Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      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

Members
  • Content count

    7,257
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Thomas Graves

  1. Did James Jesus Angleton knowingly risk JFK's life in an attempt to catch a high-level mole? Could he have believed that catching such a mole was more important than protecting the current POTUS, or any POTUS for that matter? You know, based on the fact that presidents are, after all, replaceable, whereas an undetected mole (pardon the redundancy) is an incubus; a potential ... Alien? Could it have been a case of "I Fought The Mole And The ... Mole Won"? -- Tommy
  2. I'm so sorry, Ron. I thought we'd communicated with each other, via posts, before I took my "vacation." My bad. Welcome! -- Tommy PS -- Have anything else to say about the subject of this thread?
  3. According Richard Russell, CI/SIG officer Clare Petty told him there were some Venona intercepts that indicated to Petty that GdM could very well have been a Ruskie spy. "Clare Petty, a former official on Angleton's staff, told me that shortly before his CIA retirement in 1974, he was examining a potential de Mohrenschildt link to some Soviet cipher traffic first intercepted by American intelligence in World War II. Known as the VENONA material, 'it Was only partially broken,' according to Petty, including lots of agent cryptonyms that we never found out to whom they applied. I had started to consider the possibility of whether a certain Soviet illegal might have been de Mohrenschildt. It was clear that whoever was being described in the codes had been in the United States, went to Mexico during he war, and was a real wheeler-dealer. He also had another nationality; my recollection is that it was Polish.'" --The Man Who Knew Too Much, Dick Russell pp. 273 Let's see, the KGB agent ... 1 ) Was from Poland, or some other northern Slavic country 2 ) Was in the U.S. before WW II 3 ) Went to Mexico during WW II 4 ) Was a real wheeler-dealer Hmm ... 1 ) George "von" Mohrenschildt was born in Mazyr, Belarus, about 300 miles east of the Polish border 2 ) He migrated to the U.S. in May, 1938. 3 ) He and his girlfriend, Lilia Larin, lived in Mexico for several months in 1942. 4 ) He was a wheeler-dealer. (Insurance Salesman, His Own Art Work, Commodities (Sugar) Speculator, Oil Speculator, Film Producer ...) -- Tommy P.S. Does anyone know how to access the decoded intercepts, themselves? Have they been released?
  4. Rich(ard?), Is writing a book about the assassination of JFK something that determines whether or not a person has a significant amount of knowledge about the subject, AND is able to communicate it in an unbiased manner? Anyone can write a book. Especially about the JFK assassination. (Few established facts required; spinning, weaving, and fabricating strongly encouraged.) -- Tommy (aka Tom; Thomas) PS -- Welcome to the Forum!
  5. My Brand New Theory-In-Progress

    Michael, You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Thank you for sharing it, and thank you for being civil. Let me ask you a question -- Do you think the FSB and the SVR and the GRU had anything to do with Trump's "beating" Hillary Clinton in the election, or do you think all of the "wounds" she suffered during the campaign were self-inflicted, and even, perhaps, ... deserved? -- Tommy
  6. Angleton and Mark Lane experts, your thoughts?

    If one were to read "The Sword and the Shield" by Christopher Andrew and KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin, one would realize that Mark Lane was, perhaps unwittingly, subsidized by The Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA). -- Tommy
  7. My Brand New Theory-In-Progress

    Paul, With all due respect, did you ever read Bagley's book "Spy Wars," or even finish his 35-page PDF "Ghosts of the Spy Wars" that you found so confusing several months ago? Rhetorical question: Do you believe that DNC's and Podesta's e-mails were hacked by FSB's "Cozy Bear" and GRU's "Fancy Bear," and given, by one of those two Russian intelligence services in the name of "Guccifer 2.0," to pro-Putin Julian Assange and DNCLeaks to distribute to the American electorate during last year's presidential campaign, or would you rather agree with Binney when he says it was an "inside job" at DNC or the NSA? And what about Putin's legions of professional trolls in Saint Petersburg, Russia? (They're still active, you know.) And ..... ? Do you still believe, as Obama did in 2008, that the Cold War really, really ended, as far as the Kremlin was concerned, in 1991? (LOL) -- Tommy https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/29/russian-spies-suburban-america
  8. My Brand New Theory-In-Progress

    David, The only problem with that theory is that, especially during the first few years of his defection, Golitsyn helped CIA uncover several Soviet spies here and abroad that The Agency had not previously suspected (or who were already "burnt out" and, therefore, expendable), whereas Nosenko not only did not do that, but actually said things that tended to protect much-later-uncovered KGB and GRU spies. -- Tommy
  9. My Brand New Theory-In-Progress

    Larry, How about Soviet spies like Aleksey Kulak ("Fedora"), pre-"Bourbon" Dmitry Polyakov, the "illegal" Yuri Loginov, and my personal favorite -- Yuri Nosenko, all of whom pretended to volunteer or allow themselves to be recruited by CIA / FBI, but in fact remained loyal to the Kremlin? Should we include them in our Nosenko-friendly "balanced picture"? -- Tommy
  10. My Brand New Theory-In-Progress

    David, What did Philby, MacLean, and Burgess accomplish for the KGB while they were posted in the U.S.? Roger Hollis in England? Did Edward Ellis Smith betray Popov and perhaps recruit other moles, as well? Etc. -- Tommy
  11. My Brand New Theory-In-Progress

    David, Have you read Bagley's 2015 PDF "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," or his 2007 book "Spy Wars"? http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362 https://archive.org/details/SpyWarsMolesMysteriesAndDeadlyGames -- Tommy
  12. My Brand New Theory-In-Progress

    Sandy, With all due respect, it sounds as though you should start reading (CIA Soviet Block Counterintelligence officer; Pro-Angleton) Tennent H. Bagley's 35-page PDF "Ghosts of the Spy Wars" (2015), *AND* Bill "The CIA Killed JFK" Simpich's "State Secret" to get an inkling of what I'm talking about ... http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362 https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Preface.html -- Tommy
  13. My Brand New Theory-In-Progress

    Pure speculation in a wilderness of mirrors, Sandy. All hypothetical at this point, but a paradigm that might help to explain some apparent anomalies ... Now let me ask YOU a question: *IF* there was a mole or a network of embedded KGB-types, would they have been willing to kill JFK (or any other U.S. president for that matter) if they had been instructed by their KGB / GRU handler(s) to do so, to enable ever-increasing KGB / GRU influence on our country through "active measures counterintelligence operations" (which started in 1921) and "strategic deception operations" (which started in 1959), thereby giving rise to paralyzing, cancer-like propaganda and disinformation (e.g., "The evil, evil CIA killed JFK," and "The evil, evil CIA killed JFK via the 'Harvey & Lee and Two Marguerites Program,'" and "The evil, evil CIA and the Mafia ... ")? So that, you know, ..... EVENTUALLY a Russian Mafia-compromised (and therefore eminently blackmail-able) anti-NATO "useful idiot" like Donald James Trump could be installed as our president? (Or do you believe that some disgruntled DNC or NSA insider not only hacked the DNC's and Podesta's e-mails, but gave said e-mails to Julian Assange and DNCLeaks? And that Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear and Guccifer 2.0 are just an evil, evil CIA "cover story" or "fantasy"?) LOL -- Tommy PS: I would suggest that pieces of the puzzle lie in Bill Simpich's "State Secret," John Newman's "Oswald and the CIA," and Tennent H. Bagley's "Spy Wars" and "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," etc ...
  14. My Brand New Theory-In-Progress

    I can really shake 'em down, Sandy. -- TOMMY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Contours
  15. Huh? So is ... . or So, is ... ? Hmm Or, who told somebody to say that somebody said that somebody said that?
  16. My Brand New Theory-In-Progress

    James, Care to say anything else about it? -- Tommy
  17. Thanks, Robin! I hope to find the intercepts Petty apparently told Russell about, and then try to "analyze" them from a Tennent H. Bagley / Sergei Kondrashev point-of-view and knowledge base (and maybe even a little Mitrokhin Archives, too) as regards the people said KGB agent was colluding with and / or working against through the years. -- Tommy
  18. Mr. Pope, With all due respect ....... LOL -- Tommy
  19. 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?)
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. ONI File

    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."
  23. ONI File

    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
  24. The latest from Ruth Paine

    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
  25. 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.
×