John Newman at COPA '95 ( incomplete )

Newman - Thank you Dan [Alcorn], and Peter [Dale Scott], and thank you all for coming.  Thank you COPA. It’s a pleasure to be here with you today.  I have just about 30 minutes.  I am going to scrunch in a lot in that time.  For those of you who have heard some of this before bear with me, for those of you who haven’t heard any of this new material forgive me for rushing, and I’m going to try and deal not just with what’s in the book but also what’s been released since the book, in particular within the last few weeks, Peter was alluding to that material, and if I have time maybe even theorize for a second in thinking about the implications of this recently.

            I just want to say a couple of things by way of introduction.  There should be a an empty seat up here, much the way we did a year or two ago for Gerald Posner who failed to show after he agreed to at A.S.K., for Norman Mailer, with whom I debated by the way on Boston University radio, and who admitted that he had not looked at the files but at the time said that they were not open and I reminded him that in fact they were.  I just think it is a travesty that the American Tolstoy would write a book with the subtitle “An American Tale” and not having consulted any of the American material.  By the way, my own review of his book is available to you in the other room for a small contribution of two dollars to COPA.  It’s published this week in The [London?] Times Literary Supplement.

            One more note for those of you who are interested in the Russian period I did do some original work on a man called Setyaev, and it was pointed out to me that the photograph I mentioned in my book, and forgive me for not going into detail on this cause I’m only going to spend thirty seconds, for those of you who are into this, Setyaev was a Radio Moscow correspondent who had contact with Oswald at the time of the defection. He took a photograph of Oswald and that photograph appeared in the Ft. Worth newspapers two weeks after the defection, very strange. 

            We need to know how in the blazes an American newspaper got a hold of this photograph.  It’s also published in the 26 volumes.  It’s worth following up.  Gary Mack has been looking into this down in Dallas and I just thought I would tell it to you ‘cause I know there are at least two dozen people or so out there that might want to take this and run with it.  It is worth pursuing. 

            Having said that there are really three main conclusions in my work, I am only going to deal with the third and most provocative that Oswald became involved in operations but let me just tell you briefly the first two.  Number one that the CIA became operationally interested in Oswald.  Number two that they used very sensitive sources and methods to monitor him and collect intelligence on him, and that finally sooner or later, perhaps as soon as the Russian period he became involved in operations.

            I did in fact try and muster the evidence for this in several chapters early in the book, that is the paradigm I looked at was that perhaps James Angleton dangled him in some sort of a counterintelligence fashion, perhaps looking for a mole in the U-2 program or the Soviet Russian division.  My conclusion at the end of that having marshaled all that evidence was that it was not conclusive, it was suggestive, but not convincing, and so I left it that way.

            I think that the evidence is now overwhelming that Oswald in the New Orleans period and in the Mexico Cityperiod had contact with CIA assets; Carlos Bringuier is just one example, and others.  In fact, I like to play the tape, part of the WDSU radio debate, all those people in that program were FBI and CIA assets.  We now know that.  We’ve been reading about them in these new files.

            But, I would like to share with you the final part of the book which concerns Mexico City, clearly one of the deepest conundrums of the case, and something the Review Board is rightfully pursuing.  I want to just say this though, in fact, the fact that I’ve written this book on documents and the CIA does not mean I am not interested in medical evidence and everything else in this case and I do hope that the Review Board gets into the medical evidence that stuff needs to be out.  My own reaction to what I’ve heard here this afternoon, is that it’s time to get that stuff out in the open too because without all of the X-rays, the photographs on the table for all of us to see we are going to go on having arguments like this, so it’s not just CIA documents, it’s not just FBI documents it’s all of the documents in the government’s possession.  And I implore the Review Board to speed up in the area of the medical evidence.

            This is what Oswald files actually look like.  This happens to be an FBI folder.  This is a CIA folder.  I’m showing you this slide; it’s actually a very interesting one because as you will see it connects two people, David Atlee Phillips and James McCord working way back in 1961 running an illegal anti-Cuban operation inside the United States without informing the FBI.  The CIA was very interested in running this type of operation because as of early 1960 there was a plan to murder Castro and invade Cuba.  So when individuals like Lee Harvey Oswald would make a pro-Castro organization, naturally the CIA would be interested in this, operationally interested [in this].  I put it on the screen to show you how early on James McCord, then working in the security office was interested in anti-Cuban operations, in this particular case they are going to surveil a subject, this is Cord Wood who is connected with the Fair Play For Cuba Committee here in Washington, D.C.

            “Operationally interest” isn’t my term, the CIA themselves say they had an operational interest in Oswald.  Here it was not in terms of his Cuban escapades, they hadn’t happened yet, he does not come back from the Soviet Union until 1962. This is during the time that he was in the Soviet Union.  This happens to be SR/6, SR/6 branch of the Soviet Russia division.  In this case they are interested in him because of where he worked in the Soviet Union, and also if we went on down to the bottom of this document because he had married a Soviet national.  In short there were many different reasons for being interested in Oswald.  I am going to skip all of them for the Russian period, but just let me tick off really quickly, in the Soviet Russia division at least 8 or 9 different branches maintained files on Oswald in the CIA.  In the Security Office at least two that we know of, two different offices that is.  In the Counterintelligence arena, the staff had their own file, the Operations guys had their file, and the mole hunters had their file, in fact the mole hunters are going to be all over Oswald’s files from cradle to grave.  The Special Affairs staff in 1963, there is a couple of different places there that had files on Oswald.  In the FBI, Headquarters alone, the Intelligence Division, the Espionage branch, the Nationalities branch all had separate files and more, actually there are two separate files in the Intelligence Division and you will find the same thing in Dallas.  There are five different field offices in the FBI that were watching Oswald, some of them from the time of the defection up until the murder of John Kennedy that included New Orleans and Dallas; Newark, because his boat came back at Hoboken, New York; Washington field office right here because he corresponded with the Soviet Embassy here and they were opening the mail, New York field office because they broke in up there to the FPCC’s headquarters, and the list goes on.

            The Army file, that’s very interesting, some of you know the story of the 112th Int. in Dallas, should they have been there, should they not have been there, did they destroy the file afterwards?  In my own research I found that the 112th Int had a branch in New Orleans and they were trailing Oswald during the summer of 1963, picking up his Fair Play For Cuba Committee flyers and sending them back to yet a third Army Intelligence office up here in Washington,D.C.   So, as of this counting at least three Army Intelligence offices had files on Oswald.

            His Air Force OSI file began in early 1960.  Navy, Naval Intelligence, we got at least three boxes in the archives.  Three different branches of Naval Intelligence were watching Oswald.  In the State Department, the Soviet division, the Passport Office, the Classified Files Section, the Intelligence and Research Bureau all had their own files on Oswald, and the list goes on.

            In other words ladies and gentlemen from one side of our government to the other people were interested in Lee Harvey Oswald.  That’s not what we were told.  This is not the fruit loop, nutty guy in whom no one was interested.  I just thought I would tell you who was interested in Oswald.  And it would take me much longer, all day to go through each one office and show you why they would be legitimately interested in him.  And I don’t have a problem with that; they should be, of course they should be.  This is a Marine who at the height of the Cold War made a bee line for the enemy capital, walked into our consular office and told Richard Synder, “I am going to give up military secrets.”  They should have been interested in him.  Too bad they didn’t tell the American public the truth about that. 

            In any event, “Operational Interest,” I mention also that they used very sensitive sources and methods to watch him.  One example of that is the very illegal mail intercept program, cyrptonym HT/Lingual.  This happens to be the card that put him on the list in the first place.  Let me tell you how sensitive this program was.  When Congress found out about it, Angleton, whose program it was fired in the mid-1970’s.  And it was so sensitive that only 300 people on the entire planet at that time had the privilege of having the CIA open their mail.  Oswald made the Hit Parade.  Not once, as you see here two weeks after the defection, but again placed back on it, this time by Annie Egerter of the Special Investigations Group, that’s the mole hunters, under Angleton’s counterintelligence staff, he’s placed on it yet again.  Two times! 

            And there are other examples I could use.  I spent a couple of chapters trying to ferret out a human asset in the Soviet Union that might have been watching him and other defectors like Oswald with a military background but I am going to skip over that, suffice it to say that this here does prove that they used very sensitive sources and methods to watch Oswald.

            For the rest of my briefing and these slides I am going to show you a lot of deception.  I could use the word lies.  I think lies is more appropriate when we talk about misleading Congress and the American public, when we talk about at the secret level inside the government, sometimes perhaps it’s not a lie, maybe it’s deception, who cares. It’s not the truth in any event and I’m going to show you some things that are not true about Oswald that were known not to be true when they were said, and this sort of thing.  People don’t wake up in the government and say, “Hey, I’m going to make up a lie today, or something false.”  Deceptions are done for operational reasons.  And Oswald’s files we are finding out now that we are beginning to see them are full of this type of activity especially as we close in towards the assassination and Mexico City in particular.

            This one here is the result in fact there are two very interesting cables, CIA cables that result from Oswald’s visit to Mexico City, one is a response.  Okay, first of all Mexico City reports that Oswald was in fact there.  The trip was from 27 September to 3 October 1963.  It was not reported until 8 October; technically the cable arrived up here on the 9th.  This one here and the next one I am going to show you with it are both a result of the station, the CIA station having reported his visit.  This one here goes to State Dept., FBI, and the Navy.  By the way, the Review Board was nice enough to take this [redaction] off for us.  Christine Bustos name is up there, we [now] know that.  But, what I want to draw your attention to right now is the description of Oswald here as an American who is approximately 35 years old, and an athletic build, about 6 feet tall, and a receding hairline.  Actually, Mexico City said “balding.”  And ergo the section in my book about the 6 foot balding Oswald.

            In any event, we now know, and in fact we knew because of the work done by the HSCA that the person who wrote this cable to the FBI, State Dept. and Navy also wrote this one at the same time, same day, both of them left the comm center within about two hours of each other and here you can see that the same person has a slightly different version of what Oswald’s physical characteristics are.  In this case 5 feet, 10, 165 pounds, light brown wavy hair, and blue eyes. 

            Same person.  Two different cables.  This is to the subordinate station in Mexico.  And this is to the rest of the government here in Washington.

            Brain cramp?  Inconsistency?  Left hand didn’t now what the right hand was doing?

            I don’t think so.

            Lest you think that, and in fact you should know that this is the true description here- [5 feet, 10, 165 pounds, light brown wavy hair, and blue eyes.]  This is much closer to what Oswald really looked like, so in the case of his physical description whoever wrote that is not telling the truth to the State Dept., the FBI and the Navy and is in fact telling the Mexico City station what his true characteristics are.  Lest you think that they are reporting the complete truth to their station in Mexico City, however, when we get to the next to the last page on this cable things begin to get screwy.  And in particular this last paragraph here.  This whole cable talks about his Russian experience, until you get down here towards the end of it.  And that’s what I want to talk to you about right now.

            I want to recognize Peter Dale Scott’s contribution to my work.  He came to my house four times, at least a week and a half each time, we worked together late into the night.  Peter Dale Scott was the only other person I knew that had focused on this statement and for a year was quiet about it to give me latitude in my own research, and I thank you Peter, you’ve been a real source of inspiration to me.

            In any event, this is a really interesting statement here because the date as you might be aware that we are talking about actually is October 1963 and after this long list of all the things that happened years ago in Russia they conclude this cable by telling Mexico City that the latest information at CIA headquarters on Oswald is a State Dept report dated May ‘62. 

            Oswald hasn’t left Russia in May Ô62. 

            “Yeah, Oswald, yeah, yeah sure, we know that guy.  We heard something about him in May '62.."  That’s what this says in effect.

            And in fact, as many of you know Oswald’s been on radio, been on television, been arrested, interviewed by the FBI down there at his own request in the jail cell and there is all sorts of reporting on Oswald that has gone into the CIA since May Ô62.

            Now, the House Select Committee asked for the internal dissemination records for Oswald’s memoranda and files inside the CIA and was denied.  The CIA refused to give it to the House Select Committee.  We now have this information.  Oh, by the way the people who signed off on that cable saying that we don’t have anything on Oswald is a very wide range of people here, Stephan Roll for the Counterintelligence branch of the Soviet Russia division, Jane Roman who was Angleton’s liaison officer, Annie Egerter, this is a misprint, this should be Special Investigations Group over in the mole hunting section of CI, (John Scelso) which is not his true name who is the chief of Branch 3, the Mexico City desk of the Western Hemisphere division, J.C. King was away so signing for the Western Hemisphere division chief was William Hood, who lives up in New York now, and Thomas Karamessines, third in command, Assistant Deputy Director for Plans.  Dick Helms was Director for Plans at the time, all took part in drafting and in coordination for this message that says they didn’t know a darn thing about Oswald since May Ô62.

            So, we finally got these things.  These are what the HSCA wanted.  They are cover sheets that are attached to incoming reports, standard CIA form 610a, and they show you who reads Oswald’s files and when.  They sign with their little initials, like here, who do we have here, there’s CI staff, there’s Jane Roman, this is probably Stephan Roll, SR/CI, CI/SIG, there she is Annie Egerter, we recognize her now you get used to these people after awhile.  And this in fact is 1961. 

            This one here happens to be the one that that report was talking about, the State Dept report dated May 1962, this is the cover sheet attached to that one, 17 May '62 is the date for that document.  The problem is, as many of you know, there is all kinds of stuff that came in on Oswald, after May Ô62.  For example this one here in August of ‘62.  It happens to be the FBI debrief of Oswald, one of two, one which did make it to the CIA, and one which didn’t, this one is the one that did, and again you can see the wide range of people reading Oswald’s file.  In this case none of this can be happening if that cable is true.  Right?  They are not supposed to have anything on Oswald after May '62.  This is August '62.  Well, maybe they just forgot that one.  Remember we are talking October '63?  Well, sorry, here we go 10 September 1963.  This is attached to an FBI report from James C. Hosty it concerns the details of Oswald’s escapades in Dallas that Spring.  And of course this cannot exist either.

            Now remember Jane Roman signed off on the cable?  There she is up here reading this one just a couple of weeks beforehand. 

            Now this one here is dated the 24th of September, this is a big FBI report on Oswald’s Cuban escapades in the summer of '63.  Here again Jane Roman reading it just days before signing off on the cable that says they haven’t heard anything on Oswald since May '62.

            Here’s Annie Egerter looking at it on the same day, its open and on her desk.

            So, in fact this statement is not true.  And it’s not a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.  It’s not brain cramp.  It’s a very wide range of all of these people here were reading Oswald files at a time when they can’t exist according to that cable. 

            So, allright, I’ve convinced you, they had files on Oswald and the people who coordinated and wrote that message knew about it when they wrote it.  So, what is going on here? 

            I found Jane Roman eventually.  It was not easy, but I did, and Jeff Morley was with me from The Washington Post so there were two tape recordings going when she said this, I showed her all the documents I just showed you and all those routing sheets and asked her what was going on and she admitted, “I’m signing off on something I know isn’t true.”  Well, naturally that prompted the question why are you signing something that isn’t true.  And her answer was really, I don’t really know it wasn’t my operation but it’s indicative of a keen interest in Oswald held on a very closely need to know basis.  She indicated elsewhere in the interview that she thought it was probably the Cuban Affairs Staff, a Cuban operation.  Indeed that is the way it tends to look.  I spent a chapter; chapter 19, called the smoking file, in that chapter one of the key points is the bifurcation of the data streams on Oswald.  The New Orleans story goes into one box and all the CIA reporting out of Mexico City goes into a separate box, and it seems that the critical factor always ends up being the Cuban story and Oswald’s Cuban escapades both inNew Orleans and in Mexico City.

            You know part of the problem with all of the deceptions and cover stories in this case is that a great many of them can be rationalized away because of post assassination jitters and panic.  Remember the O.J. syndrome.  If you worked in the L.A.P.D. and touched O.J. files you had to get a new hair do, buy new clothes you were on TV, everything you did, it was subjected to the microscope in front of everyone on television.  Well, all those offices I mentioned to you, all 30 some branches across the government panicked when Oswald shows up as the shooter in the New York Times and a lot of shredders were working overtime after 22 November.  We know a little bit more about that, and I’m not going to go into that right now, but much of these files were reconstructed by what we call “soft files”, you know, extra copies, copies from people’s desk all over the agency.

            It’s clear that the 201 file as it existed in the immediate hours after the assassination had been decimated and then over a period of years was reconstructed. 

            “Soft files,” it’s interesting I like that term, “soft files.”  You know what it really means is when you get a really supersensitive document in the government and it says “Eyes Only Do Not Reproduce,” you know what the first thing everybody does?  They go make a copy of it and slide it in the ol’ desk drawer, and that’s a “soft file.”

            In any event, so it’s reasonable to argue that cover-ups and deception afterward were to protect legitimate operations, even if they were part of the conspiracy that argument can be advanced, but not with what you just saw, that deception, both of them actually, two different descriptions of Oswald by the same person on the same day one going to Mexico one going to the rest of the government.  It’s not after the assassination.  It’s in October.  This lie or this deception that we don’t have anything on Oswald up here since May '62 is not post assassination jitters.  That’s a deception before the assassination.  These deceptions cannot be explained or rationalized away in terms of post assassination jitters.  It’s operational.  Oswald somehow is being wrapped up inside of operations, there are things going on about him and in his files that are related to CIA operations.

            This here is another deception, this one in the immediate wake of the assassination that has not, that has really been maintained for 35 years until finally I interviewed Dick Helms not too long ago, but the deception concerns the story here that they didn’t know that he went into the Cuban consulate in Mexico City in late September 1963 until after Kennedy was murdered on 22 November.  Now just think about that.  This is spy city down there, everybody is taking pictures of each other taking pictures, there’s bugs in the walls, there’s taps on the phones, there is photo surveillance everywhere.  There are agents inside the Cuban consulate and they don’t know, the CIA doesn’t know he went in there.  It’s hard to believe but yet that’s the story that the American people have been told for 30 years.  “We didn’t know, then Kennedy got shot, then we looked and, Oh, Oswald was in the Cuban consulate.

            Well, it’s very interesting when you actually look at some of the CIA’s own documents.  For example this one here, this is Helms doing the talking to [J.] Lee Ranking the chief counsel for the Warren Commission and Helms is saying, “you know we were really interested in Americans who went into those consulates down there, and Oswald too,” but we don’t get to know all of this, I would like to know what’s under there, in any event what Helms is saying is that in Oswald’s case it was his combination of visits to both of the embassies that caused them to report it in the first place.  Now, Helms is not a disgruntled former CIA employee.  He’s a big guy.  He’s telling the truth here in this case to the Warren Commission.  So, I showed Helms this document and I said does this mean you knew he was in there? “Yeah, of course it does.”  Then I showed him this one.  After Angleton was fired for the mail intercept program he was replaced by George T. Kalaris.  Kalaris became head of counterintelligence in the mid-1970's and he wrote this memo to the Church Committee, I believe, and it says as you can see here “There were several Mexico City cables,” when, “October,” remember Kennedy hasn’t been assassinated yet, concerned with what, “Oswald’s visit to the Cuban embassy.”  Bingo!  Kalaris is not a disgruntled former CIA employee.  He’s the head of counterintelligence.  I now have two documents that say they knew he went in there.

            This one here, “every piece of information concerning Lee Harvey Oswald,” this is down in Mexico City“was reported immediately after it was received to the U.S. Ambassador Thomas Mann by memorandum, the FBI chief in Mexico by memorandum, and to headquarters by cable.”  And the person who wrote this was no disgruntled former CIA employee he was the station chief, Winn Scott.

            I call it the dream team, the station chief, [the] head of counterintelligence, head of the CIA, all saying what?  “We knew, right away, he was in the Cuban consulate.”  Okay, so what? So, they knew and they covered it up.

            Why?  What’s going on?  What’s so deep about Oswald’s visit down there to Mexico City?  Something very strange happened to people who went down there and called the Cuban embassy or went into the Cuban embassy.  Understand, that as I said before we have assassination plots against Castro, plans to invade Cuba.  In 1963 I’m up to about 115 AM compartments, cryptonyms, 115 separate anti-Cuban operations many of which are connected to or being run through that consulate through our agents inside there.  It is a big, big target.  Why?  Because it is the portal to the outside world for Havana and therefore a broad target for Central Intelligence Agency counterespionage and counterintelligence operations.

            Oh, by the way, this was Helms’ reaction, when I showed him all those documents and I asked him about he said well they probably didn’t want to blow their sources.  I said thank you, sir, very much.  I’m glad that we have been finally, at least partially, what the truth is.  In this case he is talking about the cover story just protecting sources.  I’m not so sure it’s not just sources, it’s methods as well, including the sort of things that were going on down there. 

            I am going to very quickly, very, very quickly summarize data on someone called Eldon Hensen.  And it is useful because Eldon Hensen, who was a cattle rancher from Texas experienced what I call “Mexican realities,” or an impersonation operation against him.  He wanted to go to down there and hustle a buck out of the Cubans, it looked like in any event, well, I don’t have time to tell the story, but, what happened to him was somebody impersonating a Cuban officer met with him and got information out of him and wrote up a report, sent it to headquarters, we have that report today.

            The Hensen data which is outlined in my chapter 18 makes it clear that the agency was impersonating people very successfully, for whatever reason, if they could.  In his case, he just simply called up and was trying to make an arrangement.  Oswald was down there 6 weeks later and what we find when we put together all the data, from the Cubans, the Mexicans, the Russians, which we now have, Nechiporenko’s book released a couple of years ago has the recollections of he, [Pavel] Yatskov, and Kostikov, all three of them consular officials, and all three of them associated with the KGB, when you take their data, the Mexicans and the Cubans who worked down there and set that up next to the surveillance data, the CIA surveillance data something extraordinary leaps out and that is this, that those CIA transcripts do match the recollections of the people who were there until Saturday morning, around 10 o’clock.  It is not a haphazard relationship where one transcript matches what they say, and two don’t, and one does and two don’t what happens is it works out perfectly, like a glove on a hand until 10 o’clock Saturday morning after which none of those transcripts has a thing to do with what everybody says happened down there.

            The story in a nut shell is this, Oswald wants to go back to Russia again.  Isn’t that odd to you?  ThroughMexico and Cuba?  The guy made it in real fast the first time through Helsinki.  In any event that’s the story.  So, he’s down there and he’s walking around these consulates.  So, he wants a transit visa across Cuba.  He doesn’t have pictures.  So, Sylvia Duran the receptionist says, “You gotta have pictures.” So, he leaves, gets the pictures, comes back.  He’s back a second time, “I’ve got pictures,” fills out the visa application forms, in duplicate, signs them, still no visa.  Why not? Because you ‘transit visa.  So, he has to leaves again.  He goes to the Soviet consulate this time.  “Sorry Charlie, you really messed up, you should have done that back in the United States, it takes four months if you want to do it through us here, four months.”  So Oswald now walks back for the third time on Friday afternoon, “Oh no problem Ms. Duran they’ve approved my visa.”  He’s lying.  She says, “Just a minute,” and she checks with the Soviet consulate.  And of course there’s been no approval.

            Now the CIA was transcribing this.  We have that.  And there are actually two conversations.  They are legitimate, just like she says in her testimony, right there on the CIA transcript.  And the transcriber I should mention had no problem recognizing Sylvia Duran’s voice.  He says it, “The person speaking is Sylvia Duran.”  No kidding they listen to the phone everyday.  So, the next morning, he never comes back, she said, that’s it, end of subject, no more Cuban consulate, no more phone calls, nothing, that’s it.

            The next morning he makes a last ditch attempt, goes over to the Soviet consulate, right? “No Soviet visa, no Cuban visa.”  Well, everything’s shut on Saturday in Mexico all these consulates, but in the case of the Russians they play serious combat volleyball on Saturday morning, so all three guys were there again, in their shorts, and in comes Oswald, and he breaks, (boo hoo, boo hoo) puts a weapon on the table, “Okay, this is what I have to do to protect myself from the FBI,” and so on and so forth.  It’s all in Nechiporenko’s book.  In any event, they calm him down give him ten glasses of water and say, “Well would you like to fill out the application form or what?”  “No,” he says he doesn’t want to fill them out, he’s done, he’s finished.  They never see him again. 

            Its 10 o’clock Saturday morning, but the fun and games are just about to begin. Not even an hour later the phone rings, [and] according to the CIA surveillance it’s guess who?  Duran and Oswald again.  He’s changed his mind.  Now he wants to do it.  And it’s really an incredible scene, I mean Jay Leno can really do something with this transcript.  It starts off, “The woman speaking was later identified as Sylvia Duran.”  And it’s the same transcriber.  Remember, the preceding day he gets it, “The woman speaking is Sylvia Duran.”  Well, what, he looses his mind in a day?  He doesn’t know it’s Sylvia Duran all of a sudden?  And what does this woman say? “There’s a man here.”  Not Oswald is here.  “There’s a guy here who says he’s been to the Soviet Consulate.”  This doesn’t work.  She KNOWS he’s been to the Soviet Consulate!  She’s called and talked to Kostikov about him.  Anyway, you go down through this transcript, line by line, and what you find out is that you have imposters on the outside who don’t know what’s been going on inside and who don’t have access to that first transcript on Friday afternoon, we know they didn’t until Monday, it’s in the Lopez report.  They [The Imposters] are just figuring it out.  They can’t assume she knows anything about what happened inside the Soviet consulate yet.  So, once you understand there is the possibility that you have imposters here who are sort of playing along on these phone lines trying to keep the conversation going it becomes obvious what’s happened.

            I can’t indulge anymore time wise to go through this exercise with you, you can do it on your own by looking at these transcripts.  But it is obvious to me Oswald didn’t make any of those phone calls, unless there is something terribly wrong going on here.

            Now was Oswald really on these tapes and just part of the charade, part of some charade?  I think not because Sylvia Duran, she is being impersonated too.  In fact the Cubans have reached the same conclusion, independently from myself, and we met down in Rio, that was one of the things that fell out of that, they had already reached that conclusion themselves well.  But if Oswald is really doing all of this, and so is Duran and what’s worse so is everybody else and I’ll show you why. This is something that came out of the new release and this happens to be a phone conversation between the President, Johnson, and Hoover, the day after the assassination