• Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Thomas Graves

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Thomas Graves

  1. GEM # 1 (Let's take them one at a time, shall we?) "The Russian speaking youth, possibly of Hungarian parents, was brought to the U.S. following World War II and given the name HARVEY Oswald." Question: If the mother tongue of "Harvey" (the young boy who eventually joined the Marines, "defected" to the USSR, married Marina, and was killed by Jack Ruby on 11/24/63) was Hungarian (a Turkic language from Central Asia), and he was already speaking Russian (a highly-inflected, Indo-European language) when he came to the U.S., how are we to explain, then, the fact that "Harvey" spoke such grammatically-correct, accent-free English later in life? -- Tommy PS I think I can speak with some authority on this, having taught English for seven years in a country that speaks a Slavic, i.e. Russian-like language, the Czech Republic. And I remember the Hungarian Toth brothers at La Jolla High School back around 1965, who probably came to the U.S. around the time of the 1956 Hungarian Revolt against the U.S.S.R. (How did THAT work out, btw?)
  2. Copied and pasted here from Jon Simkin's excellent "Sylvia Duran and Lee Harvey Oswald" thread. My questions and comments are in red. -- Tommy One of the most interesting aspects of Jeff Morley’s book, “Our Man in Mexico”, is his account of Sylvia Duran, a Mexican employee in the Cuban consulate in Mexico City. Are the following your paraphrased extracts, Mr. Simkin, or were they "lifted" from the book? [5/21/17 edit: note the quotation marks] At 11.00 a.m. on Friday, 27th September, 1963, Oswald told Duran that he wished to travel to the Soviet Union via Cuba. Duran told him that he would need a passport photograph to apply for a visa for Cuba. He returned an hour later with the photograph. Duran then told him he would need to visit the Soviet embassy to get the necessary paperwork. This he did but Vice Consul Oleg Nechiperenko [Don't mean to nitpick, but weren't Kostikov and Yatskov allegedly with Nechiporenko at the time?] informed him that the visa application would be sent to the Soviet embassy in Washington and would take about four months. Oswald then returned to the Cuban consulate at 4.00 and lied to Duran about his meeting with Nechiperenko. Duran checked Oswald’s story on the phone [with Kostikov, right?] and after a brief argument he left the consulate. Six times Oswald needed to pass the newly installed LIERODE camera [Weren't they having technical problems with that camera at the time? Wasn't that particular camera installed on 9/27/63?]. The CIA surveillance program worked and on Monday, 30th September, Anne Goodpasture recorded details of Oswald’s visits to the Cuban consulate. As Goodpasture noted, the two types of “security” information that most interested the CIA station concerned “U.S. citizens initiating or maintaining contact with the Cuban and Soviet diplomatic installations” and “travel to Cuba by U.S. citizens or residents.” (page 182) The CIA tape of the Oswald call was marked “urgent” and was delivered to the station within 15 minutes of it taking place. Win Scott read Goodpasture’s report and next to the transcript of Duran’s call to the Soviet embassy, he wrote: “Is it possible to identify”. It later emerged that the CIA station in Mexico was already monitoring Sylvia Duran. According to David Phillips and Win Scott, the CIA surveillance program had revealed that Duran was having an affair with Carlos Lechuga, the former Cuban ambassador in Mexico City, who was in 1963 serving as Castro’s ambassador to the United Nations. We also now know that Lechuga was involved in the secret negotiations with Lisa Howard on behalf of JFK. Soon after the assassination of JFK Win Scott contacted Luis Echeverria and asked his men to arrest Sylvia Duran. He also told Diaz Ordaz that Duran was to be held incommunicado until she gave all details of her contacts with Oswald. Scott then reported his actions to CIA headquarters. Soon afterwards, John Whitten, the CIA head of the Mexican desk, called Scott with orders from Tom Karamessines that Duran was not to be arrested. Win told them it was too late and that the Mexican government would keep the whole thing secret. Karamessines replied with a telegram that began: “Arrest of Sylvia Duran is extremely serious matter which could prejudice U.S. freedom of action on entire question of Cuban responsibility.” What did Karamessines mean by this? [Good question!] Why [or what?] did he not want the Mexicans to find out? What we do know is that John Whitten was also surprised by Karamessines’ order and initially opposed sending the message to Scott. Duran, her husband and five other people were arrested. Duran was “interrogated forcefully” (Duran was badly [How badly? Really badly? -(lol)] bruised during the interview). Echeverria reported to Scott that Duran had been “completely cooperative” and had made a detailed statement. This statement matched the story of the surveillance transcripts, with one exception. The tapes indicated that Duran made another call to the Soviet embassy on Saturday, 28th September. Duran then put an American on the line who spoke incomprehensible [ I thought it was just "nearly incomprehensible" ] Russian. This suggests that the man could not have been Oswald who spoke the language well. Duran was released but was then rearrested and questioned about her relationship with Oswald. Despite being roughed up she denied having a sexual relationship with Oswald. Echeverria believed her and she was released. However, Duran later admitted to a close friend that she had dated Oswald while he was in Mexico City. A week after the assassination Elena Garro reported that she had seen Oswald at a party held by people from the Cuban consulate in September 1963. The following week, June Cobb, a CIA informant, confirmed Oswald presence at the party. She also had been told that Oswald was sleeping with Duran. Win Scott reported this information to CIA headquarters but never got a reply. (page 241) Why did the CIA want Sylvia Duran kept out of this story? One released document reveals that a Mexican source on the CIA payroll suggested that it would be very easy to recruit Duran as a spy. (page 210) Did Karamessines via Phillips recruit Duran as a spy? If so, Win Scott and John Whitten were kept out of the loop. Why? Was there an unofficial CIA operation involving Duran and Oswald? To be more correct, someone posing as Oswald. [Edit: Or maybe Oswald didn't even go to Mexico City, but some intel ops by the U.S., the U.S.S.R. and / or Mexico and Cuba were "piggybacked" on each other in such a way that "required" an imaginary Oswald to be there?] It later emerged that when Duran was interviewed by the Mexican authorities soon after the assassination she described the man who visited the Cuban consul's office as being "blond-haired" and with "blue or green eyes" [Hmm .. Just like Nikolai Leonov!]. Neither detail fits in with the authentic Oswald. But these details had been removed from the statement by the time it reached the Warren Commission. [Are transcripts of the Mexican interrogations available to us? IDK, but I rather doubt it.] Duran was interviewed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978. This testimony is classified. However, in 1979 Duran told the author, Anthony Summers that she told the HSCA that the man who visited the office was about her size (5 feet 3.5 inches). [Holy Toledo! What a coincidence! Blond-haired, blue-eyed Leonov was only 5' 6" ! ] This created problems as Oswald was 5 feet 9.5 inches. When Summers showed Duran a film of Oswald taken at the time of his arrest, Duran said: "The man on the film is not like the man I saw here in Mexico City." Win Scott died on 26th April, 1971, while he was negotiating with the CIA about publishing his memoirs that included an account of Oswald’s time in Mexico. Scott told Helms that he would not be talked out of publishing the book. When Anne Goodpasture heard the news of Scott’s death she went straight to Jim Angleton’s office [I'm probably wrong, but wasn't Goodpasture in Mexico City at the time?] to tell him that Scott had classified documents in his home safe (Scott had tapes and photos of Oswald). Angleton went straight to Mexico City and took control of this material). -- Tommy
  3. To start this thread off, I thought I'd share this article. It raises some good points, IMHO. https://peternewburysblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/oswalds-kostikov-letter/ Comments? -- Tommy
  4. Hey Steve, Not a problem. Heck, even I made a mistake once, LOL -- Tommy AKA "I used to be conceited, but now I'm perfect."
  5. Fwiw, I interviewed 93 year-old retired ONI special agent Robert D. Steel (R.I.P.) at his house in my hometown of La Jolla, California, in 2013, and I have posted about it on other threads on this forum. -- Tommy
  6. Sandy, In that scenario, do you think Ruth was originally assigned to Oswald on some rather innocent project which "went bad" on her on 11/22/63? -- Tommy
  7. Michael Walton, I'm leaning more and more towards believing that Oswald didn't go to Mexico City, and that certain elements of the KGB, the CIA, and the Cuban Consulate / Embassy conspired with each other, or maybe piggybacked each other's operations in some complex Mad Magazine-like "spy vs spy" game, to make it appear that he had. You are probably now thinking: "Can you explain why you feel this way, Tommy?" No, not in any great detail. I haven't worked it all out yet. (lol) Suffice it to say that the fact Duran's and Azcue's descriptions of the "Blond Oswald" who had (or had not) visited them on Friday, September 27, 1963, were not only implausible to begin with (describing Nikolai Leonov!), but varied so much over the years (at one point during her HSCA testimony Duran said the "Blond Oswald" weighed about the same as a guy in the HSCA proceedings who weighed 200 lbs ! And when a HSCA lawyer who was questioning her said (in so many words), "Now earlier, out of the court room, you told us this guy was wearing a sports jacket", and she basically contradicted him and said, "No, he wasn't so elegantly dressed" or words to that effect. When we remember that Cuban Consul Azcue had claimed that "Blond Oswald" was wearing a dark blue "Prince of Wales" jacket with stripes, I think what the HSCA lawyer let slip out of the bag is kinda telling about the veracity (or lack of such) of both Duran and Azcue, and opens the possibility that no Oswald, blond or otherwise, visited the Cuban Consulate in late September, 1963. Kinda thinking out loud here, now, ... I think the almost-identical after-the-assassination descriptions Nechiporenko and Leonov gave of their "Oswald encounters" (on Saturday and Sunday, September 28th and 29th, respectively) in which Oswald was made out as being "highly unstable, brandishing a loaded revolver" were fabricated in order to suggest that Oswald was emotionally predisposed to killing people (i.e. Tippit and JFK), and also as an attempt to corroborate what Nosenko had told CIA in February, 1964 -- that Oswald was so doggone unstable when he arrived in the U.S.S.R. that the KGB didn't want to have anything to do with him. Which is very interesting. Because Golitsyn, who defected 6 months before Nosenko (and whom I believe was genuine -- I'm talking about Golitsyn here) had already told CIA that KGB's Department 13 interviewed all defecting U.S. military personnel to learn of any military secrets they might have. Now this doesn't necessarily mean that I believe the KGB recruited Oswald to kill JFK. But it does raise the interesting question of why in the heck the KGB wanted us to believe they hadn't even routinely interviewed Oswald for military secrets. I can think of a few possibilities: 1 ) They didn't interview him. Not because they suspected he was crazy, but because they suspected that he was actually a CIA or ONI "plant" sent to the U.S.S.R. to give the KGB / GRU false information about the U.S. military. (But why not interview him anyway, not "let on" what you suspect his true motives are, and give him some false info in return?) 2 ) They did interview Oswald but didn't want the CIA to know that. Because: A ) They got some really juicy info from him, like a description of the new height-finding radar we were using in conjunction with the U2, etc, and KGB didn't want CIA to know that KGB knew that. B ) They didn't get squat from him (because he was "crazy" and just couldn't remember, etc), and after the assassination the KGB was afraid the U.S. would nuke the U.S.S.R. if it became known that the KGB (and specifically Department 13 !) had not only contacted Oswald when he arrived in Moscow, but had actually interviewed him. (I don't know exactly when Golitsyn told CIA about Department 13's normal operating procedures as regards recently-arrived U.S. military defectors, but it's reasonable to assume that he might have kinda brought it up at some point before November 22, 1963, so I guess this isn't a particularly plausible excuse on KGB's part for the simple fact that the U.S. hadn't quite gotten around to nuking the U.S.S.R. when Nosenko defected on February 4, 1964. (Hmmm ... Was the KGB worried about what the Warren Commission might uncover?) C ) Out of KGB's concern that if they admitted in, say, February of 1964, that the KGB had interviewed Oswald, that they would be revealing top secret "sources and methods", and it might even come out that their foreign assassinations section -- Department 13 -- was the department doing the interviewing. But I'm rambling, I suppose, and I am getting tired. Time for another cup of that cheapo instant coffee .... -- Tommy Oh yeah, all of the above plus the fact that neither the Ruskies nor the Mexicans were ever able to produce the communications Nechiporenko and Leonov claimed they'd sent to the authorities on 9/28/63 and 9/29/63, respectively, about this "unstable, dangerous Oswald guy" they'd met with.
  8. Yes, Pamela, you already have. Intriguing theory btw. Have you read Spy Wars or Ghosts of Spy Wars yet? In them, Bagley (one of Nosenko's interrorgators) points out that Nosenko's answers changed so much over the years as to suggest that it wasn't just a matter of his KGB superiors' giving him bad information for him to unwittingly pass on to CIA, but that he was lying a lot and having a hard time keeping his lies straight. -- Tommy Or put another way, CIA was asking him detailed, unexpected questions on things he'd already knowingly lied about in a general kind of way, and he had a hard time keeping those "secondary" answers straight during subsequent interrogations.
  9. Yes, No, or IDK? FWIW, Nosenko's the guy who told his CIA interrogators a couple of weeks after the assassination that the KGB had neither tried to recruit Oswald in the USSR, nor asked him about the U2 spy plane or the radar equipment, etc, he'd worked with in the Marine Corps. I say Nosenko was a false defector to the U.S. What do you say? -- Tommy
  10. John, I think that's a good idea. The problem is -- there are so many factions on both sides. Who would represent a faction like "A Witting LHO and Some Other People Did It Together", for example? And how would you accommodate such "fringe" theories (imho) as "Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites, Too" and "General Edwin Walker, Guy Banister, and David Sanchez Morales Did It"? Or the really intriguing but unpopular "Mid-Level CIA and Upper-Level KGB Did It Together"? For example. -- Tommy
  11. Update: I haven't exactly counted up the votes since I know it's something like Yes, Nosenko was a genuine defector -- 50.5 votes No, Nosenko was a false defector -- 2.5 votes Anyone else have an opinion on this? By the way -- Has anyone here actually read Tennent H. Bagley's book Spy Wars? (2007) Okay then, how about his 37-page sequel, Ghosts of Spy Wars? (2015) http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362 -- Tommy PS I intended this as a poll thread, not as a discussion thread seein' as how there already are threads on Nosenko, Golitsyn, Angleton, etc. So please, put your comments, if any, on one of those threads so as not to interrupt the "flow" of this here poll thread. Thank you. Thank you very much.
  12. Michael, In that post I was kinda multi-tasking if you will. I'll start explaining / defending myself in a few minutes after I've had another cup of coffee and listened to AC/DC's "Rock N Roll Train" a couple more times to get the "juices" flowing..... I mean I mean I mean seriously dude I just got up. Well, about an hour ago, truth be told. Pulled an all nighter. Well, until about 4 AM, truth be told.. But thanks for asking. "Now where did I put that jar of cheapo house brand instant caffeinated coffee, gosh darn it?........" I do promise to get back to you after I've thought up a few plausible .... "rationalizations". More than enough time for my good buddy to jump in and say something highly enlightening if he wants to. -- Tommy
  13. Bet ya can't listen to it just once! -- Tommy
  14. " an old school rebel ..."
  15. I like T. S, Elliott. -- Tommy
  16. I wonder if this John T. Martin in Saint Paul, Minnesota, somehow ties in with the phone call David Ferrie made to someone in Minneapolis immediately prior to calling that bank in my hometown of La Jolla, California, in April, 1962? -- Tommy
  17. Paul, I don't know if I've ever read any of Grozev's articles. If the stuff he writes "rings true" to me, based on what I already know about the wars in Donbas, etc, I'll "go with it" because I know from experience that bellingcat is a "straight shooter" news source. If you spend a little more time reading the articles there about the wars in Syria and Ukraine, etc, I think you'll notice the lack of emotional language and the straightforward, detailed, and often social-media-based (and therefore photographically verifiable) subject matter. For example, the "selfies" and regular photos that Russian solders seem to love to take of interesting-looking things and of their soldier buddies while they're in Syria or Ukraine, and which they foolishly post on some social media website. I say "foolishly post" because often times there are self-incriminating geo-specific "land marks" in the background of those photos which can be found on Google Earth by the bellingcat analysts and thereby used to figure out exactly where those Russian soldiers (and their tanks, etc) were and what the heck they were "up to" when the photo was taken. Etc. -- Tommy
  18. [Moved here from the "Does Lifton's Best Evidence..." thread] Dear Paul, You're funnier that Kellyanne Conway ever was. IMHO, you missed your calling, dude -- Counselor to the President ..... or ..... Stand Up Comedy. You remind me of that line by the Dean Andrews character in JFK: "[Trejo's] on you like the plague, man." I think the other members of the forum can see through your IMHO specious arguments just as easily as I can. I'm not going to "debate" you any more. On anything. It's like banging my head against a wall and it's frustrating as hell. Doesn't feel all that good, either. You are THE CONSUMMATE MASTER when it comes to cherry-picking "supportive" facts, and either grossly "spinning" those which you perceive to be damaging to your IMHO crummy little "CT", or, more often, disregarding them altogether no matter how many times your opponent throws them in your face. You remind me of what they tried to teach me in Law School. The problem is, you don't tell half of the truth of the half you're expected to tell. It's mostly smoke and mirrors. IMHO. You're very adept at changing the subject when you find yourself in an embarrassing "position". Which is quite often, isn't it. (You never did answer my question: "How tall would you like LHO to be?") You are nonpareil when it comes to creating Straw Man Arguments, using tautological "reasoning", and twisting established facts and other peoples' words to ostensibly suit your own purposes. IMHO. You, the En Masse Alterationists, and the Harvey and Lee "High Priests and Sacred-Chorus Members of the Ridiculously Paranoiac" cause immeasurable damage and obstruction to sober, serious-minded JFK Assassination study and research here. Like I said, "In my humble opinion.". -- Tommy PS How many adherents to your IMHO crummy little "CT" do you figure you have here, Paul? "Lots and lots, Tommy, but I guess they're just too embarrassed to 'come out of the pantry,' so-to-speak, and admit it" What do I expect now? A snide response from Paul Trejo. Oh well, I suppose I deserve it. Comments anyone?
  19. Paul, Thanks for sharing, Paul. I absolutely agree with you -- Degree of factual reporting is much more important than the emotional language or "slant" that might be used in an article or book or, in this case, "news source" (since that's what you and I are talking about right now). When I'm doing basic research (like just getting started on something), I like to find the subject matter on Wikipedia, if possible, and then I "take it from there" by reading the article on Wikipedia and clicking on any interesting-looking "links" therein. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wikipedia/ Of course, if I'm reading an article on what I consider to be a reputable JFK assassination-oriented website (like on the MFF or in Simpich's State Secret), I just click on any interesting-looking links there, too. I spend one heck of a lot of time on Facebook, posting and "sharing" oodles and gobs of anti-Trump, anti-Putin, anti-Assad, and pro-Ukrainian stuff, and when someone else posts or "shares" something having to do with those subjectmatters, I'll typically run that person's news source through https://mediabiasfactcheck.com to see whether or not said "news source" has my required "High" level of factual reporting. As I said in an earlier post, I like the NYT and the WP. I also like AP (Associated Press), PBS, Reuters, and believe it or not USA Today. There are others that I like that I can't think of right now. I'll even go "Left-Biased" sometimes as long as it has "High" factual reporting. If memory serves, MOTHER JONES is one of those. Surprised? Regardless, none of news sources I "share" on facebook are "Right" or "Right-Center" biased according to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com The only exception might be the occasional military-oriented one in the "Right-Center" category, but it's still gotta have "High" factual reporting for me to be interested in it. Sound reasonable? I hope this answers your question. -- Tommy PS Your DEMOCRACY NOW looks like a good one because it has "High" factual reporting. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/democracy-now/
  20. "Fifty-thousand dollars on 'evens'? Yes, sir, ..... There you go, sir. Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen!" -- Tommy PS That all you got, Chris? PPS Personally, I like number one.
  21. Paul, I'm on my android right now (seriously), so it's a little awkward for me to look up. Sounds interesting, though. How does it grade out on https://mediabiasfactcheck.com ? -- Tommy
  22. Dear Paul, So I take it you're not going to substantively address the questions, comments, and suggestions in my last post. For example, have you found any "High Factual-Reporting" news sources, (regardless of their Left or Right or Centrist biased-ness) that YOU like on that, IMHO, very useful website: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com ? -- Tommy
  23. Chris, How do you like the idea that LHO didn't go to the Cuban Consulate *or* to the Soviet Embassy, but that Leonov went to the former to tell Duran and Azcue what was "goin' down" with the "joint op", and while he was there told them, "Aw, what the heck -- go ahead and describe him like me -- that'll confuse the non-rogue dudes at the CIA REAL good!" -- Tommy PS What do you suppose Trejo means by "the Leonov theory of the JFK assassination"?