Does Lifton's Best Evidence indicate that the coverup and the crime were committed by the same people?

[Paul Trejo]

22 hours ago, Gerry Simone said:

It's not like there was a letter FROM Kostikov (now THAT would be different).  

Oswald was made to look like an ambitious Commie wannabe and lapdog of Castro (he was made to look like he was trying to impress him but there's no evidence that he got any direction from him).

Gerry,

I'm still unconvinced that Kostikov and Kostin were one and the same person.

Oswald's letter at Ruth Paine's home which he sent to the USSR Embassy in Washington DC in early November, 1963, and which was intercepted by the FBI, used the name.of Kostin.

Not Kostikov.

These are two different Russian names.

I realize that James Hosty wrote that the names were the same, but Hosty was a promoter of the idea that LHO met Kostikov in Mexico City. 

The better question is what LHO was trying to do with this letter.

LHO was not a member of the Communist Party, and these were random letters as far as the Soviets were concerned.  LHO had dealings with the FBI in NOLA, so he knew the FBI would intercept the letter.

It seems to me that the letter was meant for FBI eyes.

What was Oswald's game?  The most likely scenario IMHO is that Oswald was still working for Guy Banister on a project to assassinate Fidel Castro.

Having just learned from Ruth Paine that the FBI would begin to harass him where Marina was living with Ruth Paine, Lee Harvey Oswald decided to write a shocker of a letter for the FBI to drool over.

The big question, of course, is who exactly is Kostin?  Is it really Kostikov?  Yet the caller from the Cuban consulate to the USSR Embassy was certainly not Lee Harvey Oswald, according to the CIA (says Bill Simpich, 2014).  So, how would Oswald even know about Kostikov -- unless he was working directly with CIA rogue David Morales (who was the probable impersonator, says Bill Simpich).

If Kostin really was Kostikov, then Oswald was cooperating in Mexico City with his own killers.  Oswald trusted them.  The most likely scenario, IMHO, was that Oswald thought that the plot was to kill Fidel, and that he was going to get a big reward for his role -- and maybe a regular job with the CIA (fat chance).  This was how they strung Oswald along.

Otherwise, Kostin was just some guy that Oswald made up -- or remembered from the USSR in 1960-1961, and Oswald was just trying to irritate the FBI -- talking down at them, so to speak.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 19, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[David Lifton]

On 4/18/2017 at 7:21 AM, Paul Trejo said:

In deference to the great David Lifton, many here are voting for a PLANNED pre-autopsy autopsy.  

Yet all these CTs would make more sense if the pre-autopsy autopsy was merely a hasty REACTION.  

After all, it was bungled so bad that all of its results had to be hidden for DECADES.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

The alteration of President Kennedy's body--i.e., the removal of bullets and, as necessary , the alteration of certain wounds--was integral to Kennedy's assassination. It was central to the assassination planning, which is why I have said, repeatedly, that this was a "body-centric" plot.

In Final Charade, I will present (additional) evidence of that statement, very powerful evidence, that I cannot disclose at this time.

However, if anyone wants to read a good discussion of "before-the fact" versus "after-the-fact," that subject is all laid out in detail (and discussed carefully) in Chapter 14 of Best Evidence: "Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception."

BODY ALTERATION: Before or After the fact?

As a general proposition, and speaking personally, I think that the idea that plotters who took Kennedy's life failed to foresee the problem posed by the fact that his body was "evidence" (and that "other bullets" in his body would pose a problem), is not just "unlikely," but truly absurd.  Speaking from personal experience (and in the discussions leading up to finding a publisher for Best Evidence [back in back in the period 1976 - 1978]I think that the problem lies in the simple fact that "body alteration"--in any form--is revolting and disgusting, and against all traditions embodied by Judeo-Christian ethics and traditions.

Consequently, confronted with data (and yes, with  "medical facts") that such a thing occurred, opponents  engage  in "politically acceptable" excuse making.  Suddenly, there emerge considerations of "national security" and so forth.  Anything to avoid the ugly facts of what actually happened to JFK's body after his death; i.e.,  that the size of the hole (i.e., the "defect") in President Kennedy's head increased by a factor of 400-500% between Dallas and Bethesda (see Chapter 13 of B.E., "The Head Wound: Dallas versus Bethesda"); or that the character of the throat wound similarly underwent a marked change (See Chapter 11 of B.E., "The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs. Bethesda"); or that the throat wound was actually sutured shut (See Chapter 23)--at least, for awhile;  or that the body was delivered to the Bethesda morgue in a body bag, inside a shipping casket, some 20 minutes before the arrival of the naval ambulance carrying Jacqueline Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and the Dallas coffin (see Chapters 25, 26, 28, in B.E., and most importantly, the accounts of Dennis David and Paul O'Connor).

THE "EXCUSE MAKERS"

So the plain and simple fact that the body was altered--and altered "afterwards" (because, of course, Kennedy's body could not be altered until after he was murdered--that idea of "afterwards"  somehow morphs into the wrong-headed and mistaken that the whole idea of "altering the body"--that that entire concept was first "conceived of" later, that it was all "after the fact" and somehow inspired by (or connected with) a  "noble act" authorized by "higher authority" whose "enlightened" motive for this despicable alteration (this "obstruction of justice") was  to avoid a nuclear war.  In other words, a political theory, for which there is no real basis, is offered as an "explanation" or "justification" for what happened to JFK's body, after his death.

That's just bunk.  Codswallop.

Instead of facing the ugly reality of the crime, some people persist in looking for an "acceptable" (or "politically correct") explanation.

Anyway, I digress. 

Best Evidence: The Book and the Video (i.e., the video titled "Best Evidence: The Research Video")

The book is out there, it was first released in January 1981, by Macmillan, in hardcover; it was subsequently published by three more publishers (1982, 1988 [Carroll & Graf], and 1993 [Signet]).  And if you wish to see filmed account(s) of the key witnesses-filmed in October 1980, 3 months before the book's publication) just watch the Best Evidence Research Video [1989] ,which can be readily accessed  on YouTube by Googling "David Lifton, Best Evidence Research Video." Its just 37 minutes long.   There , anyone can watch excerpts from the filmed interviews  I conducted in October 1980 with the  late Aubrey Rike, the Dallas funeral attendant who put Kennedy's body, wrapped in sheets, into the expensive Dallas casket, and contrast what he said and described with the accounts of Bethesda witnesses (e.g., the late Paul O'Connor, the late Jerrol Custer, and Dennis David)  who witnessed the arrival of Kennedy's body, in a shipping casket, 20 minutes before the arrival of  the (empty) Dallas casket, in the naval ambulance which carried the Kennedy party from Andrews Air Force Base to Bethesda Naval Hospital.

The HSCA (Robert Blakey) Angle

Regarding those October 1980 filmed interviews, please also note: These were interviews with the same people who the Honorable G. Robert Blakey (General Counsel lof the HSCA) arranged to have locked up for fifty (50) years (!!) , a plan I completely foiled by broadcasting these account repeatedly, all across America, as I went from city to city on my book tour between Jan and March 1981. (During this same period,  the very  Honorable Blakey, who now tries to ally himself with certain factions of the JFK "research community," was readying the public for his "mob-did-it book, and was issuing statements attacking me, and Best Evidence; stating that I was wrong, and that he and the HSCA carefully had "looked into it" etc.  Again, these were all statements Robert Blakey was making while he was at was attempting to peddle his own book, what I like to think of as his  "mob did it" book.

In any event, truth will out.  That's what I was taught in the home I grew up in, and that's what I believe is going to happen in this case.

Certain folks are going to end up in the dustbin of history, and one of them will be Robert G. Blakey, and his "mob-did-it" theory.

DSL

4/19/2017 - 9 a.m. PDT

 

Edited April 21, 2017 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

On 4/18/2017 at 3:25 PM, Paul Trejo said:

This good question gets to the core of it.

The only reason for the pre-autopsy autopsy was to support the LN theory.

There was no other reason.

So the only real question is WHEN the LN theory was first conceived.

The LBJ-did-it CTer has NO CHOICE but to insist that it HAD TO BE conceived WEEKS in advance.

Yet it makes no sense to me -- why would anyone PLAN a Lone Nut scenario?  There was no Necessity for it.

The ONLY reason to push willy-nilly for a Lone Nut theory is when one is FORCED to push for it.

Here's why: the Military brass at Bethesda would easily fall in line for a last minute, National Security issue from LBJ to push a Lone Nut theory.  But they would never approve of assassination of a President weeks in advance, and prepare a pre-autopsy autopsy.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

No, I believe you are incorrect.

As I have stated on a number of occasions, there doesn't have to be a perfect correspondence between the "plot as conceived" and the "plot as executed." As conceived, Oswald was obviously designed to appear as someone with "foreign" and subversive  connections.  Within an hour or two of the murder, President Johnson and other top officials were doing everything they could to "put that fire out." (My quotes).   Furthermore, on Monday, November 25th (and as readily apparent from the language of the Katzenbach-to-Bill Moyers memo) the Dept of Justice was dong everything it could to mute, if not eliminate, any talk of the involvement of any foreign power.

Remember who Nicholas Katzenbach was: he was RFK's top aide and confidant.

In view of all of these multiple "conflicting agendas," I don't see how any meaningful conclusions can be drawn as to precisely what was the "ideological design" of the original plot, simply by relying on the precise way the crime was reported in the Warren Report.,  Sure, there could have been some rogue person who thought that JFK's assassination could be parlayed into an invasion of Cuba; but that was clearly not the intention of the civilian leadership of this government.

DSL

4/29/2017 - 9:23 a.m.

 

Edited April 20, 2017 by David Lifton

[Thomas Graves]

On 4/19/2017 at 8:22 AM, David Lifton said:

The actual writing of the Warren Commission Report was one activity; the prior writing of internal memos was another. To understand "what the WC knew, and when they knew it," one must go to the original "investigative" memos; and even the first drafts of the "Foreign conspiracy" chapter of the WCR (WC attorney David Slawson's "office files" at NARA).   By doing that, one can trace the flow of information and attempt to find out how it came to pass that "nothing was said" about Oswald's "Cuban" activities, but there was information about the Soviet Embassy visit. Unfortunately that information was incomplete.   We did not get the full picture of what happened during LHO's Soviet Embassy visit until the 1993 publication of Nechiporenko's Passport to Assassination.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the Nechiporenko book ("Passport to Assassination") provides a pretty detailed account of LHO's visit to the Soviet Embassy on Saturday morning, 9/28.  Had there been no Cold War (with all its political complications) everything that is laid out in Nechiporenko's book could have been provided to the Warren Commission. 

But it wasn't  Not only is it very important, historically, but its very illuminating re the psychology of Oswald.  LHO was seated in a room with three (3) officials: Nechiporenko, Kostikov, and Yatsov.   LHO then staged this dramatic scene, in which he was crying, said he was being followed, and then--suddenly--took out a pistol and laid it on the table. One of the three Soviets grabbed at the gun, opened it, and immediately "disarmed" Oswald by taking out the bullets. This whole episode,I am sure, was nothing but an act. What my late father would tell me (and/or my sister) if things got too dramatic at home. "Stop playing Sarah Bernhardt!".  That, I believe, is what Oswald was doing on Saturday morning, 9/28/63, at the Soviet Embassy.  It was a staged play, nothing more. And, of course, it left a major impression on these three officials, who immediately recognized Oswald on 11/22/63, when his arrest was announced and his photograph was carried in the U.S. media. (SIDE NOTE: Jefferson Morley does not include any of this in his book, Our Man In Mexico. And I have no idea how to account for that omission).  Anyway, and as  used to  discuss all of this  with John Newman back in 1993, when I was working very closely with him, the LHO/Cuban contacts were seriously "edited out" (of the Warren Report)  and now we know, from the Nechiporenko book, that the most pertinent aspects of Oswald's Soviet visit never were mentioned in any document given by the Soviets to the US Government; and first became known with the 1993 publication of Passport to Assassination.. What I have described above is to some extent, an important part of the backstory of LHO's visit to Mexico City.

DSL, 4/19/2017; 8:20 a.m. PDT

David,

What, then, are we to make of KGB officer (and Third Secretary at the Soviet Embassy) Nikolai Leonov's claim in his Russian-language book (and in National Enquirer magazine, of all places) that Oswald showed up at the Embassy on Sunday, September 29, while (5' 6") Leonov and The Boys were playing volleyball outside the Embassy, and that he alone met with revolver-packin' n' - cryin' Oswald?

Just more fake news from one of Putin's supporters who nowadays sits in the Russian parliament?

Below Left:  Leonov, as photographed near the Soviet Embassy on October 2, 1963.  Right:  Leonov interpreting for Castro and Mister K. in Moscow

--  Tommy

Edited May 4, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Can we really be certain that the Cuban Consulate was "closed on Saturdays"?

I'm not saying it isn't; but I haven't studied the original source materials on this particular factoid in years.

Does the CIA maintain the Cuban Consulate  was closed?

DSL

4/28/19- 7:18 a.m. PDT

David,

Here is what Bill Simpich writes in response to that question:

All hands say that the Cuban consulate was closed to visitors on Saturday the 28th. It’s well-documented that a Cuban exile named Manuel Porras Rivera was turned away by security when he tried to visit the Cuban consulate that day. Why would it be any different for Oswald, particularly after he was essentially banished from the consulate the day before?   (Simpich, State Secret, Chapter 5, 2014)

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, David Lifton said:

...I don't subscribe to this super-sinister view of Ruth Paine. I think she was genuinely shocked by finding that letter; and that's why she did what she did.

DSL

4/19/2017 7:20 a.m PDT

David,

On this point I agree with you 100%.   Having read all of Ruth Paine's WC testimony (and there's so much) and watching every video featuring her on the Internet, and even calling her on the phone at the end of 2015 (she is still sharp as a tack, by the way) I am convinced that she was an educated woman in Dallas in 1963 -- which was almost a crime in itself.  She was from a wealthy liberal family on the East Coast -- which was the same thing as Communist to many local yokels. 

Ruth Paine gets a bad rap from CIA-did-it fanatics, e.g. Probe Magazine in the 1990's and its countless fans.  This Quaker Charity Lady, who rescued Marina Oswald in her eighth month of pregnancy, without insurance, without money, without a doctor, and Lee Harvey Oswald without a job again for the third time in a year -- she is called a CIA killer.   I don't buy it.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[David Lifton]

8 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

David,

What are we to make of KGB officer (and Third Secretary at the Soviet Embassy) Nikolai Leonov's alleged claim (in Enquirer magazine of all places) that Oswald showed up at the Embassy on Sunday, September 29, while (shorty) Leonov and The Boys were playing volleyball (or were outside getting to leave for the game, or something), and that he alone met with revolver-packin' and crying Oswald?

Just more fake news from one of Putin's supporters who nowadays sits in the Russian parliament?

--  Tommy

I thought all of that occurred on Saturday, 9/28. [Corrected]  (At least, according to Nechiporenko's book).

Now maybe the Enquirer, many years later, reported it differently. (That I don't know).  And in the spirit of "P.S."--if anyone has a good, readable, photostat of that article, along with its date of publication, please do send it to me at:  dsl74@Cornell.edu).  Thanks.

DSL

Edited April 20, 2017 by David Lifton

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, David Lifton said:

The actual writing of the Warren Commission Report was one activity; the prior writing of internal memos was another. To understand "what the WC knew, and when they knew it," one must go to the original "investigative" memos; and even the first drafts of the "Foreign conspiracy" chapter of the WCR (WC attorney David Slawson's "office files" at NARA).   By doing that, one can trace the flow of information and attempt to find out how it came to pass that "nothing was said" about Oswald's "Cuban" activities, but there was information about the Soviet Embassy visit. Unfortunately that information was incomplete...

DSL, 4/19/2017; 8:20 a.m. PDT

David,

I agree emphatically that the original "investigative" memos of the WC comprise a gold mine of evidence. 

You mention the "Foreign Conspiracy" chapter of the WCR, however, I would emphasize Chapter 2 entitled, "The Assassination", in its small section, "Dallas Before the Visit." 

Here is where we read of the humiliation of Adlai Stevenson in Dallas just one month before JFK arrived; and here we read about the handbill WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK.  The "investigative memos" of the WC relating to this small section will prove to be the tunnel through which the real JFK assassins are finally found, IMHO.

Here's the online link to that chapter by NARA:  https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-2.html#dallas

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

17 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

I thought all of that occurred on Saturday, 9/29.  (At least, according to Nechiporenko's book).

Now maybe Enquirer, many years later, reported it differently.

DSL

David,

September 28, 1963, was a Saturday.

--  Tommy

Edited April 19, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

34 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

David,

What are we to make of KGB officer (and Third Secretary at the Soviet Embassy) Nikolai Leonov's alleged claim (in Enquirer magazine of all places) that Oswald showed up at the Embassy on Sunday, September 29, while he ("shorty" Leonov) and The Boys were playing volleyball (or were outside getting to leave for the game, or something), and that he alone met with revolver-packin' and crying Oswald?

Just more fake news from one of Putin's supporters who nowadays sits in the Russian parliament?

Below Left:  Leonov, as photographed near the Soviet Embassy on October 2, 1963.  Right:  Leonov interpreting for Castro and Mister K. in Moscow

--  Tommy

edited and bumped

Edited April 19, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[David Lifton]

8 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

David,

On this point I agree with you 100%.   Having read all of Ruth Paine's WC testimony (and there's so much) and watching every video featuring her on the Internet, and even calling her on the phone at the end of 2015 (she is still sharp as a tack, by the way) I am convinced that she was an educated woman in Dallas in 1963 -- which was almost a crime in itself.  She was from a wealthy liberal family on the East Coast -- which was the same thing as Communist to many local yokels. 

Ruth Paine gets a bad rap from CIA-did-it fanatics, e.g. Probe Magazine in the 1990's and its countless fans.  This Quaker Charity Lady, who rescued Marina Oswald in her eighth month of pregnancy, without insurance, without money, without a doctor, and Lee Harvey Oswald without a job again for the third time in a year -- she is called a CIA killer.   I don't buy it.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Yes, we apparently agree on Ruth Paine.

And to anyone attempting to follow this discussion, let me offer the following advice.

To understand Ruth Paine, and to appreciate Ruth Paine's situation, it is helpful to do all of the following:

1. Read the entire sequence of Ruth Paine FBI interviews --some in the 26 Volumes, some not.

2. Read all of her testimony (and she testified several times)

3. Watch her appearance on the London produced "Trail of Oswald" (1985  where she undergoes examination by Bugliosi and cross-examination by Pence).

4. Watch her very early Dallas (KRLD -TV) interviews (which I recently viewed on YouTUbe),  Those interview(s) were in December 1963. Important.

5. Dig up and study the very friendly 1967 letter that she wrote Garrison, wishing him well, etc.

6. Read and study her  New Orleans NODA  (Grand Jury) testimony.

Please Note: Besides doing all of the above, I spent several hours with Michael Paine, in 1995, at his home in Boxboro, Mass. It was taped interview that was so intense that Michael started to cry.

Pat Valentino and I also interviewed Michael Paine's 90+ year old mother (also named "Ruth") in Berkeley, California, around 1995. Also, Michael Paine's step-father, Arthur Young.  Helping me get access to various members of the Paine family was a member of that family, from a younger generation, a nephew of Arthur Young, who also wanted to get at the full truth.

But back to DiEugenio:

DiEugenio runs a completely biased website at CTKA.  The one area where he got everything right, I believe, concerns the CIA and and the assassination of Lumumba.  And by closely following John Newman, he understands that there was a foreign policy reversal between what Kennedy intended to do in Vietnam (withdraw) and what Johnson subsequently did (escalate).  ALso: I'm glad to see that DiEugenio recognizes that  Judyth  is a fantast. But one must heavily discount much else at CTKA that he writes about.  There--as the so-called "Chairman of the Board" (or at least, that's what he used to call himself, and sign his intro statement each month--he  indulges in all his favorite biases, and its all rather insidious. 

Under the guise of scholarship, DiEugenio fosters  and promulgates a seriously warped view of the JFK case. One of his peculiar ideas, for example, is that John and Robert Kennedy knew nothing about the anti-Castro assassination plots--that they were innocent, and it was all concocted behind their backs over at CIA.  (Totally absurd and ridiculous; and I say that even though the CIA's IG report, written when Bobby was still alive, covered for him).  Another is that everything in Seymour  Hersh's 1997 book, The Dark Side of Camelot, can be discounted. (Not true. Not by a long shot.)  Another is his mistaken idea that everything is "after-the-fact."  Another of his pet ideas is that Lyndon Johnson had nothing to do with JFK's assassination.  His CTKA site takes a completely biased anti-Best Evidence stance, whether the basic concepts came from me, or, years later, or from Doug Horne.  Once, on Black Ops Radio, DiEugenio said that the reason the coffins were different that the ambulance containing Jackie and Robert Kennedy stopped --yes stopped!--en route from Andrews AFB to Bethesda.  I have had any number of reports from people who have had contact with DiEugenio.  When the subject of  Best Evidence comes up, his eyes just glaze over.  He cannot handle it.  He has no basic understanding of the medical evidence, always referring to certain third  parties (Aguilar, et al)  when he wants to say anything in that area.   He's like a poor student who,  not understanding physics  says "I can't answer that. I know nothing about physics. But here, speak to my friend John Smith, he knows all about physics." He actually eulogizes the late Roger Feinman, the disbarred lawyer who was fired from CBS news and who wrote a libelous and malicious (unpublished manuscript) about me. He hardly understands the truth about Marina (he once made disparaging statements about her, stating  that of course he wouldn't deign to interview her, because he knows she is a xxxx) and, finally,  he would like to put the Paines--both of them--in jail.  The list goes on. Another time.

DSL

4/19/2017 - 10 a.m. PDT

Edited April 20, 2017 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

8 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

David,

Here is what Bill Simpich writes in response to that question:

All hands say that the Cuban consulate was closed to visitors on Saturday the 28th. It’s well-documented that a Cuban exile named Manuel Porras Rivera was turned away by security when he tried to visit the Cuban consulate that day. Why would it be any different for Oswald, particularly after he was essentially banished from the consulate the day before?   (Simpich, State Secret, Chapter 5, 2014)

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

A lot is at stake here (the legitimacy of an LHO phone call), and so I would go back to the original CIA documents (e.g., the detailed chronologies) that were submitted by CIA to the Warren Commission.  Do those documents state that the Cuba Consulate was closed on Saturday?  (I don't remember.)  Let me put it this way: when someone asserts that the Cuban consulate was "closed to visitors" on Saturday, 9/29, then I want to see the underlying documents that say that. The matter is too important to assert it as something we should believe because it is something that "all hands say." 

DSL

4/19/2017 - 10:40 a.m. PDT

Edited April 20, 2017 by David Lifton

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, David Lifton said:

 

David,

Thanks for spending the time commenting on some of the things I've written.

I want to say, for the record, that I don't believe Ruth Paine was (or is) an evil person. But I do believe she was working for the CIA and did what she was told.

I'm curious to see what you write in Final Charade that explains how Oswald just happened to get the right job at the right time, so that he could play the part of patsy. Of course, you could spare us the suspense and let us know right now. Hey, you might even win over some converts from the "Ruth Paine is CIA" camp.

 

Edited April 19, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, David Lifton said:

A lot is at stake here (the legitimacy of an LHO phone call), and so I would go back to the original CIA documents (e.g., the detailed chronologies) that were submitted by CIA to the Warren Commission.  Do those documents state that the Cuba Consulate was closed on Saturday?  (I don't remember.)  Let me put it this way: when someone asserts that the Cuban consulate was "closed to visitors" on Saturday, 9./29, then I want to see the underlying documents that say that. The matter is too important to assert it as something we should believe because it is something that "all hands say." 

DSL

4/19/2017 - 10:40 a.m. PDT

David,

I'm still trying to evaluate your current position with regard to Oswald and Kostikov.  Perhaps the best clue you gave was your citation of the book by a former Russian consul in Mexico City, Oleg Nechiporenko, namely, Passport to Assassination (1993).   So, here are a few lines from that book. 

The context itself is riveting: Oswald had spent face time with Kositkov in the presence of Nechporenko, but had no idea that Kostikov was a KGB assassin.  Together and separately they interviewed Oswald for a total of 2.5 hours on Thursday 9/26 and Friday 9/27.   

Nechiporenko recalled that instead of Oswald being just one more intelligence agent who had lost contact in his country, and came to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City to re-establish contact, they found just "the opposite."   Nechiporenko writes:  "His behavior was evidence to us of the opposite -- that he had no contact at all with intelligence." (p. 105)

They repeatedly denied to Oswald any possibility of receiving the "instant visa" that he demanded.  Oswald later returned to that Soviet Embassy with a loaded pistol, and then after they took his pistol, removed the bullets and handed it back to him, Oswald cried crocodile tears, and said that the FBI was harassing him.

At the end, Nechiporenko and Kostikov shared notes, as follows "As far as arriving at some kind of conclusion based on his personality....here again our opinions meshed, and we gave Oswald our unconditional evaluation...psychotic."  (p. 105)

The most interesting thing here, IMHO, is that, according to Oleg Nechiporenko, we observe that Lee Harvey Oswald did in fact meet face to face with Valery Kostikov, KGB assassin, but also that Oswald had no clue in the world who Kostikov really was!

From this viewpoint the letter that Oswald wrote to the Soviet Embassy from Ruth Paine's typewriter makes more sense -- Oswald did write "Kostin" only because he didn't remember the name of Kostikov, because he had no idea who Kostikov really was. 

This would confirm my suspicion that Oswald wrote his "Soviet Embassy Letter" simply to annoy the FBI, whom he knew would intercept the letter.  Oswald could be sure that the Soviets themselves would not know (or care) what he meant by this letter.  It was strictly a performance -- like his performance at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City on Friday 27 September 1963.

Yet the CIA said (according to Bill Simpich) that the caller from the Cuban consulate to the Soviet Embassy on Saturday 28 September 1963 was certainly NOT OSWALD.  The same applied, said the CIA, to the caller on Tuesday 1 October 1963, in which the caller fished until the name of Kostikov was mentioned, thus linking the name of Oswald and Kostikov on the CIA's most heavily-tapped telephone.  Only somebody who knew about wiretapping in Mexico City would make that call -- a CIA Mole.

So -- it now seems possible that Oswald actually did meet with Kostikov -- but had no idea who he was.  Yet this CIA mole (probably David Morales, says Simpich) certainly knew who Kostikov was, and could not let this opportunity get away.

Hmm.  More to ponder.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 19, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Steve Thomas]

6 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Steve,

Essentially, agreed.

Pardon my brevity, but am under much time pressure.

Re your post: I know about the first and fourth items on your 4-item list above. But. . . :

Could you elaborate on #2 ("herding" etc)?  I think I once saw, or possessed, a document from a Parkland "candystriper" (from the Garrison files, I think, but am not sure). If you could lay your hands on that, could you send it to me (please  use DSL74@cornell.edu), or simply send me a link, if such exists.

Similar request re "taping over the windows" - - I'm assuming that comes from a document about Gov JC's security precautions. If so, please just send me the citation. I know I've seen that somewhere.

Thanks.

DSL

4/19/2017 - 6:55 a.m. PDT

David,

 

I emailed you what I had. If you don't get this, let me know and I'll post it here.

 

Steve Thomas