If Lee Oswald was a lone nut, who was up to all this shit ?
http://22november1963.org.uk/a-little-incident-in-mexico-cityOswald in Mexico City: the FBI’s Discovery
The FBI learned on the afternoon of the assassination that it had not been kept fully informed by the CIA of Oswald’s activities in Mexico City. To remedy this, two sets of evidence were sent by the CIA station in Mexico City to the FBI in Dallas, arriving early on the morning of 23 November:
At least one tape recording of a phone call by a man claiming to be Oswald.
Several photographs of the only non–Hispanic man to enter the Soviet compound on the date of Oswald’s meeting there with Kostikov.6
FBI agents in Dallas made an unexpected and ominous discovery: neither the voice on the recording nor the man in the photographs matched the man who was in custody. Someone had impersonated Oswald in Mexico City.7
Oswald’s Assistant or Impostor
Although there was good evidence that Oswald had in fact made at least one visit to the Cuban Consulate and one to the Soviet Embassy,8 several other encounters provided strong evidence that he had also been impersonated:
In two telephone calls to the Soviet Embassy, a man claiming to be Lee Harvey Oswald spoke “terrible, hardly recognizable Russian”, according to the CIA’s translator. Oswald himself spoke Russian very well.9
The man who made the incriminating phone call to Kostikov had also phoned from the Cuban Consulate three days earlier, on Saturday 28 September. In this instance, not only was Oswald impersonated but the phone call or the transcript appear to have been fabricated. The Cuban Consulate and the switchboard at the Soviet Embassy were closed on Saturdays. Silvia Durán, an employee at the Cuban Consulate, who was mentioned by name on the transcript, denied that she had taken part in the call on the 28th.10
Silvia Durán and the Cuban Consul General, who had had three encounters with a man who claimed to be Oswald, both recalled that the man they met looked nothing like either the real Oswald or the man in the photographs.
If you want to see the other side of the "fake Oswald in Mexico City" theory,check out this link.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless3.htm The CIA people told lies to House Select Committee on Assassinations, mcadams is a joke.
The HSCA was told a pack of lies by the CIA on Mexico City not only on Mexico City but a CIA man stonewalled Congress.George Joannides, chief of CIA covert operations in Miami in 1963 WAS THE CIA
liaison with the House Select Committee on Assassinations. http://www.ibtimes.com/jfk-assassination...esident-kennedyIn 1978, Joannides served as CIA liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which re-investigated the JFK assassination, but he did not disclose the obvious conflict of interest to the HSCA in regard to his role in the events of 1963.
House Select Committee on Assassinations Chief Counsel G. Robert Blakey said that had he known who Joannides was at that time, Joannides would not have continued as CIA liaison. Instead, he would have become a witness who would have been interrogated under oath by the HSCA staff or by the committee. In addition, Joannides’ failure to disclose his role occurred despite Blakey and the CIA’s pre-investigation agreement between the HSCA and the CIA, which allowed CIA personnel who were operational after 1963 to avoid being involved in the committee’s investigation.
Many would consider the acts of deception by the CIA listed above as audacious, to put it diplomatically.
“If I’d known his [Joannides’] role in 1963, I would have put Joannides under oath -- he would have been a witness, not a facilitator,” Blakey, now a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, told the New York Times. “How do we know what he didn’t give us?”
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKblakey.htmRobert Blakey is currently professor of law at the University of Notre Dame. He also helped draft the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. In 1993 Gaeton Fonzi published The Last Investigation, a book detailing his research into the assassination. It is considered by many critics as among the best books on the JFK assassination and is currently recognized as an authority on those aspects of the assassination involving anti-Castro Cubans and the intelligence agencies. As Paul Vitello pointed out in the The New York Times: "He (Fonzi) chronicled the near-blanket refusal of government intelligence agencies, especially the C.I.A., to provide the committee with documents it requested. And he accused committee leaders of folding under pressure - from Congressional budget hawks, political advisers and the intelligence agencies themselves - just as promising new leads were emerging."
In the book Fonzi criticized Blakey for being overly deferential to the CIA. Blakey now accepts that Fonzi was probably right about this. Blakey was shocked in 2003 when declassified CIA documents revealed the full identity of the retired agent who had acted as the committee’s liaison to the agency, George Joannides, who had also overseen a group of anti-Castro Cuban exiles in Dallas in the months before the assassination, when Lee Harvey Oswald was in contact with them.
Blakey was furious when he discovered this information. He issued a statement where he said: "I am no longer confident that the Central Intelligence Agency co-operated with the committee.... I was not told of Joannides' background with the DRE, a focal point of the investigation. Had I known who he was, he would have been a witness who would have been interrogated under oath by the staff or by the committee. He would never have been acceptable as a point of contact with us to retrieve documents. In fact, I have now learned, as I note above, that Joannides was the point of contact between the Agency and DRE during the period Oswald was in contact with DRE. That the Agency would put a 'material witness' in as a 'filter' between the committee and its quests for documents was a flat out breach of the understanding the committee had with the Agency that it would co-operate with the investigation."
In August, 2013, Blakey told the Las Vegas Sun: "They (the CIA) held stuff back from the Warren Commission, they held stuff back from us, they held stuff back from the ARRB. That's three agencies that they were supposed to be fully candid with. And now they're taking the position that some of these documents can't be released even today. Why are they continuing to fight tooth and nail to avoid doing something they'd promised to do?"
