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."
B y 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.