Bill Lord's letter to President Jimmy Carter re: JFK assassination and Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) plus George Herbert Walker Bush laughs in the American people's and the world's face concerning the LHO relation
February 2, 1977
My dear Mr. President:
I have refrained from troubling you with the contents of
this letter as long as I possibly could. But I have finally
decided that a personal letter to you is, in the end, in your
interest and in the country’s interest.
I am simply transcribing notes which I set down about two
weeks ago--and which concern, and must concern, any leader of
I was Lee Oswald’s cabinmate on the SS MARION LYKES, which
sailed from New Orleans to France in September-October, 1959.
I have recently been the subject of surveillance, of harass-
ment, of pressure tactics, and possibly of terror tactics.
First, in September, when I was teaching in Japan, some-
one broke into my house, rifled my papers, but stole nothing.
I returned to the United States shortly thereafter. Back in
Texas, I was suddenly and improbably the subject of a blitz of
contacts by telephone from persons wanting to know urgently and
insistently what I knew or remembered about Oswald. No one had
asked me anything about Oswald since the time of the Warren
Commission investigation twelve years ago. The blitz of calls
came out of the blue. It was highly improbable, and, after
the break-in, I was suspicious. I stalled these people, who
represented two major national publications. During this
period of non-cooperation, I received another surprise, another
“first” for me. Two Iranian gentlemen appeared at my front door.
My mother’s house was up for sale and they were prospective
buyers. A small ad had been placed in the paper. The Iranians
strode through the house in a very cursory, almost arrogant
manner, paced off the front yard, and drove away. The sale of
the house had been discussed on the telephone among family; a
small ad had been placed. Only one other couple showed up to
look at the house. Neither I, nor my mother, who is 63, had
ever received a visit from Iranian gentlemen before.
One of the parties which has blitzed me with telephone calls
trying to persuade me to tell them what I know about Oswald, is
engaged in a very costly project which allows them to locate,
interview, monitor, and influence every single available person
who ever knew Lee Oswald--and this, just in advance of the new
governmental investigation by the House Select Committee on
Assassinations. I finally consented, not to grant an interview,
but to allow the publication’s representative to explain their
project to me in person. After a lunch with this researcher,
I was told that if I had refused even to meet with him, pressure
was in the offing through two Midland men: Mr. Jim Allison,
publisher of the ultra-conservative Reporter-Telegram, my em-
ployer (out of necessity, and for the moment!), and Mr. George
Bush, Jr. The researcher said he had asked an acquaintance, a
Mr. Beamis (?), chairman of the Republican Party in Virginia
and owner of “a string of hotels” in that state, for help in
persuading me to tell what I know about Oswald. After this
revelation, and when I still refused to be interviewed, the
publication’s leg-man made an effort to purchase my knowledge
about Oswald. I refused, and he left.
Shortly thereafter, my mother discovered that her tele-
phone had been tampered with. The casing around the dialing
apparatus had been pulled out about one-half inch. It was so
obvious as to be grotesque. But we cannot doubt that someone
entered the house at a time when I was at work and my mother
was away; she returned to the house, however, at an unaccustomed
I have been in anguish for weeks, Mr. President, trying
my best to laugh at my apprehensions and to see these events
as fortuitous ones. Experience, common sense, and logic
persuade me otherwise. So I have been compelled to react
to all this in the form of a statement--and it may shed some
light on the reasons for the intrusions into my life:
Speaking as the man who spent more than two weeks in the
same ship’s cabin with Lee Oswald at the time of his 1959
“defection”, and speaking as a man who has been the subject
of the above-described tactics of cowards, I offer the
following considerations to the American people and to
1. It is the CIA and FBI relations with Lee Oswald which have been
covered up since November 22, 1963.
2. It is the CIA and the FBI which have concealed and destroyed
evidence of their relations with Oswald prior to November 22,
3. It is the CIA which has, from the beginning, fabricated or
distorted certain Cuba-Oswald relations, and certain Cuba-
JFK relations, as a smokescreen and decoy to conceal the
4. I can testify, and others can testify, that the CIA did not
conduct a real investigation of the so-called defector Oswald
in 1959. The CIA has long been concerned about witnesses
who can testify to this oversight on their part.
5. They did not conduct a real investigation because Mr. Oswald
was a bogus defector.
6. The CIA is concerned lest the knowledge that Oswald was a
fake defector in 1959, linking him to CIA, also link him
with CIA on November 22, 1963. But there is an impressive
body of evidence that CIA used--and abused--Oswald as late
as November, 1963.
7. It is the CIA-Oswald relation and the FBI-Oswald relation
which have necessitated the thirteen-year cover-up.
8. A necessary conclusion is that the CIA and FBI elements in 1963
are suspect in the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
9. The assassination of John Kennedy has every appearance of
having been our first American coup d’état.
Mr. President, as a man, a father, and a concerned citizen,
I believe that you would act energetically also, if you were in
my shoes. I believe that you should be aware of the fact that
one of your fellow-citizens does not feel that he, his wife and
three children, and his mother, are safe in Midland, Texas.
I conclude, Mr. President, by assuring you that I have
the most enormous respect for you and the most hope-inspiring
indications of your good will, as of your rare ability to lead
the nation. Without flattery, you are quite simply the political
light of this period in history. God be with you.
I apologize for the crude and, doubtless, offensive tone
of this letter.
<signed Bill Lord>
Midland, Texas 79701
In re: Mr. Beamis (sic):
My CSPAN snippet to prove this wasn't a fake modified video (go to the below link immediately below to viewd):
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4479286 (particular snippet from recording by CSPAN, 02:03)
OpEdNews Op Eds 3/8/2014 at 15:50:33
The Anti-Latell Report: Addenda on Oswald's Impersonation
Three explanatory books
(image by Amazon - Mary Ferrell Foundation)
Although Professor John McAdams wrote The JFK Assassination Logic (Potomac Books, 2011), the book is far away from its declared purpose of "how to think about claims of conspiracy." The underlying intention is to reject all claims of conspiracy and to confirm the Warren Commission (WC) Report on a lone gunman who shot a magic bullet. Thus, Professor McAdams devised his logic on the basis of the classic Only Game in Town (OGT) fallacy.
Even if it weren't available, a better account than the WC report, nobody is obliged to accept it in default, because there is always an alternative to the OGT fallacy: to find a more plausible explanation. All the JFK assassination researchers face the same logical problem of finding evidence that strongly discriminates between the two competing hypotheses:
H 1 : The deed of a lone gunman
H 2 : The result of a conspiracy
All of them are forced to infer to the best explanation through good arguments, id est: those containing true premises related in the right way to the conclusion. For this kind of reasoning, the American philosopher Charles Sanders Pierce coined the term " abduction ," but it rather suggests kidnapping nowadays. We can use instead "inference to the best explanation" for what Pierce meant, and he actually meant that an observation O strongly favors one hypothesis (let's say H 2 ) over another ( H 1 ) if the following conditions are satisfied at once:
If H 2 were true, O is to be expected (unsurprising)
If H 1 were true, O would have been unexpected (surprising)
The No Surprise / Surprise Principle rules the inference to the best explanation and it applies not only to the whole set of facts regarding the JFK assassination, but also for every single fact in dispute.
Oswald's Impersonation in Mexico City
In the fourth part of the series, I trusted the old sleuth Alan H. Belmont in his report to FBI Associate Director Clyde A. Tolson: "The Agents who have talked to Oswald have listened to the tape provided by CIA of the call allegedly made by Oswald to the Soviet Embassy, and they do not think the individual is Oswald, as his voice is different, and he spoke in broken English" (Research Papers of John Armstrong, Book 1, Notebook 2 , pages 38-39).
Jane Davidson replied that Belmont misunderstood what Dallas FBI Special Agent in Charge Gordon Shanklin told him at 9:15 AM on November 23, 1963. If this hypothesis were true, it's surprising that, after calling Shanklin again at 11:50 am EST , Belmont kept on reporting to Tolson: "Inasmuch as the Dallas agents who listened to the tape of the conversation allegedly of Oswald from the Cuban Embassy to the Russian Embassy in Mexico and examined the photographs of the visitor to the Embassy in Mexico and were of the opinion that neither the tape or the photograph pertained to Oswald , I requested Shanklin to immediately send a photograph of Oswald to our Legal Attaché."
Davidson discovered that the very agent who had flown from Mexico City with CIA materials for the FBI in Dallas, Eldon Rudd, had memoed : "CIA has advised that these tapes have been erased and are not available for review." The HSCA concluded : "A review of relevant FBI cable traffic established that at 7:23 p.m. (CST) on November 23, 1963, Dallas Special Agent-in-Charge Shanklin advised Director Hoover that only a report of this conversation was available, not an actual tape recording" (Final Report, page 250). And Professor McAdams flatly states: "No tapes from Mexico City were sent to Dallas. That's a factoid."
The well established fact is then that the tapes were erased. It's surprising, since the hypothesis of common sense indicates that the CIA must have preserved taped conversations involving an American citizen who had visited both the Cuban and the Soviet embassies in Mexico City.
Instead of going deeper into this fact -- to show "how to think about claims of conspiracy" -- Professor McAdams simply used it as evidence of a " Clueless J. Edgar Hoover " and against the hypothesis of Oswald's impersonation without inferring to the best explanation through some good arguments:
The own CIA Mexico City Station History refers it as "the best in WH [Western Hemisphere] and possibly one of the best in the Agency. [Its] technical facilities and capabilities were described as extraordinary and impressive" (page 45). Its two phone tap operations were LIENVOY and LIFEAT. The former focused on the Soviet bloc's and Cuban diplomatic compounds (page 104 ff.).
In August 1963, the monthly operational report for LIENVOY included the protocol for exploiting info (page 3): "The outside staff agent, Arnold AREHART [Charles Flick], has instructions to alert the Station immediately if a U.S. citizen or English speaking person tries to contact any of the target installations [by] a telephone call from outside the tap center at a pay phone to Robert B. RIGGS [Anne Goodpasture] inside the Station (") RIGGS meets AREHART within fifteen minutes at a pre-arranged downtown location and receives the reel with an extract of the pertinent conversation. This reel is then taken to the Station and given to the case officer responsible for the target the person was trying to contact. Headquarters is notified by cable of the action taken. Only in rare cases is information on a U.S. citizen passed without prior Headquarters approval."
By the time of Oswald's visit to Mexico City, LIENVOY had intercepted three Cuban lines: Ambassador (14-42-37), Chancery (14-13-26) and Commercial Office (25-09-14) , and five Soviet lines: Commercial Office (15-61-07), Soviet Film representative's (15-12-64), Military Attaché's (15-69-87) and two consulate lines at the Chancery (15-60-55 and 15-61-55). From all of them, LIENVOY recorded the dialed digits and audio for outgoing calls and just audio for incoming calls.
At Russ Holmes Work File (NARA 104-10413-10074 ), the September 27 -- October 1, 1963 LIENVOY transcripts [in Spanish and some in English] show five taped conversations linked to Oswald [emphasis added].
Page 4. September 27, 16:00 hours. Phone number: 15-60-55. The Soviet Consulate received a call from the Cuban Consulate (Sylvia DURAN) who said she had there a U.S. citizenwho had requested a transit visa to Cuba because he is going to URSS (") [A] Soviet tells her to leave her telephone (number) and her name and someone will return the call. DURAN gives her name and phone number 11-28-47.
Page 17. September 27, 16:26 hours. Phone number: 15-61-55. A Soviet calls from the Soviet Embassy Chancery to the Cuban Consulate and asks for Sylvia DURAN. He asks DURAN if the American has been there.
DURAN: Yes, he is still here.
SOVIET: According to the letters that he showed them from the (Soviet) Consulate in Washington, he wants to go the URSS to stay a long time with his wife, who is Russian, but also the answer had not been received (") This man (the American) showed him a letter in which he (the American) is a member of an organization in favor of Cuba and said that the Cubans could not give him the visa without the Russian visa."
DURAN: [H]e doesn't know anyone in Cuba and in that case it is very difficult to give him a visa [and] neither can (the Cubans) give him a letter because they do not know if the visa will be approved."
SOVIET: Neither can I give him any letter of recommendation because I don't know him."
On the second call's Spanish transcript, the Chief of Station (COS) Win Scott noted: "Is it possible to identify?" This reaction is to be expected under the hypothesis of normal circumstances, but Scott's next move reinforces the alternate hypothesis: something anomalous was going on.
On October 10, Scott wrote the LIENVOY operational report for September 1963 and referred only "two leads of operational interest" (page 3): a female professor from New Orleans calling the Soviet Embassy, and a Czech woman calling the Czech embassy (page 4). It's very surprising that a U.S. citizen at the Cuban Consulate, who had requested a transit visa to go on to URSS and showed to the Soviets a letter of membership to a pro Cuba organization, was neither reported as an operational lead nor notified to Headquarters, in flagrant violation of the CIA protocol. The hypothesis of abnormality becomes stronger due to the next call.
Page 26. September 28, ca. 12:00 hours. Phone number 15-60-55. The Soviet Embassy Consulate receives a call from Sylvia DURAN of the Cuban Consulate. She says that here in the Consulate there is an American that was just at the Soviet Embassy. A Soviet says to wait a minute. DURAN, while waiting, speaks to someone in background, 'Do you speak Russian? Yes, why don't you talk to him? I don't know.' Then back to Spanish, DURAN says they installed a telephone for APARICIO and take down the number as 14-12-99. 'About this U.S. citizen, he is going to talk with you.'"
AMERICAN: Speaking in broken Russian, 'I was in your Embassy and spoke to your consul.'"
SOVIET: 'Just a minute' ... 'Ask the American in English what does he want?'"
AMERICAN: In Russian, 'Please speak Russian.'"
SOVIET: 'What else do you want?'"
AMERICAN: 'I was just now at your Embassy and they took my address.'"
SOVIET: 'I know that.'"
AMERICAN: [Translator comment: speaks terrible, hardly recognizable Russian] 'I did not know it then. I went to the Cuban Embassy to ask them for my address, because they have it.'"
SOVIET: 'Why don't you come again and leave your address with us. It is not far from the Cuban Embassy.'"
AMERICAN: 'Well, I'll be there right away.'"
If the hypothesis of Oswald in Mexico City for visa proceedings were true, it's to be expected that he would have gone right away to the Soviet Embassy. He didn't come ever again. This was incontrovertibly stated by Valeriy Kostikov and Oleg Nechiporenko, two Soviet officials who dealt with Oswald that very Saturday before noon at the Soviet Consulate. They also claimed that no outsider could have placed that call because the switchboard was closed (Passport to Assassination, Birch Lane-Carol, 1993, pages 75-81).
The transcripts corroborate that all the callers that Saturday, except "Duran," were people with friends or relatives at the Soviet Consulate. Furthermore Sylvia Duran (née Tirado), a Mexican employee at the Cuban Consulate, consistently denied having made such call. She was arrested and harshly interrogated by the Mexican Police on November 23 and November 28. The info taken from her included that "she had no fear [of] extradition to the United States to face Oswald" (page 13). Surprisingly, the CIA had fear [of] "any Americans to confront Silvia DURAN or to be in contact with her" (page 16).
Neither the eyewitness [Duran] nor the earwitnesses [CIA transcribers Boris and Anna Tarasoff] were ever questioned about the call by the WC. The info developed by CIA barely stated: "We deduce that OSWALD visited the Cuban Consulate [again] on September 1963 (") This may well have been 28 September, but we cannot be certain of this conclusion" (page 3).
It's surprising not only that the CIA didn't trust its own LIENVOY evidence, but also that such critical wiretapped call by "Duran and Oswald" was omitted in the September LIENVOY Report, even though COS Scott wrote it after having notified an intriguing October 1 call to Headquarters. To cap it all, the CIA "Responses to Questions Raised by [HSCA] to Richard Sprague" included that "the Station went onto say that it was unable to compare the voices in the two conversations because the tape of the first conversation (September 28) had been erased before the second call (1 October) had been received" (page 33).
Page 38. October 1, 10:31 hours. To phone number 15-69-87. A man outside (MO) calls the Soviet Military Attaché Office speaking in broken Russian.
MO: 'Hello, I was at your place last Saturday and talked to your Consul. They said they'd send a telegram to Washington and I wanted to ask you if there is anything new?'"
SOVIET: 'I'd like to ask you to call another phone number.'"
SOVIET: 'Please write it down; 15-60-55 and ask for a Consul.'"
MO: 'Thank you.'"
Page 44. October 1, 10:35 hours. To phone number 15-60-55. A man [MO] described by the translator as the same person who had called a day or so ago and spoken in broken Russian called the Soviet Embassy Consulate and spoke with the Soviet guard on duty:
MO: 'Hello, this LEE OSWALD speaking. I was at your place last Saturday and spoke to a Consul, and they say that they'd send a telegram to Washington, so I wanted to find out if you have anything new? But I don't remember the name of that Consul.'"
SOVIET: KOSTIKOV. He is dark?
MO: 'Yes. My name is OSWALD.'"
SOVIET: 'Just a minute. I'll find out. They said that they haven't received anything yet.'"
MO: 'Have they done anything?'"
SOVIET: 'Yes, they say that a request has been sent out bur nothing has been received as yet.'"
MO: 'And what' (SOVIET hangs up)."
The CIA transcriber Boris Tarasoff remarked that "Lee Oswald" was the same person who had called before speaking "in broken Russian." Oswald was fluent in Russian, but Jane Davidson argues that, after returning to the U.S. in June 1962, "he was no longer forced to speak Russian almost exclusively [and] his Russian gradually got worse according to Marina. To a professional translator, maybe he sounded awful." Tarasoff noted: "hardly recognizable Russian." Is it plausible having reached that extreme in few more than a year?
Nonetheless, the October LIENVOY Report and the related CIA cable traffic bring more valuable observations that strongly favor the hypothesis of impersonation. The report mentions that "MEXI-6453 reported a contact by an English-speaking man with the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. This was forwarded to Headquarters (HDQS) for further dissemination." Surprisingly, the unequivocal link between this contact and the "Duran-Oswald" call was omitted. The cable traffic between the Station (MEXI) and HDQS (DIR) is even more surprising:
October 8. MEXI 6453 reported to HDQS that "an American male who spoke broken Russian" had said his name was "Lee Oswald." He was at the Soviet Embassy on September 28 and spoke with Consul Vareliy Kostikov. This cable also provided a description of a presumed American male who had entered the Soviet Embassy at 12:16 hours on October 1, but his photo was actually taken on October 2.
October 10. DIR 74830 replied that Lee Oswald "probably" was "Lee Henry Oswald." The cable provided an inaccurate description [5 ft 10 in / 165 lb] and specified: "Latest HDQS info was ODACID [State Department] report dated May 1962" on Oswald as "still US citizen [returning] with his Soviet wife [and] their infant child to USA." Surprisingly, HDQS omitted two 1963 FBI reports from Dallas (September 24) and New Orleans (October 4) on Oswald's leftist activism, his militancy in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) and his scuffle with Cuban exiles. Instead, HDQS quoted from a 1962 report by the U.S. Embassy in Moscow: "Twenty months of realities of life in Soviet Union had clearly had maturing effect on Oswald."
October 10. DIR 74673 disseminated to ODACID, ODENVY (FBI), and ODOATH (Navy) the description provided in MEXI 6453 for the presumed American male and omitted the hint that Oswald had spoken with Soviet Consul Valeriy Kostikov.
What's going on here? If the hypothesis of the lone gunman were true, it's not to be expected that the CIA concealed and even falsified Oswald's data before the JFK assassination. Thereafter, the CIA Inspector General blatantly lied: "It was not until 22 November 1963 [that the] Station learned (") Oswald had also visited the Cuban Embassy."
By dismissing the "tapes of not Oswald" story with the "no tapes of Oswald" story, Professor Mcadams has actually paved the way to the hypothesis of conspiracy with focus on the CIA, particularly since no "recording of Oswald's voice" adds up to no photo from his three visits to the Cubans and two visits to the Soviets.
Note that the Station in Mexico City and HDQS in Langley also hid from each other their respective knowledge of Oswald's contacts with Cuba. The best explanation can be inferred by connecting Philip H. Melanson's Spy Saga in New Orleans with John Newman's Oswald and the CIA in Mexico City.
Bill Simpich did it and his conclusion is that the tapes "were treated as a dark state secret." The exposure of Oswald impersonation would have led to the exposure of the Mexico City wiretap operations." Moreover, Simpich unveils two other circles of intrigue in Mexico City: the CIA-FBI joint operation against FPCC and the molehunt embedded within the CIA cables traffic in October 1963. For further reading go to Simpich's State Secret at Mary Ferrell Foundation's web page .
More information here:
Nixon-Bush Connection In The Kennedy Assassination
Also of note re: CIA and Robert Kennedy Assassination:
Release the files!
I filed suit for the records of George Joannides ten years ago, and the case is still not over. The legal bills of my attorney Jim Lesar now run to more that $125,000, and the CIA refuses to pay, even though the Court of Appeals ruled in our favor.
No one is doing this kind of work except for JFK Facts. We need your help to continue.
JFK Assassination: George Joannides’ CIA Files - Can They Help Determine Who Killed President Kennedy?
E. Howard Hunt:
Cord Meyer, himself was a rather favored member of the eastern aristocracy. He was a graduate of Yale University and had joined the Marine Corps during the war, and lost an eye in the Pacific fighting.
I think that L.B.J. settled on Meyer as an opportunist / paren (like himself) a paren and a man who had very little left to him in life, ever since J.F.K. had taken Cord's wife as one of his mistresses.
I would suggest that Cord Meyer welcomed the approach from L.B.J., who was after all, only the Vice-President at that time, and of course could not number Cord Meyer among J.F.K.'s admirers. Quite the contrary.
As for Dave Phillips, I knew him pretty well at one time. He worked for me during the Guatemala project. He had made himself useful to the Agency in Santiago, Chile, where he was an American businessman. In any case his actions, whatever they were, came to the attention of the Santiago Station Chief, and when his resume became known to people in the Western Hemisphere Division, he was brought in to work on Guatemalan operations.
Sturgis and Morales, and people of that ilk, stayed in apartment houses during preparations for the big event. Their addresses were very subject to change. So that where a fella like Morales had been one day, you'd not necessarily associate him with that same address the following day. In short it was a very mobile experience.
Let me point out at this point, that if I had wanted to fictionalize what went on in Miami and elsewhere during the run up for the big event, I would have done so.
But I don't want any unreality to tinge this particular story - or the information, I should say. I was a 'benchwarmer' on it and I had a reputation for honesty.
I think it's essential to refocus on what this information that I have been providing you - and you alone, by the way - consists of. What is important in the story is that we've backtracked the chain-of-command up through Cord Meyer, and laying the doings at the doorstep of L.B.J.
He, in my opinion, had an almost maniacal urge to become President. He regarded J.F.K. as - as he was in fact - an obstacle to achieving that. He could have waited for J.F.K. to finish out his term and then undoubtedly a second term.
So that would have put L.B.J. at the head of a long list of people who were waiting for some change in the Executive Branch.
|By Jonathan on Monday, December 31, 2007 @ 1:18 AM|