at the Cuban embassy.

9. David [Josephs] has demolished the WC story of how Oswald was allegedly transported down and back up. Wrong passport, wrong buses.

10. I Love that visa card [CE2564]. The FBI tried to find the picture company where Oswald took it. Recall, he did not have it for Duran. They visited every picture shop in a five mile radius of the embassy, could not find anyone who saw Oswald there.


You guys should have left well enough alone.


Why did Duran refer to Oswald in her interrogations as "blonde and short"?


And yet you CTers think that this "blonde" person was supposedly IMPERSONATING the dark-haired Lee Oswald??

Only three words are needed now....



That is the reason she was abused because that was her first description of LHO.

It was almost funny when Ed Lopez asked her how tall he was.

She asked Cornwell to stand up. This got a laugh since Cornwell is quite diminutive. She said, about that tall. Maybe 5' 5".


All the more reason to know your make-believe Oswald Patsy Framers must have all been total morons! Because only a complete idiot would want to have a blond guy who was 5-feet-5 try to impersonate a guy who had dark hair and was 5-9.

Just how stupid were your Mexico City plotters in 1963, Jim?

Regardless of any goofy description Silvia Duran came up with after the fact, we know she processed a visa application for the one and only LEE HARVEY OSWALD (see Commission Exhibit No. 2564). That application has Oswald's own signature on it.

Let me guess---BOTH the picture and the signature are forgeries on the above document, right?


BTW, let me reply to these diversionary tactics...

First, they say, well, where the heck was he? Look, we do not have a police force. We cannot issue subpoenas. We cannot cross examine witnesses. That is what their side did. And they swallowed this whole canard about LHO in Mexico City. BTW, you should have heard Willens down there after Echeverria shut him down over examining Duran (he knew what was up). He could not understand why the FBI waited so long to try and find any trace of Oswald after the CIA gave up.

Well, as David [Josephs] can prove, when the FBI did try and find a trace, they came across Ochoa's handiwork in putting together a phony trail. But they were stuck with it. If they exploded it, that would have meant they would have demolished the whole myth about LHO in MC. Which as I showed, Hoover knew was BS, but could not say it.

Second, oh a blond guy. Like somehow it mattered. With no photos, and the wrong voice--and the tapes then said to be destroyed, which they were not--why did you need an impersonator? You did not. Completely unnecessary.

All that mattered was the WC swallowed it. And they did. DVP and FC [Francois Carlier] have no problem with that. Like water off their back in a shower.


So why did "they" use some blond guy in the first place?

You, Jim, are just inventing excuses so you can ignore the best evidence --- which is: CE2564 and CE15 and Marina's testimony about Lee going to Mexico City.

And I'd still like to see a good answer from a CTer to my prior question....

If Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't in Mexico City from Sept. 25 to Oct. 2 of 1963, then where the heck was he?


Did you not hear what I said about the FBI?

Or do you just want to ignore it as you always do.

Meanwhile, can you reply to the other nine points:

Why is there no photo? At either embassy? Why is there no voice match? Why did both informants say he was not there? Twice. Why was there an alleged call on Saturday? Why is there no indication of the calls on the newly decalcified CIA summary per month? Why is it the wrong buses and wrong passport?


I can't answer all those questions, Jim. And neither can you (or any other CTer).

Part of the answer is almost certainly bungling and probably some carelessness (and, no doubt, mistakes) on the part of the people at the embassies who should have been recording and/or photographing Oswald. And part of the answer could be faulty equipment at the time Oswald visited the embassies/consulates. Plus, some incorrect assumptions were also made regarding the topics of the photographs and the tape recordings.

I don't know all the answers to these discrepancies. I don't think anybody knows everything about it.

But, IMO, Warren Commission Exhibit No. 15 (Oswald's 12/9/63 letter that he typed on Ruth Paine's typewriter), which has Lee Oswald's own signature on it (another "fake" signature, Jim?), trumps any and all theories about Oswald not travelling to Mexico City in September '63.

And CTers have to claim that Ruth Paine lied about the above CE15 letter of Oswald's too, because Ruth said she read the "draft" of that letter that Oswald (for some reason) left behind on Ruth's desk. So, was Ruth lying about the "draft" of the letter, Jim? (I'm pretty sure you'll have no trouble labelling Ruth a liar once again, right?) But don't expect me to follow you down that path of fantasy. Because I won't do it.

Therefore, in addition to all of the other things I've mentioned (and Francois has repeated as well) that prove LHO went to Mexico City in '63, there's also that testimony of Ruth Paine concerning the "draft" of the letter (CE15), in which Ruth said that Lee lied about the FBI "no longer having any interest in me", etc.

How many liars were there in JUST this "Mexico City" area of the case, Jim? Give me a number. I want to know just HOW MANY people I'm expected to call LIARS regarding this Mexico topic. Just "for the record". Thanks in advance for providing me with those numbers.


I will not hold my breath in wait for you to reply to these. You have an unseemly habit of ignoring real evidence. (Yawn)


Mr. Pot/Kettle strikes again!

A man who believes in all 22 of these fantasies is preaching to me about "ignoring real evidence".

Ya gotta love the thick irony of it all! (I sure do.)


How can we tell where LHO was every day of his life? Straw man created.


I don't consider it a strawman when the CTers are alleging that LHO was positively NOT in Mexico City, when the hard evidence (i.e., CE2564 and CE15) is indicating just the opposite. I think the "Where Was Oswald If He Wasn't In Mexico?" question is a perfectly valid inquiry in light of the continual "LHO Was Not In MC" refrain we are always getting from the conspiracy theorists, especially since we're talking about an EIGHT- or NINE-day period. It's not just a few hours or just one single day. It's eight or nine days. And nobody sees him (except in Mexico, of course).


A very interesting hypothesis popped up recently attempting to explain Lee Oswald's whereabouts during the period he was supposed to be in Mexico City. The new book by Paul Smith: JFK and the Willard Hotel Plot: The Explosive New Theory of Oswald in D.C., Lee Oswald took a bus for Houston but did not travel to Mexico City, his imposter(s) did. Lee Oswald stopped in Austin and Dallas (Silvia Odio) and reached Washington, D.C. on the 27th of September.

According to this hypothesis, Lee stayed at the pricy Willard Hotel and was readying for an assassination attempt on October 1. On that day, a motorcade took place with JFK and Haile Selassie parading in an open limousine and taking a sharp turn around Willard Hotel.

There were allegedly two opportunities to shoot at a motorcade, one during the parade on 14th Street and another on the south lawn of the White House which was visible from Willard Hotel back then.

Besides the August letters by Lee Oswald in which he signalled he would be moving to Baltimore/Washington, D.C. for a job in October, there is a Secret Service report (dated December 1963) stating that Lee Oswald was indeed seen by a driver of an official's limousine, by a SS agent (Hicks?) and a local police officer. All three men were convinced that the man they saw coming out from Willard Hotel and causing disturbance there was Lee Harvey Oswald. The evidence is circumstantial, however, the author [does] a good job in connecting the dots.


Thanks, Andrej. I don't buy his scenario for a single solitary second (of course), but at least author Paul Smith has put something on the table to try and answer the "Where Was Oswald?" question.


I don't know how many times I have to go through this about Marina.

I mean, really. This gets so tiresome with a guy who has a middle name of Denial. But this is his game. He just keeps on coming back with stuff he knows is wrong. For the simple matter that he has no life. This is his life.

For about the 89th time, let us refer to the first SS interview with Marina by Special Agent Charles Kunkel on 11/24.

This is summarized in Whitewash 2 by Harold Weisberg.

Marina was asked about Oswald in Mexico City in that interview, she replied she knew absolutely nothing about that. (p. 20)

And OMG, the Ruth Paine letter!

About a week ago, I noted all the problems with it. Please. Everyone here should keep this following URL in their folder for the next time Davey brings up this letter which has more holes than the Oklahoma defense.


And this is the difference. You cannot answer why there are no photos. Or why it's the wrong voice. Or why the calls are not on the CIA monthly summary. Etc etc.

Whereas I can answer yours very easily.


Sure, it's easy to just pretend all the various documents are fake and phony. And it's easy to label someone a liar. But the fact is: No Warren Commission critic has ever come close to actually PROVING that those two important documents (CE15 and CE2564) are fake documents (with Oswald's own signature forged on BOTH of them).

To me, such a notion of wholesale fakery is just not reasonable (or realistic). But I've come to realize that JFK conspiracy theorists possess a unique mindset when it comes to the topic of "evidence". Many CTers seem to have no problem at all believing that dozens and dozens of pieces of physical evidence in this case were fabricated, fraudulent, forged, planted, tainted, etc.---including those two important "Mexico City" documents (CE15 & CE2564).

And if you want to believe that all of this "Mexico City" testimony provided by Marina Oswald on February 3, 1964, is nothing but a big fat lie being told by Marina, well, you go right ahead and believe that. But don't expect me to follow you down that rocky road either (despite the information that appears on page 20 of Harold Weisberg's "Whitewash 2").

David Von Pein
January 4-5, 2019