Fix the Bus

So what can you say Ms. Odio and her sister Annie? Was Oswald there, and if he was at their apartment, what does it mean?

I’m not sure it matters a whole lot, but it might.

For the two Odios do believe they were staring at Lee Oswald that late September day in 1963. That is significant. And it shouldn’t matter that Lee Oswald was reportedly somewhere else on 9/25/63, because Syvlia and her sister are not precisely sure of the date that they saw Oswald. They only know that it was the last week of September, and that they were getting ready to move. They have a lot of boxes sitting around their apartment.

Well, when does the last week of September begin? Technically on 9/24, but practically probably on the 21st or 22nd because that is when the human calculator that can easily divide 21 by 7 can conclude that three weeks have passed. Since most humans erroneously believe that every month has four weeks instead of 4.33 weeks, the last week of September effectively begins on 9/21 which then, gives Lee Oswald, plenty of time to get up to Dallas, especially if he is flown up there by David Ferrie. We shouldn’t pay any attention to what Ruth Paine or Marina says about Oswald’s presence because let’s face it, the Oswalds and Paines were a coven of spies – and therefore untrustworthy in most respects when it matters.

So there was time for Lee to be up there.

But why?

Why would Lee Oswald go up to see Sylvia Odio? What does he add, and what is in it for him other than perhaps good favor by his bosses toward him?

And why do the three wise men who visit her need Sylvia Odio’s help to raise funds. If they are presumably working with CIA, they can get all the funding they need in a heartbeat from the US government. They don’t need her, so there must be another reason.

Well, the reason seems apparent when Leopoldo calls back to Sylvia Odio and starts talking about Oswald. Say, why do the other men use a nom de guerre, but Oswald is clearly identified for who he is? Hmm.

Clearly to me the purpose of this visit seems to be to set Oswald up, to link him to a left wing group like JURE (Junta Revolucionario) and to identify him as someone who spoke of killing JFK.

Now, if this meeting did take place on 9/25/63, and Oswald is supposed to be in Mexico or Laredo or thereabouts – and we know that he ostensibly stuck to the party line afterwards that he was near Laredo – then if he is not in Laredo or Mexico but actually in Dallas, isn’t he going to ask himself how he can possibly be in two places at once? Isn’t he going to think that peculiar? Do you see what I am saying?

Oswald: I’m pretending to be in Laredo, when I know I’m not, but there are people who definitely know I am not in Laredo because I have been identified by name in Dallas. So what is the point of the pretense? Why don’t I just go to Dallas first, delay my trip to Mexico for a day, then actually go to Mexico, or pretend that I am in Mexico while hiding out somewhere where I am not identifying myself at least by name.

Get it?

Now, of course this reasoning only holds up if you believe that LHO was not in or traveling to Mexico at all, which is what I believe.

To cut to the chase, I don’t think LHO was either in Mexico or in Dallas during or around 9/25/63.

I think the Odio meeting could have taken place around 9/21/ or 9/22/63. And I’m not worried about these unemployment checks supposedly picked up by LHO on 9/22/ or 9/23. It doesn’t take that long to get to Dallas and back especially if someone flys you up there.

Nevertheless he could have been in Dallas. Still, if he wasn’t then who was?

Well, there are many people walking around today who look like Oswald. You can probably find three guys in your local neighborhood.

It’s not too difficult to find a reasonable facsimile.

What interests me now though is who sent these three men to meet Sylvia Odio, and was there a visit at all?

First, it may not matter who visited her at all, as the real purpose of the visit may have been to set Oswald up. In fact that is what I believe. Second, I am beginning to believe that the visit did not exist at all.

Now, of course this reasoning only holds up if you believe that LHO was in Mexico on 9/25 and the time of the Odio visit was also 9/25/63.

At ay rate, one of three scenarios seems possible.

1. Oswald was there.
2. An Oswald look-a-like was there.
3. The meeting is a fabrication.

Either way. I believe the meeting was a set-up to implicate Oswald and JURE – to knock off two birds with one stone.  

To be fair, if Sylvia Odio and her sister believe the visit took place, I suppose we could say that it did take place, just not in the real world.

But why would they lie? What do they get out of it? What does JURE gain? What might their father gain?

To begin with many if not all of these Cuban revolutionaries know of each other or have worked with each other at different times. They, the CIA operatives, plus the American mercenaries such as Frank Fiorini Sturgis, Gerry Hemming, and others have all worked with for Fidel or against at one time or another. They are a soup of revolutionaries with one common goal – to dethrone Fidel. What changes are the various individual groups they belong to.

As such, it seems likely/ to me that Sylvia Odio is not only looking out for the best interest of JURE but possibly what she perceived to be the best interest of the overall movement to dethrone Fidel. And can we be sure that she is an innocent person caught in the middle of the JFK Assassination saga? Was Sylvia Odio recruited by the CIA to tell a tall tale? Was the goal of the tale to help implicate Oswald? After all, she says that Leopoldo told her that Leon Oswald is “kind of nuts” and that he says that Cubans should have taken out Kennedy. That sounds pretty damning to me.

Supporters of Oswald’s innocence tend to support the truth of Ms. Odio’s story because it helps refute Oswald’s presence in Mexico. But what if both stories are false?

If so who would fabricate a story?

Well, someone in the CIA who is planning to kill Kennedy might. The fabrication of the Oswald in Mexico story is easy to see. The Odio story is less clear to see, but perhaps the assassination architect knowing full well that he is planning to set up Oswald as the patsy anyway, decides to gain an insurance policy by demonizing him as a left-leaning JURE associated nut job who has expressed a desire to kill JFK. In this manner he gets to implicated Oswald and JURE at the same time. He gets to knock off two birds with one stone.

That part is easy peasy, but why would Sylvia Odio go along with such a story? What does she get out of it?

And why would she report the Oswald meeting anyway? She must know that associating Oswald with JURE can’t be good for JURE, right? Well, obviously she didn’t care, or else she wouldn’t have reported it, right? So why did she? To be a good citizen? That doesn’t seem plausible because she is a political type, and those types don’t think in terms of truth, but in terms of what is good for the them and their movement.

Well, maybe our assassination architect had the power to offer something to Ms. Odio that she desperately desired. Maybe he offered JURE a boatload of cash for going along with the story. Political types make all sorts of sneaky deals that we don’t know about.

Okay, let’s say for the fun of it that the Odio story is a fabrication. If so, who came up with the idea for doing so? And why?

Well, it so happens that Seymour Bolten was intimately familiar with JURE, Manuel Ray and the various other forces involved in the anti-Castro movements. Bolten worked in SAS which I believe stands for Senior Analytical Services. He worked closely with Richard Helms.

I’ll throw some names out and then see if I can string them together. George Volsky, Tad Szulck, Bernard Barker, E Howard Hunt, Sergio Archacha Smith, Manuel Ray.

George Volsky was a Polish born CIA collaborator who was very good friends with Tad Szulck who was a NY Times correspondent and part time de facto CIA agent. Volsky who had been imprisoned in a Russian prison during WWII married a Cuban girl and came to live in Cuba. While working in Cuba he amassed many important contacts among upper class Cuban people. He fell in with the anti-Batista movement and declared himself openly as a communist. Soon after he became disillusioned with the Castro regime and was eventually imprisoned by Fidel for a short time. Afterwards he came to the United States and began to work for the USIA.

Volsky continued his friendship with Szulck while working with the anti-Castro movement.

He eventually developed Operation Leonardo which he pitched to Szulck who in turn pitched it to JFK.

JFK liked the concept of Operation Leonardo. The CIA did not.

What was Operation Leonardo?

Operation Leonardo, aka AMTRUNK, was a plan to induce a division between Castro’s top military commanders so as to cause a revolt at the top thus leading to the more peaceful overthrow of Fidel Castro.

As I have stated, the plan was developed by George Volsky who pitched it to Tad Szulck who in turn pitched it to JFK.

JFK favored this approach, but did the CIA did not. The CIA was more in favor of another ground invasion of Cuba.

Thus the conflict.

The CIA most likely was not in favor of this approach because of where it was coming from. Volsky was a leftist and a supporter of JURE. Volsky had a good friend in Raul Chibas Rivas who was on the executive committee of JURE. Moreover Rivas was the right hand man of Manuel Ray who was considered a leftist – Fidelism without Fidel. Chibas also had a record of Communist party participation, and he was susspected of being a Castro operative int he USA.

This from American Journalism and the Landscape of Secrecy: Tad Szulc, the CIA and Cuba:

Richard Helms, who superintended covert action programmes for theCIA at this point, was certainly under no illusion that Szulc hadimpressed the President. He explained to Alfonso Rodriquez, the CIA case officer in Washington who looked after AM/Trunk, that his work with Szulc reflected a ‘presidential request’. On 5 September 1963,Richard Helms and his CIA colleague Seymour Bolten met with WhiteHouse aide Ralph Dungan to review progress on the operation.

And …

Rodriguez concluded that a ‘mutualadmiration society’ existed between figures such as Tad Szulc, JorgeVolsky and Manuel Ray. They were all fellow left-liberals, and bothSzulc and Volsky saw Ray as an intellectual of real integrity with aprogressive orientation and perhaps even as a future leader of Cuba. The CIA noted that: ‘All three were to some degree antipathetic to theAgency and were difficult to control.’ They freely admitted being ‘antiCIA’ and explained that they were working with the Agency onlybecause there was ‘no alternative if they wished to accomplish theirmission’.

For Theodore Shackley, chief of the CIA’s JMWAVE Station, the antipathy was mutual. He loathed the AM/Trunk operation because Szulc and his friends continually paraded their White House connections in front of CIA field officers, threatening to complain to higher authority. For the CIA, AM/Trunk transgressed one of the basic rules of agent-running, that the CIA was in charge of its agents, not the other way around. Yet the CIA had little choice but to support the AM/Trunk operation and its over-mighty subjects, which continued until at least1965. Shackley provided them with resources and support but kept them semi-detached from his own operations. However, the AM/Trun kapproach of encouraging internal disaffection continued to be favoured by key advisers in the Lyndon B. Johnson White House, notably byWalt Rostow.

Also, please note this:

Manuel Ray also enjoyed CIA support, and in July 1964Alfonso Rodriguez pressed Ray on the nature of his relationship withSzulc. Ray explained that Szulc was ‘constantly prying’ to try anddiscover the precise relationship between himself and the CIA. Rodri-guez responded to Ray that Szulc was often asking him exactly the samequestions and he thought this ‘normal activity for a newspaper correspondent’. However, Ray quickly denied admitting to Szulc that he wasreceiving support from the CIA.

The point here is that the CIA did not approve of JURE and its leader or their plans, so it would make sense for the CIA or one of its operatives, say Bolten, to try to undermine JURE.

One way to undermine JURE would be to connect Oswald to JURE. Since Oswald was going to the patsy anyway why not link him to JURE.

But who to use to accomplish this task?

Well, this is where Barker, Fiorini- Sturgis and Hunt come in.

But before I discuss them I feel it is important to talk about the hand of God. I know people feel uncomfortable about this because people like hard-core evidence. Yet the same people who believe in hard core evidence also believe in God.

I don’t think we can dismiss the hand of God in the Kennedy assassination.

So let me take a brief sojourn and digression.

As hard as E. Howard Hunt tries to distance himself from Frank Sturgis, God wants us to know that there is a critical connection, and not just in Watergate.

In 1949 Hunt wrote. book called Bimini Run with a mercenary character named Hank Sturgis. In 1952, future Hunt Collaborator, Frank Fiorini, changes his last name to Sturges, the name of his step-father, Ralph Sturgis. Florini was 28 years old at the time, and it doubtful Hunt knew of him. At least that is what seems likely.

That is the hand of God, baby. That is God playing a joke on Hunt and Sturgis. God is saying: I know what you did, and I want everyone to look closer at you two.

Please continue to Part II where I talk more about Hunt, Sturgis, Barker and others.

Copyright 2023 Archer Crosley. All Rights Reserved.