We need to place Lee Oswald somewhere in later September 1963, and it sure isn’t Mexico City. Nor is it in Dallas, Houston or New Orleans.
We need him in a secure place for a specific reason which is to integrate him within the team that will assassinate the President.
We need a secure place where outsiders can raise no suspicions.
There is no more secure place in the United States than George Parr’s county and ranch.
George Parr rules Duval County with an iron fist. He controls the county lock, stock and barrel.
He is a model for the ruling elite who will one day learn from his methods of control.
He owns the judges, the sheriff, the county commissioners, the tax assessors, the school board. He rules through bribery, ballot box stuffing, and intimidation. He has no qualms about murdering people. Indeed, he has murdered people.
It is difficult to overstate the power that George Parr had over Texas politics. He and his family ruled Duval County for close to 70 years. He was a king maker in the state of Texas. He could deliver 99% of the vote for the candidate of his choosing. He places governors and senators in power. Moreover he is responsible for putting Lyndon Johnson in power.
The source of his power was the knowledge that was bequeathed to him by his father, his understanding of the law, and his ruthlessness in accomplishing his goals.
He was the Tiger Woods of politics. Most politicians have to think about what moves they might need to make in any particular situation. George Parr didn’t need to think; he had an intuitive sense of what to do.
In the game of politics he was uncannily shrewd. Just as Napoleon could read a military battlefield like no other, George Parr could read a political battlefield fifteen moves ahead of his opponent. It was only a coalition of multiple players that ultimately brought George Parr down. On a one on one contest he was still the king.
His supporters knew it. Which is why they stuck by him.
Humanity loves a winner.
And so it should be to no one surprise that Duval County was chosen as the secure place in order to integrate Lee Oswald within the team. There Lee could move about with impunity. If Lee should drive without a license, he wasn’t going to be arrested.
George Parr’s talent was so superior that he was able to influence the politics of adjacent counties such as Jim Wells, Brooks and even Webb.
Freer and Alice are out of the way places when one is supposed to be traveling from Mexico City to Dallas. You don’t end up there unless you intend to be there.
This was obvious to J. Evetts Haley when he wrote his book, A Texan looks at Lyndon. Here he writes:
Coke Stevenson, a forgotten man, lives sadly in seclusion on his remote ranch in the hills of Texas. George Parr, citizenship restored by President Truman, flourishes and prospers – still a tremendous political power in South Texas, while the prominent figures who fought him hardest are gone, some having paid with fortune, blood and life. Justice Black still sits on the Supreme Bench, a leading figure in its steady and unspeakable usurpation of power, while John Connally, Lyndon‘s right hand man in the Duval steal, is governor of the “great state of Texas.”
And Lyndon Baines Johnson, the master devotee of power and politics as “the art of the possible, “is President of United States at the most critical period in history.
In its incipiency, public sanction of immorality, assassination and legitimacy may seem a local if not a minor matter. But the malignancy spreads! What a strange coincidence that Lee Harvey Oswald, on his return from Mexico shortly after the Kennedy assassination, detoured from Laredo to stop and spend the night in “search of a job “ at Alice, in Jim Wells County, Texas before proceeding to Dallas and his world shocking deed!
In presenting a case to a jury, the prosecutor weaves a tale of what he perceives to be what happened based upon the best evidence available. If the jury accepts the prosecutor’s case, that tale becomes the accepted truth until a better story comes along.
The Warren Commission tale has come to be the “accepted truth”, yet why should that be?
In this particular segment of the JFK assassination, why should we accept Oswald being in Mexico?
We accept it because the lawyers on the Warren Commission, trained in the flawed logic of the law, have presented a thin train of logic that puts Oswald there.
All of modern math is based upon whether 1 + 1 = 2. Whether you are talking about graph theory, topology, calculus, algebra or any other field of math, it’s based upon an orderliness, a reliability, or logicality.
That’s why math exists. That’s why it was invented. It was invented to get reproducible results.
But that’s not how human beings roll. Not only are we not logical creatures, we use the logic or the lack of logic in order to enhance our place in the world.
All warfare is based upon the use of illogic. All warfare is built upon deception. We set up a set of circumstances so that our opponents will conclude that we are doing one thing when we are in reality planning to do another.
Therefore, the modern rules of logic, Venn diagrams, graph theory, and Boolean blather are generally useless when it comes to evaluating human behavior.
This is especially true when it comes to the JFK assassination.
The Warren Commission members, inveterate liars, present a certain set of facts that lead you to believe that Oswald is in Mexico when in fact he may not be there at all. Why do they do that? Because they and the people backing them (Corporate America) want to expand their presence in time and space at your expense.
If we follow the logic with the evidence that is presented to us, it makes sense that Oswald is in Mexico. We have bus tickets; we have eyewitness testimony. We even have a half-baked motive for him to be there. He’s there to join Fidel and the communist movement.
It makes sense.
Why would we challenge that?
Why would we challenge any of the evidence of the Warren Commission?
In a logical world we wouldn’t. But because we are human beings, and because we have all been lied to in our lives, we know that human beings lie.
They don’t always lie, but they have a great tendency to do so. We ourselves have lied. We learned how to lie from an early age. When our first grade teacher asked us where our homework was, we would answer: The dog ate my homework.
It’s a good lie. How can you refute it?
You can’t because it’s possible.
Now, you can blame it on the dog, or you can blame it on Oswald.
Yeah, why not. Oswald ate my homework.
Or, better bet, Oswald killed Kennedy.
It’s possible, right?
How can you refute it?
In the same way you refute the dog eating your homework: By asking questions, such as: Who benefits.
No amount of logic or mathematical formula will enable you to answer the question as to whether the dog ate the homework.
You must ask questions and evaluate the likelihood of something like this happening.
Why would the dog eat your homework? How does eating your homework benefit the dog nutritionally? Would the dog find your homework tasty? Have other people used the same flimsy excuse? Do dogs normally eat paper?
And so it is with Oswald. You have to ask questions.
Most of these questions are general questions. The really good ones avoid specifics and focus on general characteristics and tendencies.
They help define context.
By moving up to a 50,000 foot view they help to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Why would Oswald travel to a different country to get into Cuba? Why wouldn’t he travel to the Cuban consulate in Washington DC? The Cuban consulate in Washington DC is 200 miles closer than the Cuban consulate in Mexico City. Ditto to the Russian consulate in both cities. Marina was a Russian citizen; Lee Oswald was legally married to her; if we are to believe Ms. Silvia Duran at the Cuban embassy in Mexico City – that an in-transit visa from Russia is the key to the worker’s paradise in Cuba – then why not call the Russian embassy in Washington, and, if true, commence to obtain one immediately by traveling. A Greyhound bus will get you there within a day. Getting an in-transit visa should be a gimme.
Why go to a different country in which you don’t speak the language? And why are you taking a gun with you? Aren’t you aware of the gun laws in Mexico? Aren’t you aware that an undeclared gun gets you an automatic jail sentence?
Now, of course, we now know that there are no pictures of Oswald in either of these embassies in Mexico City, and we know that our government routinely takes pictures of people entering these embassies.
Here is something else. Why does nobody at the hotel in Mexico City notice Oswald? Where does Oswald eat? Did he have no meals? Did he not go to any taco stands? Why are there no other common-folk witnesses while Oswald is in Mexico? There are in Alice and Freer.
No, it appears that LHO is invisible to regular people and only visible to political operatives. Apparently – it has been thrown out there – that Lee may have attended a Twist party and even had an affair with Ms. Duran. Oswald the socializer? Oswald the swinger? Oswald the pick-up artist? That doesn’t sound like the Oswald I know, the one the Warren Commission has carefully painted as an isolated loner.
How about illness? When I first visited Mexico I was sick as a dog with chronic diarrhea for months. Nearly everybody I knew got sick while in Mexico. That’s because people don’t wash their hands assiduously prior to eating. Did Oswald have special hygiene skills? Why do we have no record of Oswald getting sick? It would be extremely unlikely for him to spend three or four days there and not get sick?
And why does Marina ask no questions about his trip to Mexico. Why does Ruth Paine ask no questions? When I visited Mexico, my family had 1,000,001 questions about my experiences in Mexico. I was roughly the same age as Oswald. Wouldn’t it be natural to ask Lee any of the following questions: What did you eat? What do people eat down there? What do people do all day? What kind of jobs do they have? What kind of clothes do they wear? Did you go to any bullfights? Did you bring back any souvenirs?
Why doesn’t Marina ask any questions?
When I was living in Mexico in 1977, I survived on $250 a month. I was a poor student. I didn’t have any money. It’s a good bet that Oswald on a prorated basis had more money than I did. He must’ve had some money to buy some meals. Why doesn’t anybody remember him eating a taco?
Furthermore, where is his residual Mexican money? Everybody I know who has ever visited Mexico comes back with a few coins that they either didn’t exchange or couldn’t spend.
One more thing. Where’s the camera, the famous camera that took the backyard photos of Oswald holding the rifle? If you are going to Mexico City, wouldn’t you want to take a few snaps of you standing on the Reforma, at the Zocalo, or in front of the Plaza de Toros Mexico. It seems logical to me.
When you ask these contextual questions, the paper-thin logic of the Warren Commission are revealed for what they are: Lies.
Oswald was not in Mexico.
The better story is that Oswald was at George Parr’s ranch. We have witness testimony from non-political people. We have a better motive, a more realistic motive for him being there, a motive that fits better with ensuing events.
The tale of Oswald being in Mexico is, according to Warren theory, reflective of his irrational, disintegrating personality. Yet that irrational, disintegrating personality is not on display after Oswald is arrested. What we see is a man who is in total command of his cognition and emotions. He is as cool as a cucumber.
On the contrary, his coolness under pressure after his arrest, his ability to think is reflective of an individual who is part of a thinking team, which again supports his presence at George Parr’s ranch.
What happened at that ranch?
The members of the team were detailed explicitly how the mission would go down should the mission be prosecuted. Nothing was left to chance. This is precisely what you would do and what I would do if you or I were heading a mission in which the stakes were high, in which if the mission were not successful we would be imprisoned and most likely executed.
This is the better story.
- It is consistent with Lee as a spy.
- It is consistent with Lee as part of a team that would make him a patsy – his own words.
- It is consistent with Lee as an intelligent individual with a mission.
- It is consistent with the need to bring a team together to discuss the mission. Just as actors do a read-through before acting their parts, operatives – on a mission to assassinate – must do the same thing.
- It is consistent with eyewitness accounts from individuals with no skin in the game.
- It does not contain improbabilities such as Oswald taking a gun into Mexico and pulling it out in the Russian embassy.
- It is consistent with a conspiracy involving the type of men who have the power, desire and willingness to make it happen.
- It is consistent with the time frame of the fantasy tale of the Warren Commission.
- It is consistent with Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald being the intelligence operatives they have always been suspected of being.
- It’s consistent with the connections that Seymour Bolten has with powerful players who can place Oswald where he needs to be placed. Seymour Bolten knows and trusts Amon Carter, Jr. who knows and trusts Lyndon Johnson who knows and trusts George Parr. All these men have a vested interest in regime change. George Parr needs Lyndon Johnson as powerful as he can possibly be, and so does Amon Carter, Jr. It’s a win all the way around.
Lee Oswald at George Parr’s ranch is the superior story.
Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved