Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Paul Trejo

James Hosty and KGB Agent Kostikov

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

First of all, it was the CIA that ID'ed "Kostin" as Kostikov, not Hosty. They did this on 11-23. And, second of all, who was "Kostin" if not Kostikov? Kostikov acknowledged meeting with Oswald. Are you claiming there was also a Kostin?

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. The person on the phone, whether an impersonator or Oswald himself, clearly wanted the CIA to know Oswald had met with Kostikov. There are a number of reasons why this could be. If it was Oswald, perhaps he wanted his contacts within the CIA to know he'd met with Kostikov, and figured that announcing it on a tapped phone was easier and less dangerous than trying to arrange a meeting in Mexico City,  OR, if it wasn't Oswald, perhaps this was information that was actually supplied by a mole within the embassy, and those running this mole wanted this information to make its way into the files, without revealing the identity or even existence of this mole. I'm leaning to the latter.

Pat,

I'm certainly saying that there was also a Kostin.  I'm not the only one who has proposed this.

Bill Simpich proved -- conclusively, IMHO -- that the person on the phone was not Oswald in any way, shape or form.  The English transcript on this tapped conversation was on the CIA Director's desk within 15 minutes.  Fifteen minutes.  They were worried on multiple accounts.   Oswald spoke fluent Russian -- the impersonator had a Spanish accent and very broken Russian.

In your first option, Pat, you seem to be guessing that Oswald wanted the CIA to believe that he had spoken to Kostikov.  That's a long shot, IMHO.  How would Oswald even know who Kostikov was?  One might guess that Oswald had CIA connections -- but that's an old CT that has broken down.   Or, one might guess that Oswald had KGB connections -- another old CT that has broken down.

IMHO, the evidence shows that Oswald was in Mexico City under the orders of Guy Banister and his Fake FPCC in New Orleans, in an attempt to infiltrate the Communists.  Oswald was promised a lot of money if he was successful, and he was desperate for money, since his wife was eight months pregnant and he had no insurance and no visible means of income. But Oswald failed.  

Oswald came back to Dallas to await further orders from his mercenary connections.   Gerry Patrick Hemming (as he himself told A.J. Weberman) was one of those mercenary connections, and Gerry Patrick Hemming offered Oswald double the price of his old rifle if he would bring it to the TSBD on Friday morning of 11/22/1963.  Oswald trusted his mercenary connections with his life; so Oswald was dumb enough to hand over his rifle to them.

Oswald wasn't in the CIA or the KGB.   As George De Mohrenschildt said, "I don't believe any Government would ever be so stupid to trust Oswald with anything important."

Your second option about the Mole and his handlers -- the option toward which you lean -- is also the option toward which I lean.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
date

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Oswald spoke fluent Russian -- the impersonator had a Spanish accent and very broken Russian.

Can you cite the document that makes the claim that the speaker on the phone had a Spanish accent?

The real twist here is that the couple who were the translators claimed that the speaker spoke English not "broken Russian". So the "broken Russian" claim must have been added by the MEXI CIA Staff and that seems to be a further attempt at "Myth Building".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

Can you cite the document that makes the claim that the speaker on the phone had a Spanish accent?

The real twist here is that the couple who were the translators claimed that the speaker spoke English not "broken Russian". So the "broken Russian" claim must have been added by the MEXI CIA Staff and that seems to be a further attempt at "Myth Building".

In the ballpark, but it's in regards to a phone call to the Soviet Embassy / Consulate on Friday, September 27, and may not have been Oswald or his impostor, but just some Spanish-speaking guy who wanted some visas to Odessa, U.S.S.R., instead.

https://books.google.com/books?id=17AtAgAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PR56&lpg=RA1-PR56&dq=oswald+terrible+russian+spanish&source=bl&ots=Y25L0gk_Q_&sig=UPXCfjAE0eiRksVDeYkUm4wPenk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAg_bdzOXQAhVIl1QKHaBCAt4Q6AEIHjAB#v=onepage&q=oswald terrible russian spanish&f=false

-- Tommy :sun

PS --  The torn-off part of the bottom of this handwritten note on a 6-page 1976 CIA memo is interesting in that the two words partially torn off look as though they could be "English" (on the left) and "Russian" (on the right).

If this guess is correct, it would suggest that the main language spoken by the caller in the Saturday, September 28, "address" call to the Soviet Embassy / Consulate was probably Spanish.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=50273#relPageId=5&tab=page

For your reading enjoyment, here's the 6-page memo, in full.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=50273#relPageId=1&tab=page

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

...the impersonator had a Spanish accent and very broken Russian.

 

 

tarasoff_broken.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

Can you cite the document that makes the claim that the speaker on the phone had a Spanish accent?

The real twist here is that the couple who were the translators claimed that the speaker spoke English not "broken Russian". So the "broken Russian" claim must have been added by the MEXI CIA Staff and that seems to be a further attempt at "Myth Building".

Chris,

My data on this, as I say, comes 100% from the brilliant and free eBook by Bill Simpich, namely, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chris Newton said:

 

 

tarasoff_broken.jpg

Chris,

There was at the very, very least, one word that was spoken in Russian -- namely, the name "Kostikov,"  That is a Russian name.  It has no Spanish or English equivalent.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

There was at the very, very least, one word that was spoken in Russian -- namely, the name "Kostikov,"  That is a Russian name.  It has no Spanish or English equivalent.

No Paul, that's not the way it went down.

A "reliable source" said that the person that was at the Russian Embassy may have met with Kostikov. The name Kostikov was not mentioned in any of the phone taps to either embassy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

No Paul, that's not the way it went down.

A "reliable source" said that the person that was at the Russian Embassy may have met with Kostikov. The name Kostikov was not mentioned in any of the phone taps to either embassy.

Chris,

OK, I'll accept that for now.  I haven't analyzed Bill Simpich's work since 2014, when it first came out.

Something sounds wrong, however, since Lee Harvey Oswald spoke fluent Russian, and the call was to a Russian Embassy, where the clerk spoke Russian.

Why would a person who spoke fluent Russian call a Russian speaking clerk and speak only English to that clerk?   It doesn't add up.

Also, the questions to the CIA translators were fuzzy -- the question was whether any "commentary" was made to the translation, and they said in essence, "of course not."  These are professional translators -- but the interviewer was an ordinary attorney, who didn't use their vocabulary.   Something sounds unclear -- it's still fuzzy.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The HSCA went down to Mexico and interviewed the Tarasoff's without notifying the CIA that they were going to do so. The CIA flipped out about the visit and CIA HQ told CIA MEX not to give the HSCA anything if they "showed up" because they didn't have the clearance.

I don't read anything into the way the interviewer asked the questions.

It basically reveals that the transcripts were retyped after the translation was done and inaccurate "editorializing" added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chris Newton said:

The HSCA went down to Mexico and interviewed the Tarasoff's without notifying the CIA that they were going to do so. The CIA flipped out about the visit and CIA HQ told CIA MEX not to give the HSCA anything if they "showed up" because they didn't have the clearance.

I don't read anything into the way the interviewer asked the questions.

It basically reveals that the transcripts were retyped after the translation was done and inaccurate "editorializing" added.

Chris,

Even granting your guesswork here, it doesn't amount to convincing evidence.  LHO did not make that telephone call.  Bill Simpich proved that, IMHO, beyond any doubt.

The CIA didn't know who the impersonator was -- but they did know that the impersonator was a Mole.   It wasn't LHO.  It wasn't LHO.   

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2016 at 7:15 PM, Paul Trejo said:

Pamela,

My claim that LHO did not meet Kostikov is based 100% on Bill Simpich's theory (2014).   Are you asking me to begin quoting Bill Simpich here?  I thought we were going to cover James Hosty first.

Also -- if you accept that CIA really knew about an LHO-Kostikov connection (via Woolsey or anybody) then please share that CIA document.  Chris Newton has already shown that the only CIA document in October about LHO in MC had no reference to Kostikov.  That is strong evidence, IMHO.

IMHO, we should go on to the next citation from James Hosty that I find flimsy -- namely, pages 139-140 about Kostikov.  These pages are crucial because James Hosty actually names Alan Belmont -- Assistant Director of the FBI -- as one of the people who "knew" about the LHO-Kostikov connection, and deliberately withheld it from James Hosty.  

Let me actually quote Hosty's paragraphs here:

 ------ BEGIN HOSTY: ASSIGNMENT OSWALD -- pp. 139-140 ----------

As soon as I received my orders to appear before the Warren Commission, I began to prepare my testimony.  I retrieved the Oswald file...To my consternation, two key items were missing.  Someone had removed the two secret communications from FBI headquarters. One was the October 18, 1963 communique that indicated the CIA...had observed Oswald making contact with vice consul V. Kostikov at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City.  The second one...Oswald had written to the Soviet Embassy...reporting that he had made contact with Kostikov.

Belmont, however, looked startled when I was explaining to Samuel Stern that I had read these two communiques.  He leaned over and muttered in my ear, "Damn it, I thought I told them not to let you see that one from the Washington field office!"  I was stunned.  Here was the head of all FBI investigations admitting that the FBI was deliberately trying to conceal matters from me.

 ------ END HOSTY: ASSIGNMENT OSWALD -- pp. 139-140 ----------

James Hosty now blames Alan Belmont himself.  This is where his argument seriously weakens.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

If you are going to use Simpich to support your argument, yes, you need to provide a reference.  As it is, you are demonstrating to me that Hosty's statement debunks Simpich's theory.  

Second, the only substantiation I used to start the discussion was that Hosty made the claim that he heard of LHO meeting Kostikov from an INS agent.  You have yet to provide a site for using Chris Newton as a source.  

Third, it is hard to prove a negative in a situation like this.  If there is no known memo, that does not necessarily mean there was no communication.  That would be a fallacy of false alternatives.  

Fourth, I thought we were going to stay on page 48.  Why are you referencing other pages? You have said nothing to persuade me that your position has value.

 

Edited by Pamela Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

No Paul, that's not the way it went down.

A "reliable source" said that the person that was at the Russian Embassy may have met with Kostikov. The name Kostikov was not mentioned in any of the phone taps to either embassy.

However, the name Kostin was mentioned in the draft of the letter Ruth Paine said she saw on her piano after LHO returned from MC.

Edited by Pamela Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

Chris Newton has already shown that the only CIA document in October about LHO in MC had no reference to Kostikov.  That is strong evidence, IMHO.

I appreciate the thought but you are misquoting me again. There were several cables back and forth between MX and HQ in October. The 10/10/1963 cable from HQ to MX that was disseminated to FBI and INS did not mention Kostikov. The issue I thought you were exploring was what did Hosty say he knew VS. what could he have known?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

Paul,

If you are going to use Simpich to support your argument, yes, you need to provide a reference.  As it is, you are demonstrating to me that Hosty's statement debunks Simpich's theory.  

Second, the only substantiation I used to start the discussion was that Hosty made the claim that he heard of LHO meeting Kostikov from an INS agent.  You have yet to provide a site for using Chris Newton as a source.  

Third, it is hard to prove a negative in a situation like this.  If there is no known memo, that does not necessarily mean there was no communication.  That would be a fallacy of false alternatives.  

Fourth, I thought we were going to stay on page 48.  Why are you referencing other pages? You have said nothing to persuade me that your position has value.

Pamela,

(1) I have demonstrated that Simpich and Hosty contradict each other -- and only one can be correct.   I see no reason at all to side with Hosty at this point. 

(2) Chris Newton, on this thread, provided the CIA document of 10/10/1963 in question, in which the CIA says that Oswald contacted the USSR Embassy -- Kostikov was not named.  It's the CIA document that is important -- not Chris' citation.

(3)  It is not only that the memos cited by James Hosty have "disappeared," it's that there is material evidence in CIA documents (shown by Bill Simpich in 2014) that LHO never contacted Kostikov, and that anybody who claimed otherwise was therefore working with the Mole.

(4) The only reason I moved to pages 139-140 in James Hosty's book was that I had mistakenly thought that you were finished with page 48.  I'm pleased to stay with page 48, of course.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

However, the name Kostin was mentioned in the draft of the letter Ruth Paine said she saw on her piano after LHO returned from MC.

Pamela, Thank you. Yes, you are correct. The provenance of that document has been disputed - I don't have an opinion on it at the moment. Except, that I'm really suspicious of all things concerning "Church Lady" Paine.

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

×