Let's Think About "The Unthinkable," Shall We?

[Michael Walton]

Oh OK I got it. No harm, no fowl/foul.

Thanks.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Killing JFK was would have been murdering their ace in the hole. Many interviews with old time Kremlin people have said they were encouraged by Kennedy's American University speech. I would say Detente would have come sooner, greater contact and sharing among major powers, the desire oriented free market  allure of the West seducing the Iron Curtain countries, having the inevitable corrosive effect. What question that's never asked is what effect would that have had on our lives if dissolution of the Soviet Union had happened 10 years earlier. I would say negative points of globalization also would likewise have happened 10 years  earlier to us.

The greatest effect on us and our  lives in  would have happened as result of China.  We can be thankful for the rule of Mao Tse Tung .If there was no Mao, and their  modernization had started after the end of World War ll. It could be argued that the standard of living that we, as Americans have shared throughout out lifetime would have been more severely thwarted in 1980's, and now our reign would have been over and China would be the preeminent  World Power.. However as all questions like this, China and Mao was inevitable as the war  of ideas between a planned economy and a free market economy had to be played out.

[Thomas Graves]

8 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Killing JFK was would have been murdering their ace in the hole. Many interviews with old time Kremlin people have said they were encouraged by Kennedy's American University speech. I would say Detente would have come sooner, greater contact and sharing among major powers, the desire oriented free market  allure of the West seducing the Iron Curtain countries, having the inevitable corrosive effect. What question that's never asked is what effect would that have had on our lives if dissolution of the Soviet Union had happened 10 years earlier. I would say negative points of globalization also would likewise have happened 10 years  earlier to us.

The greatest effect on us and our  lives in  would have happened as result of China.  We can be thankful for the rule of Mao Tse Tung .If there was no Mao, and their  modernization had started after the end of World War ll. It could be argued that the standard of living that we, as Americans have shared throughout out lifetime would have been more severely thwarted in 1980's, and now our reign would have been over and China would be the preeminent  World Power.. However as all questions like this, China and Mao was inevitable as the war  of ideas between a planned economy and a free market economy had to be played out.

How about the assassination's long-term effect of spreading divisive, paranoiac, CT-based thinking in this country, the results of which we just might be seeing in how RT / Sputnik / Putin's 1000 t-r-o-l-l-s in Saint Petersburg, Russia, are effecting Alt-Right and Alt-Left "fake news" here (and in Europe), and the Putin-supported election of con artist Donald Trump with his Alexander Dugin protege, Steve "I'm a Leninist" Bannon, calling the shots?

--  Tommy

PS  It's interesting to note that Eusebio Azcue's and Sylvia Duran's combined description of the "Oswald" they dealt with on 9/27/63 matches to a "T"  the thirty-five-year-old, blond, very thin-faced, 5'6", Mexico City based KGB officer Nikolai Leonov, who as far as I know is still a pro-Putin member of the Russian parliament. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Kirk Gallaway]

How about the assassination's long-term effect of spreading divisive, paranoiac, CONSPIRACY THEORY-thinking in this country, the results of which we just might be seeing in how RT / Sputnik / Putin's 1000 t-r-o-l-l-s in Saint Petersburg, Russia, are effecting Alt-Right and Alt-Left "fake news" here (and in Europe), and the Putin-supported election of con artist Donald Trump with his Alexander Dugin protege, Steve "I'm a Leninist" Bannon, calling the shots?

--  Tommy

Tommy, Timely you should say.I thought I was a lone voice crying in the wilderness! Some people close to me are somewhat affected, which requires discretion,and some not close, where the limits of discretion are being contemplated. Keep up your cheerful pursuit  of humor!

Edited April 3, 2017 by Kirk Gallaway

[Thomas Graves]

25 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

How about the assassination's long-term effect of spreading divisive, paranoiac, CT-thinking in this country, the results of which we just might be seeing in how RT / Sputnik / Putin's 1000 t-r-o-l-l-s in Saint Petersburg, Russia, are effecting Alt-Right and Alt-Left "fake news" here (and in Europe), and the Putin-supported election of con artist Donald Trump with his Alexander Dugin protege, Steve "I'm a Leninist" Bannon, calling the shots?

--  Tommy

Tommy, Timely you should say.I thought I was a lone voice crying in the wilderness! Some people close to me are somewhat affected, which requires discretion,and some not close, where the limits of discretion are being contemplated. Keep up your cheerful pursuit  of humor!

Humor?

LOL!  Good one!

PS  You left out this punchline:

It's interesting to note that Eusebio Azcue's and Sylvia Duran's combined description of the "Oswald" they dealt with on 9/27/63 matches to a "T"  the thirty-five-year-old, blond, very thin-faced, 5'6", Mexico City-based KGB officer Nikolai Leonov, who as far as I know is still a pro-Putin member of the Russian parliament. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Tommy,

IMHO, your joke is a pie in the face of the "Harvey and Lee" theory, which sees no difference between the CIA and the KGB.

Although James DiEugenio was useful and interesting in the 1990's, he appears useless and boring in the 21st century, because he can't keep up. 

To try to keep his old, CIA-did-it CT alive, James has now linked his caboose to the "Harvey and Lee" train, through David Josephs.

Well, OK, let's admit that the "Harvey and Lee" nonsense started with Jack White in the 1990's, and was filtered through James' CTKA Probe Magazine in the 1990's.

All I'm saying is that the CIA-did-it CT is now coughing and spitting up on its death-bed, and that James struggles to remain relevant by using this life-support.

IMHO the reason that the brilliant Jack White first came up with the "Harvey and Lee" photographic series is because the real Dallas JFK Killers leaned on him.  Jack's brilliant discovery that rookie DPD officer Roscoe White's chin, neck, shoulders, lumpy right wrist and backward stance were all evident in LHO's Backyard Photographs (BYP) was getting too warm, too early, so they either threatened or paid Jack White to change the topic.

Jack did this by using his ridiculous "Harvey and Lee" theory, which sees virtually no difference between the CIA and the KGB.   It was deliberately confusing. 

The first clue is that the ignoramus, Southern mind-set of the DPD in the 20th century could never tell the difference between the CIA and the KGB anyway.  (See the WC testimony of Revilo P. Oliver for details.)  So, they approved of Jack White's late detour.

All this reminds me of the Probe Magazine cloak-and-dagger nonsense of the 1990's.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 3, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Paul,

What do you make of the fact that Eusebio Azcue's and Sylvia Duran's combined description of the "Oswald" they dealt with on 9/27/63 matches to a "T"  the thirty-five-year-old, blond, very thin-faced, 5'6", Mexico City-based KGB officer Nikolai Leonov, who just happened to be "captured" by the LILYRIC and LIEMPTTY cameras on October 2, 1963, one day after someone had impersonated Oswald in a phone call to the Soviet Embassy, where, ironically, Leonov "worked" in his cover job of Third Secretary?

--  Tommy

Tommy,

Here's what I make of it.  To s-t-r-e-t-c-h the facts to make your case, Tommy, you must "combine" the descriptions of Azcue and Duran.

You cannot get that KGB agent's description from their separate accounts.

I have a few observations:

1.  First, from the Lopez Report, if the KGB was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City in 1963, then it is 100% certain that the KGB killed JFK.

2.  I accept the logic and conclusions of then Secretary of State Dean Rusk, that all Intelligence Sources in 11/1963 rejected the theory that the KGB killed JFK.

3.  The fact that there was a KGB agent in or near the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City anytime in 1963 means absolutely NOTHING.  So what if David Morales had just finished impersonating Oswald there the day before?

4.  KGB agents were crawling around the Mexico City Embassy compound in 1963.  It means NOTHING.

5.  The reason that Silvia Duran described Oswald as "blonde" was because the vast majority of Mexicans are dark-haired, so any light-haired person could be called "blonde" in casual conversation in Mexico.  It means NOTHING.

6.  As for Azcue, he knew that Silva Duran had been subjected to harsh treatment by the Mexican Police, and he was eager to avoid such maltreatment himself.  His motive was to distance himself as far from Lee Harvey Oswald as humanly possible.  So he played dumb.   "I never saw THAT Oswald in my office!  Wasn't there a Russian guy here by that name?"  

7.  One must r-e-a-c-h to make their accounts match this KGB agent, and then to claim -- what? -- that Oswald was never in Mexico City?  But you've read the Lopez Report, right?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 3, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

58 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Tommy,

Here's what I make of it.  To s-t-r-e-t-c-h the facts to make your case, Tommy, you must "combine" the descriptions of Azcue and Duran.

You cannot get that KGB agent's description from their separate accounts.

I have a few observations:

1.  First, from the Lopez Report, if the KGB was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City in 1963, then it is 100% certain that the KGB killed JFK.

2.  I accept the logic and conclusions of then Secretary of State Dean Rusk, that all Intelligence Sources in 11/1963 rejected the theory that the KGB killed JFK.

3.  The fact that there was a KGB agent in or near the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City anytime in 1963 means absolutely NOTHING.  So what if David Morales had just finished impersonating Oswald there the day before?

4.  KGB agents were crawling around the Mexico City Embassy compound in 1963.  It means NOTHING.

5.  The reason that Silvia Duran described Oswald as "blonde" was because the vast majority of Mexicans are dark-haired, so any light-haired person could be called "blonde" in casual conversation in Mexico.  It means NOTHING.

6.  As for Azcue, he knew that Silva Duran had been subjected to harsh treatment by the Mexican Police, and he was eager to avoid such maltreatment himself.  His motive was to distance himself as far from Lee Harvey Oswald as humanly possible.  So he played dumb.   "I never saw THAT Oswald in my office!  Wasn't there a Russian guy here by that name?"  

7.  One must r-e-a-c-h to make their accounts match this KGB agent, and then to claim -- what? -- that Oswald was never in Mexico City?  But you've read the Lopez Report, right?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Dear Paul,

I haven't even read your full list yet.  Just the first one: "[F]rom the Lopez Report, if the KGB was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City in 1963, then it is 100% certain that the KGB killed JFK."

Let me stop you right there and ask you a question, if I may.

Why did you start with that question instead of finishing with it?

The fact that you did suggests to me that you, like most researchers, have a hard time thinking outside of "the box," and that you are quite "agenda-driven" in your research.

Which precludes y'all from even considering the possibility that the assassination was a joint CIA - KGB operation, involving "rogues" in at least one of those agencies, and / or that somebody's (possibly already internally co-opted) "op" was co-opted or "piggybacked, again, by somebody else, maybe even in an ostensible "mole hunt" of their own.

--  Tommy

PS  Wouldn't it be something if the missing photos showed Morales and Leonov together in Mexico City.

Mind-blowing.  Absolutely mind-blowing.

 

PPS  No, I don't have the answers.  But at least I'm thinking outside of "the box," by which I mean to say, "I'm working on it."

 

PPS  Did you notice Azcue's saying that the blond "Oswald" he dealt with on 9/27/63 was "thin, (and) "very thin-faced." ?  [emphasis added]

Edited April 3, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

15 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Paul,

I haven't even read your full list yet.  Just the first one: "[F]rom the Lopez Report, if the KGB was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City in 1963, then it is 100% certain that the KGB killed JFK."

Let me stop you right there and ask you a question, if I may.

Why did you start with that question instead of finishing with it?

The fact that you did suggests to me that you, like most researchers, have a hard time thinking outside of "the box," and that you are quite "agenda-driven" in your research.

Which precludes y'all from even considering the possibility that the assassination was a joint CIA - KGB operation, involving "rogues" in at least one of those agencies, and / or that somebody's (possibly already internally co-opted) "op" was co-opted or "piggybacked, again, by somebody else, maybe even in an ostensible "mole hunt" of their own.

--  Tommy

PS  Wouldn't it be something if the missing photos showed Morales and Leonov together in Mexico City.

Mind-blowing.  Absolutely mind-blowing.

PPS  No, I don't have the answers.  But at least I'm thinking outside of "the box," by which I mean to say, "I'm working on it." ...

Tommy,

There's a danger in "thinking outside the box" and that is that one can easily fall into writing fiction.

IMHO, that's the main flaw of CTers today -- falling to the temptation to entertain, instead of closely following the FACTS to solve this specific murder mystery.

The notion of a combined CIA/KGB plot to assassinate JFK is the sort of cloak-and-dagger nonsense we read in Probe Magazine soon before it folded in the 1990's.

However, If you really want to go down that rabbit hole, Tommy, then please first tell me what you think of the WC testimony of Revilo Oliver who had a vaguely similar CT in 1964.

Regards 

--Paul Trejo 

Edited April 4, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Tommy,

There's a danger in "thinking outside the box" and that is that one can easily fall into writing fiction.

IMHO, that's the main flaw of CTers today -- falling to the temptation to entertain, instead of closely following the FACTS to solve this specific murder mystery.

The notion of a combined CIA/KGB plot to assassinate JFK is the sort of cloak-and-dagger nonsense we read in Probe Magazine soon before it folded in the 1990's.

However, If you really want to go down that rabbit hole, Tommy, then please first tell me what you think of the WC testimony of Revilo Oliver who had a vaguely similar CT in 1964.

Regards 

--Paul Trejo 

 

Facts?  LOL

Why do you twist them so?

Is that how you got the nickname "Word Twister Trejo"?

Why don't you like the real-deal fact that Azcue described the blond "Oswald" he dealt with as looking-to-be in his 30's, maybe even 35, and not only being "thin" body-wise, but also having a "very thin face"?

Why do  suppose he threw the word "very" in there like that?

--  Tommy

PS  Predicted answer from Trejo:  "Because Cubans tend to have very round faces, and all non-Cuban Caucasians look like they have very thin faces to them."

Edited April 4, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

PT is going off again.

As I have stated, I do not agree with all the concepts in Armstrong's book.  But at least I have read it. That is a difference between me and PT.  That book is about 900 pages of mostly new information.  And to name just three, his sections on Mexico City, the Walker shooting, and Oswald in the CAP are simply excellent.  But you have to read them first.   I have never reviewed the book simply because it would be such a mammoth undertaking.  IT would take literally months to do so in any responsible way.  For the simple matter than John uncovered not only new information, he discovered witnesses that no one even knew about. Which is a heck of a lot more than anyone here has done.

Second, as I have tried to explain elsewhere, my ideas of the JFK case are enumerated in more than one place.  And my idea coincides with a few other people.  For example, the late Bill Turner and Warren Hinckle, in their book Deadly Deceits; Larry Hancock in SWHT, and Anthony Summers in Conspiracy.  There is also some overlap with Jim Douglass, especially as to the Why.

My concept is this:  A tripartite conspiracy between a certain hardcore, action oriented operational arm of the CIA, certain anti-Castro Cuban exiles, and the Mob brought in for clean up duty.  That is what I believe and I and others have backed it up with many facts and pieces of evidence.  Too many to detail here.  But I have also added a layer above the CIA, the Power Elite, and i state that the operational arm would not have done what they did unless they had a pre approval from this class.  Since they controlled the media and would cover it up for them.  And I posted two essays, one my me and one by William Davy that shows how CBS and NBC, at the highest level, participated in these operations. 

In other words, since so many people believe that something like this happened, there are more and more volumes being contributed that further this paradigm.  That is because, contrary to what PT wants you to think, the declassifications of the ARRB have all been very strong on this, and pretty much non existent on his ideas--which is why he is still waiting for things in October.  As the reader can see, this is what I based my critique of Carpenter on.  Over a dozen of those documents. When you can do something like that, its called actionable information.  It not just informs the reader, it arms him for any future debate.  Which I am sure Mr Carpenter does not want to engage in, for obvious reasons.

As Ernie Lazar has shown, you cannot do that with PT's ideas.  They lead you down a blind alley.

 

Edited April 4, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

PT is going off again.

As I have tried to explain elsewhere, my ideas of the JFK case are enumerated in more than one place.  And my idea coincides with a few other people.  For example, the late Bill Turner and Warren Hinckle, in their book Deadly Deceits; Larry Hancock in SWHT, and Anthony Summers in Conspiracy.  There is also some overlap with Jim Douglass, especially as to the Why.

My concept is this:  A tripartite conspiracy between a certain hardcore, action oriented operational arm of the CIA, anti-Castro Cuban exiles, and the Mob brought into for clean up duty.  That is what I believe and I and others have backed it up with many facts and pieces of evidence.  Too many to detail here.  But I have also added a layer above the CIA, the Power Elite, and i state that the operational arm would not have done what they did unless they had a pre approval from this class.  Since they controlled the media and would cover it up for them.  And I posted two essays, one my me and one by William Davy that shows how CBS and NBC, at the highest level, participated in these operations. 

In other words, since so many people believe that something like this happened, there are more and more volumes being contributed that further this paradigm.  That is because, contrary to what PT wants you to think, the declassifications of the ARRB have all been very strong on this.  And that is what I based my critique of Carpenter on.  Over a dozen of those documents. When you can do something like that, its called actionable information.  It not just informs the reader, it arms him for any future debate.

As Ernie Lazar has shown, you cannot do that with PT's ideas.  They lead you down a blind alley.

James,

I took a brief look the Mexico City section of your Parkland Revisited  Reclaiming Parkland book on the Net (I googled something of interest and it popped up near the top of the "hit list"), compliments of google books (and therefore many pages missing), and I liked what I saw.

I might even be tempted to buy it.  LOL

I just skimmed a bit, though, so please do not misconstrue this as some kind of "ringing endorsement," or anything.  Not yet, anyway. 

--  Tommy

[James DiEugenio]

The  title is Reclaiming Parkland.

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Facts?  LOL

Why do you twist them so?

Is that how you got the nickname "Word Twister Trejo"?

Why don't you like the real-deal fact that Azcue described the blond "Oswald" he dealt with as looking-to-be in his 30's, maybe even 35, and not only being "thin" body-wise, but also having a "very thin face"?

Why do  suppose he threw the word "very" in there like that?

--  Tommy

PS  Predicted answer from Trejo:  "Because Cubans tend to have very round faces, and all non-Cuban Caucasians look like they have very thin faces to them."

Tommy, Tommy, Tommy,

My answer to your question is that Azcue almost certainly had the KGB agent in mind when he decided to lie to the Mexican authorities. 

Azcue saw Lee Harvey Oswald -- of that there is little doubt -- either by Edwin Lopez or Bill Simpich.

Yet Azcue described this KGB agent to the Mexican authorities, instead.   Why?

The answer, I have repeatedly claimed -- is that Azcue was terrified of the Mexican Police, who had brutalized Silvia Duran.

Brutalized her -- in every imaginable way -- as Police do when the citizens look the other way, because these are allegedly "criminals."  (If they weren't "criminals" then why would the Police arrest them?   So, since the Police arrested them, let the Police do what they think is right -- and we will look the other way.   Think of Mississippi Burning - or the arrest of LHO.)

The brutal treatment of Silvia Duran by the Mexican Police never gets enough attention, IMHO.  The tabloid stories in Mexico City had DOZENS of news "articles" detailing the "love affair" between Silvia Duran and Lee Harvey Oswald.   

Obviously, since Silvia Duran was a supporter of Fidel Castro, then she was a Communist (which was illegal in Mexico at the time) and so she believed in Free Love, and so she "had to have had a love affair" with Oswald.  The rumors and fictions ran wild.

For this reason -- the Mexican Police did whatever they wanted with Silvia Duran.  She was subjected to unspeakable treatment.

Mexican consul Azcue was vividly aware of this problem.   Now the Mexican Police were breathing down his neck.   "What did you have to do with Lee Harvey Oswald, you sniveling little Communist in the service of Fidel Castro, here at the Cuban Consulate?  What?  Answer us!"

Can there be any doubt at all that Azcue would deny any direct knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald -- and pretend that he didn't even notice?

Can there be any doubt at all that Azcue would select this KGB agent who looked a little like Oswald -- who was constantly hanging around the USSR and Cuban Consulates -- and describe him for the Mexican Police -- to send them off the scent?

I have said repeatedly -- and you have not responded, Tommy.  It was the terror of the Mexican Police that forced Eusebio Azcue to exclaim: "The Oswald that I saw was nothing like the Oswald who killed JFK!  Please don't hit me!"

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 4, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

4 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

 

My answer to your question is that Azcue almost certainly had the KGB agent [Nikolai Leonov] in mind when he decided to lie to the Mexican authorities. 

[...]

Can there be any doubt at all that Azcue would select this KGB agent who looked a little like Oswald -- who was constantly hanging around the USSR and Cuban Consulates -- and describe him for the Mexican Police -- to send them off the scent?

 

 

Dear Paul,

If what you say is correct, then Azcue and Duran must have conferred with each other (between her torture sessions) about what to say about the "Oswald" they'd both dealt with on 9/27/63, don't you think?

"Silvie, other than clothing-wise, let's give just slightly different descriptions of him -- for example, you won't say he was very thin-faced, and I won't say he was about the same height as your diminutive 5' 3 1/2" --  but other than that, lets base both of our descriptions on our really nondescript [sarcasm] buddy, KGB officer Nikolai Leonov, whaddaya say?  I'm sure our good  friends, the Russians, won't mind being implicated in the assassination, especially since, being Third Secretary at the Soviet Embassy here, Nikolai is sure to be (or have been) "caught" on film by those cameras of the evil, evil CIA!"

--  Tommy

 

PS .. Nikolai Leonov looked nothing like Lee Harvey Oswald, and you know it.

 

Edited April 4, 2017 by Thomas Graves