All Activity

The only evidence we have of "Oswald" visiting the Soviet Embassy, that I am aware of, is the phone call made by an Oswald impersonator On October 1, 1963. That is the only call where the name "Lee Oswald" was given. In the call, the Oswald impersonator spoke in broken Russian to the embassy guard, saying that he had visited with an officer there on September 28. The guard suggested that the officer he had visited was Valeriy Kostikov. If a person actually did visit Soviet Embassy that day, I believe it was probably an imposter, just like the "Oswald" that visited the Cuban Consulate was an imposter. As for how the Excelsior newspaper got the information so quickly about the so-called Oswald visits, I suppose they could have gotten it from the Mexican police. After all, the Mexican police did hold Silvia Duran and a number of her friends for questioning, and did actually beat her, likely because she wouldn't admit to the charges made against her by Elena Garro, who was being held in "protective custody" at the time in a hotel. Garro's story painted Oswald as being a friend of Duran's and associating with her friends. So the story the Mexican Police got from Duran was the innocent/real one (according to their understanding), where Oswald was there to get a transit visa. (Not to negotiate an assassination deal with the Cubans and Russians.) Yes, I believe the Kostin letter was planted by the CIA in order to strengthen the evidence that Oswald had (supposedly) contracted with the Cubans and Soviets to have Kennedy killed. (Allegations made by Gilberto Alvarado.) As for the comment in the letter about Azcue being replaced: The CIA must have known about Azcue's replacement, or planned replacement. We don't really know if there was a timing issue as to the date of Azcue leaving, because when the Kostin letter said, "I am glad he has since been replaced," for all we know the CIA writer of the letter could have meant more specifically that the DECISION for his replacement had been made, and that soon the actual replacement will take place. Or it could be that the CIA writer of that letter simply made a mistake... he might have merely assumed that the replacement had taken place prior to his writing of the letter. Actually, I've never thought that Helms was one of the plotter. Though I suppose he might have been. But even if he wasn't, I don't understand how what he said would contradicts my beliefs as I've stated them. Maybe you can explain. First, Matt, I don't know if the following statement: “When sending the photocopies, say that the letter of November 9 [discussed above] was not received by the embassy until November 18, obviously it had been held up somewhere.” has anything to do with the Azcue replacement timing issue. The two dates, Nov. 9 and Nov. 18, might just be coincidences. Even if that sentence does relate to the Azcue timing issue, I don't see how the instruction of that sentence, given to Ambassador Dobrynin, supposedly resolves the timing issue. Especially in light of the fact that the U.S. knew precisely the date of the letter and the date the Soviets received it, a fact that apparently the Russians were aware of (since they knew of the U.S. mail intercept program). What details? The Azcue replacement timing issue dates? The CIA knew that Azcue was going to be replaced. So why wouldn't the Soviets have not also known that? With the Azcue replacement date in hand, and the Kostin letter in hand, the Soviets had all the details that you've pointed out. No mole needed to get it for them.

Steve Inskeep published a detailed expose of Uri Berliner's fraudulent claims about NPR at Substack this week. How my NPR colleague failed at “viewpoint diversity” (substack.com) Pundits throughout the MAGA-verse-- and Donald Trump, himself-- have seized on Berliner's fraudulent article to denounce NPR, and demand that it be de-funded. WaPo published an overview of the anti-NPR MAGA sh*t storm today. NPR editor Uri Berliner resigns after Free Press essay accuses network of bias - The Washington Post Among other errors documented by Inskeep, Berliner's claim about all of NPR's staff being registered Democrats is false. But, more importantly, almost all of Berliner's claims about NPR's journalistic modus operandi are blatantly untrue. Several of Inskeep's points-- e.g., about reporting on Trump's Russiagate scandal and Giuliani's 2020 Hunter Biden laptop "October Surprise"--are the same ones enumerated (above) by Kevin Drum.

Who is this motorcycle officer and why does he need an alibi?

Interesting article regarding internecine struggles within the CIA over espionage vs. covert ops that came to a head in the wake of tge Bay of Pigs. https://warontherocks.com/2016/12/spy-vs-spy-the-bay-of-pigs-and-the-battle-for-the-soul-of-the-cia/

To quote Bill Safire's Lewis Carroll-like wordplay (New York Times, Jan. 22, 1979), let us go through a glass, darkly: "Beware the Family Jewels, my son The leaks that spring, the tips from SMERSH -- Taste not Nosenko's Plant, and shun The myriad Seymourhersh! Gotitzen to the Bagley man Go find who serves another skipper; Promotion lies with those who can Win one for the Double Dipper. But high in Langley's ranks he stands, The Jabbermole, untouched is he -- Kampiles' heel, a friend of Stan's He snuckles in his glee. 'Board Brillig did the bearish spies Snatch Paisley's prints before he blabbed; All flimsy were the alibis While the mole laughs, ungrabbed." https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80B01554R003300280025-3.pdf

Has anyone in any of these legacy groups ever grappled with the very clear and alarming evidence that the CIA misled JFK about the prospects for the invasion fully knowing it would likely fail? Or, with that in mind, the fact that overtly committing air power after would be a clear violation of international law and norms? I keep waiting for them to shift the blame to where it belongs as we have known this for at least 20 years now (the latter point since 1961). Stu

At the point where Lancaster, Jefferson and 10th converge there is a Dallas County Court building. But it looks very new. I wonder if it replaced a similar facility that was there in 1963. It would explain the presence of a Dallas County Sheriff Deputy being in the area. Oswald would have to be pretty close to Marsalis to see a police car at 10th and Jefferson. The round trip distance from the Tippit killing site to Marsalis and back is 0.33 miles. At a walking pace of 5 feet per second that adds about 5 minutes to Oswald’s total travel time since leaving the rooming house.

I have heard this before but I can't seem to find a verification source. I thought it might be in the Shaw trial transcripts, which I have, but I now can't find where Zapruder said he never stopped filming.

I just took a closer look at the pictures of the shirt and tie in the Archives (https://www.maryferrell.org/photos.html?set=NARA-JFKCLOTHES) and pictures of JFK in the motorcade before the shooting. The bottom of the collar below the top button of the shirt shows holes that would line up if the shirt was buttoned. There are also corresponding holes in the tie (see photo 8, several inches to the right of where the tie was cut off, and on the right edge next to the fold on the long piece). In the pictures of JFK pre shooting, the collar pretty much covers the Adam’s apple, with the tie knot covering about where the throat wound shows in the autopsy photos (albeit altered), which is below the Adam’s apple. The holes in the clothing were penetrating, not cut from the edge as the nurses would have done (as the cut across the tie was done, at some point in the back or side of the neck). If the nurses in were to have done that, they would have had to poke through the layers of both sides of the collar and two layers of the tie with the point of the scissors, which I think is very unlikely. Conclusion: the throat wound was shored by the shirt and tie, which gave it the appearance of an entrance (with an abrasion/contusion collar) when it was really an exit. I contend that it was caused by a small fragment rather than an intact bullet, which further confused the issue with its small size.

David, Thank you. Steve Thomas

Donnie wants a cut. If you're running for public office, and you use Donald Trump's name or likeness in your fundraising efforts, Donald Trump now want a percentage of your take. He'll happily endorse you for office, you just have to pay him for the privilege. I think I'll go and copyright my name. Steve Thomas

For those inclined to research this spooky subject, here's a link to Bagley's Spy Wars - Moles, Mysteries, and Deadly Games -- https://dn790003.ca.archive.org/0/items/SpyWarsMolesMysteriesAndDeadlyGames/Spy Wars - Moles, Mysteries, and Deadly Games.pdf It's a cure for the belief that Captain Nosenko was a bonafide defector.

I once asked the Warren Commission supporters what standard they used to determine a witness' credibility. I got no answer. Because the answer is that their standard is this : any witness who adds to Oswald's guilt is credible and any witness that adds to his innocence is not. Witnesses who have come forward years later ( like Paul Landis and Jack Ray Tatum ) are still measured according to that standard. That's the standard they use. It doesn't matter if the physical evidence supports the witness or not. It's all about what the witness has to say in relation to the guilt or innocence of Oswald. These people have their own truth and are not open minded or willing to accept new evidence. You can show them testimony after testimony and document after document and they still won't accept it. Corroborating evidence means nothing to these folks. Witnesses and physical evidence that corrobrates what you say is nothing more to these folks as "kook sh*t". Many of them are driven by a hatred for "conspiracy theorists". They don't care that they've only heard one side of the story. They've only heard the prosecution's side of the case. Many of them haven't even read the 26 volumes, only the Report. That's like being a juror in a murder case, never hearing any of the testimony and only hearing the prosecution's final summation. What kind of a reasonable and prudent juror ( or judge ) would be satisfied never hearing from the defense and only deciding the guilt or innocence of an accused based solely on the prosecution's summation ? But, in effect, that's the stand these people have taken. Guilty until proven innocent. And even after you cast a reasonable doubt on his guilt, he's still guilty. If anyone has any doubt on the success of brainwashing, they only need to engage one of these folks to see it. The Dallas Police, the FBI and the Warren Commission started with a conclusion ( that Oswald was guilty ) and worked backwards to try to prove that. That's not the way a criminal investigation is conducted. If this case were legitimate and the evidence authentic, then everything should add up. There should be NO questions. The bullets that killed Tippit should match the shells found at the scene. The rifle should have been able to hit the sillouette targets in the head. The ammunition tests should have produced a bullet like CE 399. The wounds tests should have produced head wound like the one the President suffered. Not one of the tests conducted for the Warren Commission produced results that supported its conclusions. There should be no questions about the chain-of-custody of any of the evidence. The fact that there are nothing but questions about the evidence is troubling. But it's not just about the evidence. In a normal investigation, witnesses are not harassed into changing their stories, like W.W. Litchfield or Dr. Malcolm Perry. Witnesses are not warned to keep their mouths shut like Richard Randolph Carr or Acquilla Clemmons. Witnesses are not threatened with deportation like Marina Oswald or with death like Orest Pena. These are things you would do in a coverup. In a normal investigation, a suspect would not have been questioned after he asked for a lawyer. He would not have been held incommunicado from his family for 24 hours. He would not have been delayed a phone call until the next day. His lawyer would have been present when he was shown in a lineup. The "fillers" in that lineup would not have been teenagers and a Mexican. They would not have been men whose appearances automatically eliminated them from being chosen. Witnesses would not have told the suspect was in the lineup. These are things you would do if you were trying to frame an innocent man for a crime he did not commit. But none of this matters to people who think that your Constitutional rights are granted by Supreme Court decisions and that those rights are not in effect until the court says so. So I'm going to put these people on ignore and post what I post and I'm not going to respond to them. It's a total waste of time that could be better used for something else.

It 's so good not being misquoted! So, what I'm saying is that Oswald's time of arrest was faked, per the plan, in real time in order to create the radio traffic evidence "proving" the later time, and that Kantor was persuaded to lie about seeing Ruby at Parkland and then to change the time of his Ruby sighting in order to align Ruby's alibi with the faked later time of arrest. The only reason I can see for faking the time of arrest, though there may have been other reasons I don't know about, was to provide an alibi for the motorcycle officer coming out of the Texas Theatre with Oswald. With the later arrest time, he could not be the same officer seen at Parkland Hospital. With the actual arrest time, this officer has no alibi. Yes, he changed his helmet.

Max this is your area and you are the expert here on her. Please continue. Your thoughts on Shanklin, etc.

No mention of the film depicting the turn onto Elm from Houston. The Feds claimed Zapruder started, then stopped his film, only restarting his film after the limo was pointed down Elm. Zapruder was certain he had kept filming continuously.

Cory, nothing is suspicious about Ruth Paine. There is always an explanation for every issue you could bring up. Even though you have produced a document that states that she told the FBI the correct TSBD address on 11/1/1963, Ruth must really not have known, because there is no possible way she could have been anything less than honest at any point over the last 60 years, no, the last 91 years. Here is another version of this document that you found, although of course, it is absolutely devoid of evidentiary value because Ruth Paine has never lied. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57690#relPageId=225

Wow, I'm very impressed. I didn't think Johnson had it in him. Maybe the Democrats will save his Speakership from MTG and her sorry ilk.

😂

So far, its a decidedly mixed bag through the first three parts. I have finished part 2 of the review--parts 4-6-- and it will be going up tomorrow. I was very surprised that there were no recreations, which are easy to do for radio. And up to part 6, there is no discussion of JFK leaving Vietnam. My substack is still free so you can read it for nothing. https://substack.com/home/post/p-143648888?source=queue

But, because the time of arrest was faked to be at 1:50, according to the radio traffic, the FBI needed Kantor to give a new alibi time of 2:00.

And Oswald's arrest report says that he was arrested at 1:40 pm. And according to the FBI statement by Applin, considering that the main feature started at 1:20, the arrest began at about 1:30. This was the actual time of arrest, and Kantor's first time, 1:30, gives Ruby an alibi for not being at the Texas Theatre.

Now Dennis, do you have audio from the Fritz interrogations of Oswald? 😄

Great stuff, Dennis. Thanks.

As I said earlier, Seth Kantor changed the time at which he allegedly saw Jack Ruby at Parkland Hospital from 1:30 to 2:00 pm, as the attached file demonstrates.