RESOLVED: President Kennedy was killed as the result of a 

[Continuation of my transcription of a radio debate which took 
place in the Fall of 1993 between Peter Dale Scott and Gerald 
Posner. Today, Mr. Scott and Mr. Posner exchange questions for 
the second time.]

MODERATOR: Mr. Scott, I have to caution you to try and use your 
time better. But, you have one minute to ask Mr. Posner a 

PETER DALE SCOTT: Um... there was... When Oswald went into the 
Soviet embassy in Mexico City, a tape was made of the 
conversation. The CIA has lied and lied and lied and lied about 
that tape. They said it was destroyed -- 2 weeks later, it 
wasn't. Then they said it was destroyed right after the 
assassination. But Mr. Slossen(?) of the Warren Commission 
staff... And Mr. Posner *believes* in the Warren Commission; he'd 
better believe Mr. Slossen when he says he heard the tape in 
April of 1964. Members of [Winston] Scott's fam... and the chief 
of station have said that [Winston] Scott and his wife listened 
to the tape later. James Angleton came down to Mexico City in 
1971 [and] took the tape away.

Now on that tape, the man identified himself as Lee Oswald. And 
yet, as you say, he was not Oswald. How do you explain this?

MODERATOR: You have 2 minutes.

GERALD POSNER: Ah. But there's, there's a key difference. Uh, 
Slossen says he hears a tape. And [Winston] Scott talks about it 
later. But *nobody* says -- and this is absolutely key -- there's 
not a transcript of it. The man identifies himself as Lee Oswald. 
Years later, people say that.

Here's what's important: The CIA... and I'm not here to defend 
the CIA. I must tell you. One of the things, one of the things 
that Mr. Scott does and others who have criticized the book do, 
they say, "Ah. Posner believes everything the CIA does. And since 
he supports the Warren Commission's conclusion, he must agree 
with that." Absolutely false. I take the CIA at issue for a whole 
host of things, including the fact that they distorted evidence 
and lied to the Warren Commission, and they were trying to kill 
Fidel Castro and they didn't disclose it. And I take them to task 
for all the bungling efforts that they do in Mexico City.

*But*. Very importantly (and you know this): They had a picture 
of a man in Mexico City that was the wrong person. They thought 
they had identified Lee Harvey Oswald. He was about 35 years old, 
10 years older than Oswald, husky. He's much taller. It's not 
Oswald. It led to *20 years* of speculation, almost, [that] there 
was an "imposter Oswald" in Mexico City. That issue has been 
dropped recently, now that the Soviets have come out and said, 
"Guess what? The Oswald we met with in our embassy is the same 
person who was, in fact, in Dallas and arrested in November of 
'63." What it *says*, the very real possibility that I raised in 
the book, which is that the CIA had not only identified the wrong 
person as Oswald (because they didn't have a picture of him), but 
they were also having surveillance *recording* the wrong Oswald, 
the very same person who was inside the embassy. And that remains 
a real possibility to this day.

*But*. I agree with you that one of the last great areas of real 
interest here -- when new information has to come out -- is all 
the shenanigans in Mexico City. And when I say "shenanigans," 
what I'm talking about is not a plot to kill the President -- 
that's key -- but the CIA's and the KGB's desperate efforts to 
cover up their own sources of information: their informants, the 
contacts inside the Mexican embassy, whether they had double- 
agents inside the Cuban embassy, how they obtained video 
surveillance at the time, and this overwhelming desire of the 
intelligence agencies to *protect*... That type of history is 
what exactly leads to the type of speculation you have in this 
case, that you have sort of looked at and then said, "I see a 
conspiracy of murder."

MODERATOR: Mr. Posner, you have one minute to ask a question.

POSNER: O.K. And in my minute I'm just gonna take 30 seconds, the 
first 30, to say, Mr. Scott, that he didn't make a conclusion on 
the other assassinations. But in his *own book* he says, on page 
97, "Behind the deep politics of the Kennedy assassination lie 
those of the [Huey] Long assassination." And on page 307 he talks 
about the comparisons between Sirhan Sirhan and Lee Harvey 
Oswald. So for somebody who hasn't made up his mind, he has some 
very interesting statements in the book.

But Mr. Scott, what I really would wonder is (since I don't see 
it discussed in this book and I know you have discussed it 
before): Why do you feel, *if* Oswald shot at General Walker in 
April of '63, (a) you believe the evidence that he shot at 
Walker, and (b) why would he have shot at Walker? And the second 
part of the question is, Do you believe the evidence that Oswald 
shot a Dallas policeman, J.D. Tippit, *after* the assassination? 
And if so, why do you believe he killed Tippit?

MODERATOR: Mr. Scott, 2 minutes.

SCOTT: ...General Walker, who... *Somebody* shot at General 
Walker. Eyewitnesses said it was *2* people. And if it was 2 
people, then Oswald -- if it was Oswald -- then Oswald was not a 

Whoever shot at General Walker, from about 15 feet away, did not 
shoot to kill him. I think they shot to help make him more of a 
martyr than he already was. The bullet in question, I will remind 
you, it *changed jacket*. It may have been copper-jacketed in 
November, but the bullet was originally identified, then, as 
being steel-jacketed. And I do believe that the bullets were 
changed, because I think it is not hard *at all* to find other 
cases of the falsification of evidence in that and other matters.

Now the killing of Tippit: Um, again, I believe there's 
falsification. The bullet thing is difficult to go into, but I 
think they rather botched the planting of bullets at the scene. 
Um, you believe the eyewitnesses like Helen Markum(?) and Warren 
Reynolds. Let me just say, Warren Reynolds was asked if he could 
recognize Oswald. He said that he was unable to do so. *And then 
somebody shot him through the head*. And then the Warren 
Commission had the gall to ask him again. And he said, "Oh yes! I 
remember now. It was Lee Harvey Oswald."

Well if you're going to rely on witnesses that have been coerced 
in that way, I think you're prepared to grasp at almost any straw 
in really conceding that there was no case.

MODERATOR: You will now each have 6 minutes to close. Mr. Scott, 
you have 6 minutes.

                    (to be continued)