And in advance of the final document dump, click-bait stories will accumulate ...
...like this one from Politico about June Cobb:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...s-spy-know-about-the-jfk-assassination-215143
The main reason:
According to other declassified files, Cobb reported to the CIA’s Mexico City station in October 1964, nearly a year after JFK’s assassination, that she had learned from a prominent Mexican writer and two other Mexican sources that they had all seen Oswald at a dance party during his trip the year before that was also attended by Cuban diplomats and others who had spoken openly of their hope that Kennedy would be assassinated. Cobb’s sources said Oswald had been at the party in the company of two other young American men, who appeared to be his traveling companions and whose identifies have never been established. The questions raised by Cobb’s reports were obvious: Had any of those people encouraged Oswald to murder JFK or offered to help him escape after the assassination? (Nothing in the previously released documents involving Cobb support theories that Castro personally ordered Kennedy’s death.)
And the beat goes on.
Let's forget for the moment that Cobb was simply reporting a rumor. She never saw Oswald at a party herself, she had some people tell her that.
And of course, this is all the more believable because we know what a partier Oswald was. That's established by his... err, well... hmm... I guess that's not established at all. In fact, quite the contrary. For instance, his rooming house housekeeper testified:
Mr. BALL. Did you ever talk to him about anything?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No; because he wouldn't talk.
Mr. BALL. Did he say "Hello"?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No.
Mr. BALL. Or, "Goodby"?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No.
Mr. BALL. Or anything?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He wouldn't say nothing.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever speak to him?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, yes--I would say, "Good afternoon," and he would just maybe look at me give me a dirty look and keep walking and go on to his room.
Mr. BALL. Did he watch television?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No---in a way---but all he did ever watch the television was if someone in the other rooms had it on, maybe he would come and stand at the back of the couch---not over 5 minutes and go to his room and shut the door and never say a word.
Mr. BALL. Did he go out any at night?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No.
Mr. BALL. Did he stay home every night?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes---he stayed home every night---I didn't ever know of him going out. If he did, he left after I went to bed and I never knew...
Real partier type. More evidence of Oswald being a partier is from the owner of the rooming house:
Mr. BALL. Did he eat in the kitchen with it sometimes?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Occasionally, if there was no one in the kitchen, he would sit in the kitchen, but if there was anyone in there, he would take it in his room and every bit of that was put in the trash can. He never kept anything cluttered, never kept anything outside, no papers, books, or nothing.
Mr. BALL. Did you see him eat anything but lunch meat?
Mrs. JOHNSON. I never did, just lunch meat, all he ever put in there and preserves, I think he had some preserves and milk; but he put about a half gallon of sweet milk in that box each day.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see him eating his evening meal?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, I don't think I had seen him but I have seen him come in and get the lunch meat and carry it into his room.
Mr. BALL. Did he go out nights, any?
Mrs. JOHNSON. I just really never did see that man leave that room.
...
Mr. BALL. Did he watch television every evening?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Not every evening but just every time he took a notion but maybe 95 percent of the time he would sit in his room.
Mr. BALL. Did he have any visitors?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No, sir; he never had a visitor.
He wouldn't even eat in the community kitchen if there was someone else there. Look up the word 'loner' in the dictionary and there's a picture of Oswald.
And somehow he winds up at a party in Mexico?
This is just another false memory. More than likely, it was simply someone else entirely, and the witnesses convinced themselves, after the assassination, that it was Lee Harvey Oswald. It happens a lot. Well-meaning people simply make mistakes too.
Of course to conspiracy theorists, there are no mistakes of this nature. They only allow for two possibilities:
(a) It was the real Lee Harvey Oswald in the company of two men who might have been co-conspirators
(b) It was a conspirator masquerading as Lee Harvey Oswald, thereby establishing the conspiracy.
Option (c) simply doesn't exist to them:
(c) It was a simple case of mistaken identity, where the witness recalls to the best of their ability, but erroneously, that it was Lee Harvey Oswald. Especially if they talk to a couple of other witnesses who are convinced it was Oswald.
Conspiracy theorists have been making a living out of mistakes such as this since the mid-1960s. The first to raise the spectre of Oswald being impersonated was Richard Popkin in his book:
THE SECOND OSWALD.
The best at it is John Armstrong in his book
HARVEY AND LEE. He has built up this elaborate scheme to double Oswald almost from birth, complete with a second woman impersonating Oswald's mother, Marguerite Oswald. And of course, he half-bakes up this story from nearly every witness coming forward to say they saw Oswald somewhere.
Hank
