Thomas Graves

Poll: Was M.C.-Based KGB Officer Nikolai Leonov Cuban Consul Azcue's "Blond, Very Thin-Faced" Oswald" ?

20 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

OK, how About An Easier Question?:

Was Leonov photographically "captured" near the Soviet Embassy at 12:05 pm, just eleven minutes before the famous "Mexico City Mystery Man" (Moskalev?) was "captured" by the same LILYRIC camera?

 

The man below was photographed at 12:05 pm on Wednesday, October 2, 1963, near the Mexico City Soviet Embassy. (This was one day after someone calling himself "Lee Oswald, O-S-W-A-L-D" phoned the Soviet Embassy, and the Russian Embassy employee on the other end of the line suggested, when prompted by "Oswald," that the Embassy official "Oswald" had met with a few days earlier was "Kostikov".  I believe this guy is KGB officer Nikolai Leonov.  (Leonov became a KGB Lt.General, is now a member of the Russian Parliament, and is a big supporter of Vladimir Putin.)

 

Image result for "nikolai leonov" "blond oswald"

 

On the left:  The same man photographed on the same day in the same place by the same LILYRIC camera.  On the right: Nikolai Leonov interpreting for Fidel Castro in Moscow. 

Image result for "nikolai leonov" "blond oswald"

The Wikipedia article on Leonov:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Leonov

Edit:  Look at that weak chin in all the photos, above.

Please note the very thin face in the photo of Leonov interpreting for Castro, above, and in another photo of him, below, and please remember that Eusebio Azcue said that the Blond Oswald he'd dealt with had "a very thin face".

NikolaiLeonovFidelNikitaBrezhnev.jpg

Edited by Thomas Graves
Reason for edit: The Agency made me do it. At first I thought it was just the Devil, again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Here's an undated photo showing "shorty" Nikolai Leonov meeting with Raul and 6'3" Fidel Castro.

Image result for "raul castro" leonov

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

In his HSCA testimony Eusebio Azcue Lopez, former Cuban Consul in Mexico City, said the "Oswald" he had dealt with in the Cuban Consulate was "a man over 30 years of age," "very thin, very thin faced," and was "blond, dark blond."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/Hscaascu.htm

Edit:  Note Leonov's thin face in this photo.

NikolaiLeonovFidelNikitaBrezhnev.jpg

 

From the For What It's Worth Department:

According to the translation of the Mexican Police interrogation of Sylvia Duran on November 23, 1963, she said the "Oswald" she had dealt with was "blond, short, and poorly dressed."

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=3025#relPageId=7&tab=page

(The 5' 3 1/2" Duran has stated elsewhere that blond "Oswald" she dealt with was about the same height as her.)

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If Mexico City Soviet Embassy-based KGB officer Nikolai Leonov was, as I firmly believe, the blond guy photographically "captured" in the October 2, 1963, LILYRIC photos, above, then the CIA most certainly knew who and what he was at the time (as is indicated by their writing his abbreviated name "Leon" below photo #6 of the October 2 film strip -- and by typing it on the October 2 LILYRIC index), so the most intriguing question for me is why the CIA didn't "out" him to the HSCA, and the only non-conspiratorial reason I can think of is that the CIA didn't want the Ruskies to know that they knew who who and what the little, thin-faced, blond dude was -- a KGB officer based in the Mexico City Soviet embassy.

All of which makes me wonder:  Could Leonov's LILYRIC photo(s) have been the one(s) a CIA (?) officer was writing about in a cable when he said "it's of a certain person who is known to you", or words to that effect?  Could he have been referring to the October 2 photos of KGB officer Nikolai Leonov rather than the October 2 photos of KGB agent Yuri Moskalev (aka Mexico City Mystery Man)?

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 3/17/2017 at 11:53 AM, Thomas Graves said:

OK, how About An Easier Question?:

Was Leonov photographically "captured" near the Soviet Embassy at 12:05 pm, just eleven minutes before the famous "Mexico City Mystery Man" (KGB officer Yuri Moskalev?) was "captured" by the same LILYRIC camera?

 

The man below was photographed at 12:05 pm on Wednesday, October 2, 1963, near the Mexico City Soviet Embassy. (This was one day after someone calling himself "Lee Oswald, O-S-W-A-L-D" phoned the Soviet Embassy, and the Russian Embassy employee on the other end of the line suggested, when prompted by "Oswald," that the Embassy official "Oswald" had met with a few days earlier was "Kostikov".  I believe this guy is KGB officer Nikolai Leonov.  (Leonov became a KGB Lt.General, is now a member of the Russian Parliament, and is a big supporter of Vladimir Putin.)

 

Image result for "nikolai leonov" "blond oswald"

 

On the left:  The same man photographed on the same day in the same place by the same LILYRIC camera.  On the right: Nikolai Leonov interpreting for Fidel Castro in Moscow. 

Image result for "nikolai leonov" "blond oswald"

The Wikipedia article on Leonov:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Leonov

Edit:  Look at that weak chin in all the photos, above.

Please note the very thin face in the photo of Leonov interpreting for Castro, above, and in another photo of him, below, and please remember that Eusebio Azcue said that the Blond Oswald he'd dealt with had "a very thin face".

NikolaiLeonovFidelNikitaBrezhnev.jpg

Edited and bumped.

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Are ""researchers" afraid to admit that the putative "Blond Oswald" captured in two photos [ #6 (which the CIA labeled "LEON") and #on the contact sheet ] by the LILYRIC camera at 12:05 pm on October 2, 1963, (11 minutes before the more famous Mexico Mystery Man was captured by the same camera) was Mexico City-based KGB officer Nikolai Leonov because they're afraid it would suggest that the Ruskies killed JFK?

Hmmm.  Maybe they're right ...

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Are ""researchers" afraid to admit that the putative "Blond Oswald" captured in photos # 6 (labeled "LEON") and # 7 by the LILYRIC camera at 12:05 pm on Saturday, October 2, 1963 was probably Mexico City-based KGB officer Nikolai LEONov?  

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=4490&relPageId=3

If so, why?

Because they're afraid it would suggest that the Ruskies killed JFK?

Hmmm.  Maybe they're right ...

Rhetorical question:  In view of my new thread, could this be a timely bump?

Why did Nikolai Leonov say years after the assassination that the real Oswald showed up unannounced at the Soviet Embassy on Sunday, September 29, and met with him "when only one or two other people were in the building because it was a Sunday" and everything?

He was lying, of course, but to what end?

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2017 at 2:54 PM, Thomas Graves said:

Image result for "nikolai leonov" "blond oswald"


Tommy,

At first glance (and second and third) these two guys really do look the same. Especially with the blond hair, the hair style, and receding chin.

And then you compare noses, and all bets are off. The guy on the left appears to have a Roman nose, whereas the guy on the right has more of a pointed nose. Or perhaps Grecian. No.... pointed. Nearly the opposite of Roman.


0fb92d24628c42ec9bcbc94ee1697130.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Tommy,

At first glance (and second and third) these two guys really do look the same. Especially with the blond hair, the hair style, and receding chin.

And then you compare noses, and all bets are off. The guy on the left appears to have a Roman nose, whereas the guy on the right has more of a pointed nose. Or perhaps Grecian. No.... pointed. Nearly the opposite of Roman.

[...]

Sandy,

You do realize, don't you, that you're looking at his nose from different angles?  Regardless, I believe it's possible that his "Roman nose" was distorted in that photo by something dark in the background.

Image result for nikolai leonov leon

 

--  Tommy :sun

Cuban Consul Eusebio Azcue said the blond Oswald he dealt with had blond hair and a very thin face.

Nikolai Leonov interpreting for the boys. NikolaiLeonovFidelNikitaBrezhnev.jpg

 

When answering specific about the Oswald she'd dealt with, she didn't mention the thin face, but she did say he was blond, and that he was about the same height as she was (she was 5' 3 1/2").  Nikolai Leonov was 5' 6".

RaulCastroyNikolaiLeonoventrusas.jpg

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

27 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Sandy,

You do realize, don't you, that you're looking at his nose from different angles?  Regardless, I believe it's possible that his "Roman nose" was distorted in that photo by something dark in the background.

Image result for nikolai leonov leon

 

--  Tommy :sun

FWIW,

Cuban Consul Eusebio Azcue said the blond Oswald he dealt with had blond hair and a very thin face.

Blond, thin-faced Noiklai Leonov interpreting for the boys. NikolaiLeonovFidelNikitaBrezhnev.jpg

 

When answering specific about the Oswald she'd dealt with, Sylvia Duran didn't mention his thin face, but she did say he was blond and short, about the same height as her (she was 5' 3 1/2").  Nikolai Leonov was 5' 6".

RaulCastroyNikolaiLeonoventrusas.jpg

Edited and bumped

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 3/20/2017 at 2:54 PM, Thomas Graves said:

Image result for "nikolai leonov" "blond oswald"


I have doubts that the angle of a photograph could create the hump we seem to see on the nose in the left photo. But I think it is possible that the hump is an artifact of a poor photograph. And you do seem to have quite a strong strong case if the hump isn't factored in.

in short, I think you could be right about this guy.

But tell me this... what are the implications if these guys are the same? Does it mean James D. and the others are wrong, and there was indeed a mole hunt in MC? (I'm afraid I have only a superficial understanding of the MC trip. I get lost in the MC threads because of that. Actually, it seems very complicate with all the cables sent out, disappearing audio tapes, etc, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I have doubts that the angle of a photograph could create the hump we seem to see on the nose in the left photo. But I think it is possible that the hump is an artifact of a poor photograph. And you do seem to have quite a strong strong case if the hump isn't factored in.

in short, I think you could be right about this guy.

But tell me this... what are the implications if these guys are the same? Does it mean James D. and the others are wrong, and there was indeed a mole hunt in MC? (I'm afraid I have only a superficial understanding of the MC trip. I get lost in the MC threads because of that. Actually, it seems very complicate with all the cables sent out, disappearing audio tapes, etc, etc.)

"Does it mean James D. and the others are wrong, and there was indeed a mole hunt in MC, [and that Bill Simpich was right and that Harvey and Lee is not only wrong but counter-productive because it mistakes the bogus, "marked card" information about the one-and-only (Lee Harvey) Oswald that was intentionally put into his ever-bifurcating Intelligence files since at least early 1960,  for "proof" that there were two Oswalds and two Marguerites (perish the thought!) in a some kinda long, weird quadrupleganger project?]?"

Perish the thought, Sandy!

Out, out damned spot!

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do look alike, but since they're from the same period(3 years), the man on the left looks considerably older.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

They do look alike, but since they're from the same period(3 years), the man on the left looks considerably older.

Kirk,

Not sure what you mean by "3 years".  Both photos (the fuzzy one and the clear one showing Leonov interpreting) were taken in 1963.

Regardless, do you think the fuzziness / poor resolution makes whoever it was older-looking than he really was?

--  Thomas :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said " On the left:  The same man photographed on the same day in the same place" And I understood that day was Oct 2,1963.( the photo above) right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now