Sandy Larsen

First, let me point out that the Soviet Embassy couldn't have received the Kostin letter on the Nov. 9th because that is the date that Oswald (supposedly) wrote the letter. Surely it would have take a few days for it to be delivered. And who knows if the letter was even mailed the day it was written. That said, it occurred to me that perhaps the letter truly wasn't received by the embassy till Nov. 18. And perhaps the Soviets wanted to make that late delivery date clear in a CYA maneuver... having received the letter only four days before the assassination hardly gave the Soviets enough time to analyze the letter and notify American officials of potential foul play on the part of Oswald. I just saw in my notes the date that HTLINGUAL reported the intercepted Kostin letter, and that date is Nov 18, 1963. Which tends to support Nov. 18 being the date the embassy received the letter. Perhaps they had noticed signs of steam opening of letters from Americans.

My justification is simple: My working theory says that a CIA plotter wrote the Kostin Letter, in Oswald's name, and planted the letter. (i.e. it was sent to the Soviet Embassy in Washington and Ruth Paine had a copy.) Since the letter commented on Azcue being replaced, the writer of the letter -- a CIA employee -- had to have known about the Azcue replacement. End of Justification. No JFKA researcher knows how the writer of the Kostin letter knew about the Azcue replacement, right? So ANY explanation they give will be speculative. Which is fine if it is reasoned speculation. Speculation is a necessary part of hypothesizing. Though naturally, it is best to have a large number of factual data points in order to minimize the need for speculation

Right. On November 23, Mexico City CIA station chief Winston Scott asked the president of Mexico to arrest Silvia Duran because he suspected that the CIA plotters' plan that implicated Cuba and Russia might be true. Meanwhile, Elena Garro was reportedly taken into protective custody the very same day as a result of her protesting outside the Cuban Consulate against Duran. And she gave the fake story of Oswald being friendly with Duran and others. Silvia Duran had called the Soviet Embassy about Oswald, and she could have been told how Oswald had behaved there. So the Mexican Police may have been aware of the Soviet Embassy's goings on from Duran, and this could have been leaked to the Excelsior Newspaper as well. (My prior thinking has been that maybe nobody at all visited the Soviet Embassy. But in my mind it's becoming likely that an Oswald imposter visited there like one did the Cuban Consulate. Maybe the very same imposter visited both places.)

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 contradict my beliefs as I've stated them here. 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 in the Americans' eyes. 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.

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.

Contrary to popular belief, statistics don't lie. But they can fool you. Even highly intelligent mathmeticians need to consult a statistician on occasion.

Mocking an Administrator is not wise. Even if it is minor and carries just a few warning points.

"pontificators who refuse to study the source material" = "people who disagree with me and won't tolerate my smart-ass remarks"

FWIW, I agree with Jim that it is obvious Oswald worked for U.S. intelligence. Most likely the CIA.

Matt, I intend on replying to this post of yours. At the moment I am not feeling up to it. (Health issues.)

From Forum Tips & Tricks:

Perhaps then you just re-summarize here for us what it is "you've said above?" A copy and paste will do. Oh, I meant just this: I've never thought that commies were running the Oswald Project, or even just the young boy being cared for by those militant commies. I DO believe that he would become HARVEY Oswald after breaking up with his caretakers. We have very little knowledge to go by. But my guess is that the boy was a Russian speaking orphan who was somehow hooked with up the commies. I suppose they had high hopes for the boy also becoming a militant commie when he grew up. Sorry about my ambiguity in referring to it.

BTW, I don't recall if I mentioned this... I will have to get permission from the other admin members to make the changes I'm talking about.

Thanks for your feedback.

I'd be greatly surprised if you found my saying something much more than what I said above.