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

46 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,

Yes, correct.  And that memo was dated November 10, 1963 -- a full month after the alleged LHO-Kostikov meeting.  That LHO memo held several fabrications:

(1) That the FBI was no longer interested in LHO

(2) That the FBI encouraged Marina Oswald to defect;

(3) That Lee and Marina "protested vigorously" to the FBI;

(4)  That the USSR Embassy in Mexico City should have been notified by the USSR Embassy in Washington DC that LHO was coming to Mexico City.

This memo was not a Communist reporting to his superiors -- since LHO was never a member of the Communist Party (as J. Edgar Hoover and Alan Belmont both testified under oath).  Instead, this purpose of this memo was to pretend to be a Communist reporting to his superiors.  Just like the Fake FPCC in New Orleans, when LHO himself called the FBI on himself.  LHO was creating a paper trail for the FBI to follow -- at the request of Guy Banister at 544 Camp Street.  I think Jim Garrison proved that well.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo 

 

Share this post


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

Even granting your guesswork here, it doesn't amount to convincing evidence.

What "guesswork"? The CIA Cable to CIA MX about the HSCA investigators? The retyping of the transcript to add "flavor"?

 

Share this post


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

What "guesswork"? The CIA Cable to CIA MX about the HSCA investigators? The retyping of the transcript to add "flavor"?

Chris, 

The Tarsoffs said they didn't add any "commentary" to the English transcript -- and you said they did.  On what evidence?   If none, then that's guesswork.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Paul Trejo said:

The Tarsoffs said they didn't add any "commentary" to the English transcript -- and you said they did.

No. I posted a portion of the Tarasoff's testimony to the HSCA where they clearly stated they did not add any commentary to the transcript. But, there clearly was commentary added. If there was no magic pixie dust involved then the transcript was retyped and the commentary added in by other parties in MX. Win Scott or DAP, if I must make a guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

21 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

No. I posted a portion of the Tarasoff's testimony to the HSCA where they clearly stated they did not add any commentary to the transcript. But, there clearly was commentary added. If there was no magic pixie dust involved then the transcript was retyped and the commentary added in by other parties in MX. Win Scott or DAP, if I must make a guess.

I saw no reason to modify the transcript in the first place -- so why bother to claim changes when the alleged changes are useless?  

Anyway, the citation ultimately came from the Lopez Report, which said: "either the above detailed calls were not made by Oswald, or Oswald could speak Spanish."
 
Besides which, Tommy Graves had quoted from John Newman's "Oswald and the CIA", but that was printed in 1995, before the Lopez Report was finally made public in 2003.

Today the Lopez Report should be our main source about the Lopez Report -- and not John Newman.  Newman was fine until the Lopez Report came out, but now, we have the original source.

Bill Simpich gives us even further CIA documents beyond the Lopez Report about this Oswald telephone impersonation in Mexico City -- because Simpich unveils the Mole Hunt. 

LHO could not speak Spanish.  Oswald did not call the Russian Embassy to speak to a Russian clerk and speak Spanish to him.  The Mole did.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Paul Trejo said:

I saw no reason to modify the transcript in the first place -- so why add legs to a snake?

 You are reading and not comprehending and it's really quite frustrating to have you twist my words every time you post.

The transcripts provided by the CIA of the tapped calls have commentary. Have you read them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the

13 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

 You are reading and not comprehending and it's really quite frustrating to have you twist my words every time you post.

The transcripts provided by the CIA of the tapped calls have commentary. Have you read them?

Chris,

What is the issue that you have with the alleged translators' commentary?   It seems useless. 

It's irrelevant, IMHO, if we are speaking of the Telephone Impersonation of Lee Harvey Oswald.  

The Content is important -- if you think alleged commentary is relevant.-- please explain why.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What is the issue that you have with the alleged translators' commentary?   It seems useless. 

1. They were the translators of the tapes pulled for the CIA Mexico Station. They did not make commentary and the caller spoke English not broken Russian or Spanish. Mrs. Tarasoff typed up a transcript directly from the tape. Her husband, the Russian translator, was not involved because the conversation was in English. The CIA MEX Station sent a courier to pick it up.

Why would you insert "alleged"?

2. If the cables sent to CIA HQ were not descriptive of the caller or the calls then those facts are simply not relevant? That's crazy talk.

Edited by Chris Newton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2016 at 11:01 PM, Joe Bauer said:

If Oswald did travel all the way down to Mexico City and met with Kostikov himself, doesn't it say more than what we are debating?

I mean, here is a minimum wage, job skipping fellow who can't afford a car or take financial care of his wife and baby who are living with others and being helped by others and can barely make enough himself to stay in cheap rooms, yet he manages to travel to MC and garner a one-on-one meeting with one of the highest ranking members of the Russian spy network in the Western Hemisphere?

This incongruous inter-action with very high intrigue level people who should normally be keeping extremely poor and socially dysfunctional folk like Oswald well outside their gates just doesn't make sense!  If Oswald truly had this Kostikov's one-on-one ear and attention, then this elevates Oswald to much more than a simple, barely employed minimum wage earning ..."Lone Nut."

The equivalent would be Winston Scott taking an appointment with Boris Bushkin, an unemployed former radio assembly worker from Kiev who just arrived on a Greyhound bus with one change of ordinary clothes in a rag tag suitcase and just enough pocket change to eat at road side taco stands.

So much of what Oswald reportedly did in the last year of his life didn't make sense, unless he was much more than a frustrated, financially dysfunctional loner. 

 

Kostikov's cover in Mexico was working at the embassy in a position where he came in contact with tourists and wanna-be tourists. The CIA wrote a memo discussing whether the KGB would let him meet with agents while working in his cover position, and concluded that they would.

Share this post


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

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.

I had a recent thought about this that may have some merit. Ruth Paine claimed Oswald left the draft sitting around and that she pocketed it to show the FBI the next time they came around. But FAILED to tell the DPD about this on the 22nd! Or 23rd! No, she waited till Hosty came out on the 23rd, and then gave him the draft. Now, the FBI knew about the letter since the 18th. They'd intercepted it through the post office. But they had no way of entering it into the record without compromising their letter-opening operation. But then Ruth Paine comes to their rescue and gives them a draft of the letter that Oswald just so happened to leave out in plain sight, for days. How convenient!

Well, the thought occurs that Ruth and Hosty had a relationship, and that she was his snitch. And that she held off telling the DPD about the letter out of courtesy, seeing as Oswald spent much of the letter complaining about Hosty. But another possibility is that Oswald destroyed the draft to his letter, and that the FBI re-created one at HQ, so that they could enter it into the record without revealing their letter opening operation. And that Ruth Paine did them a favor by pretending to find the letter..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2016 at 1:01 AM, Joe Bauer said:

If Oswald did travel all the way down to Mexico City and met with Kostikov himself, doesn't it say more than what we are debating?

I mean, here is a minimum wage, job skipping fellow who can't afford a car or take financial care of his wife and baby who are living with others and being helped by others and can barely make enough himself to stay in cheap rooms, yet he manages to travel to MC and garner a one-on-one meeting with one of the highest ranking members of the Russian spy network in the Western Hemisphere?

This incongruous inter-action with very high intrigue level people who should normally be keeping extremely poor and socially dysfunctional folk like Oswald well outside their gates just doesn't make sense!  If Oswald truly had this Kostikov's one-on-one ear and attention, then this elevates Oswald to much more than a simple, barely employed minimum wage earning ..."Lone Nut."

The equivalent would be Winston Scott taking an appointment with Boris Bushkin, an unemployed former radio assembly worker from Kiev who just arrived on a Greyhound bus with one change of ordinary clothes in a rag tag suitcase and just enough pocket change to eat at road side taco stands.

So much of what Oswald reportedly did in the last year of his life didn't make sense, unless he was much more than a frustrated, financially dysfunctional loner. 

Joe,

This accords with my thinking -- with one difference.

Our evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was dysfunctional based on his economic behavior is solid -- and amounts to a historical fact.  To continue to insist that this guy who could not afford to take care of his own wife and children was somehow trusted by the CIA or the KGB for important projects is ludicrous -- and has been ludicrous for the full 50 years that it has been proposed by the CIA-did-it CTers.

However -- the alternative is not the "Lone Nut."  Nothing about Oswald's behavior in Fort Worth, Dallas or New Orleans suggests a "Lone Nut." Oswald always had people around him in a political context.  The "Lone Nut" portrait rests mainly on the WC testimony of Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine -- to whom Oswald told many, many lies.  

Marina Oswald said Lee Oswald did everything alone -- because she herself was always at home, with no car, no money, no TV, no telephone, no English, and taking care of a sick baby.  Oswald never brought anybody home -- that was Marina's evidence.  Marina never saw Oswald interact sociably with anybody except George De Mohrenschildt and Michael Paine.  Yet that is far from proof that Oswald didn't know people outside of Marina's of vision.  Lee Oswald would be unemployed for weeks without telling her, but would leave in the morning and return at night as usual.

Same with Ruth Paine.  She never saw Oswald's associates.  Yet the WC asked Ruth Paine more than 5,000 questions, and they asked Marina Oswald more than 2,900 questions (while they asked the average WC witness 250 questions).   Yet Ruth Paine never knew about our evidence that links George De Mohrenschildt and his friend Volkmar Schmidt to the Walker shooting.  (George denied Volkmar's role, but Volkmar admitted his role in a Frontline video now available on Youtube).

As for the New Orleans period, Oswald worked hand in glove with Guy Banister and his Team at 544 Camp Street, including Ed Butler.  Jim Garrison proved that beyond question.  So, Oswald was never a "Lone Nut".  He always had associates -- but that doesn't mean that Oswald was ever obedient or truly a team player; only that Oswald wasn't a "Loner".

So, it's not that Oswald was a "Loner," but it is true that Oswald was dysfunctional.  One strong proof that Oswald wasn't a CIA agent was his abysmal poverty, and his maltreatment of his wife and children.  Ruth Paine possibly saved the life of Rachel Oswald, by getting Marina Oswald to Parkland Hospital just in time. 

Oswald was dysfunctional -- we get this from many of his associates in Fort Worth and New Orleans -- he treated Marina badly.  He spouted Marxist dogma as his mental protection to explain his poverty (and why he couldn't drive a car).  His value to the Radical Right was that he might possibly infiltrate the Communists based on his self-taught Marxist rhetoric, and his self-taught Russian conversational skills.  Oswald had talent.  He wasn't stupid.  He wasn't crazy.  He was dysfunctional.

So -- it comes down to this -- there is no way that Oswald went to Mexico City for an appointment with the KGB.  

According to the Lopez Report, Lee Oswald went to Mexico City to pretend to be an FPCC officer, by using all the newspaper clippings made in New Orleans about his fight in the streets, his radio spot and his TV appearance as an FPCC officer.  Oswald did this in order to fake his way into Cuba.  That was his mission for Guy Banister.   David Atlee Phillips also admitted this.

There is no honest way that Oswald could have been admitted into Cuba on that basis.  Perhaps Oswald believed that Mexican clerks were all stupid and it would be easy, or perhaps Oswald believed that if he threw an emotional tantrum at the USSR Embassy (like he did in 1959) that he would get his way.  He even took a pistol to the USSR Embassy, and wept for them.  

It didn't work.  They saw right away that Oswald was a FAKE.  Having failed his Cuba mission in Mexico City, Oswald had no further value to the Radical Right -- except as a Patsy.   Lee Harvey Oswald was to be executed for attempting to assassinate General Walker back on April 10, 1963

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oswald in MC was a cover story to explain why he went there at all. The operation he was most likely involved in was smearing the FPCC, not the assassination of Castro. Couldn't very well go to the embassies and say 'hey, I'm here to make sure everyone knows that FPCC is a communist front'. So he made a lot of noise about going to Cuba, knowing he would not be going anytime.  Since we know that Phillips met with LHO and that he was involved in this anti FPCC operation, and that he knew, according to Veciana, that it would be nothing more than a pipe dream for LHO to get into Cuba that way, he could not have sent him as part of an assassination plot against Castro. But of course it could be as part of a different assassination, the one that actually took place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

...Ruth Paine claimed Oswald left the draft sitting around and that she pocketed it to show the FBI the next time they came around. But FAILED to tell the DPD about this on the 22nd! Or 23rd! No, she waited till Hosty came out on the 23rd, and then gave him the draft. Now, the FBI knew about the letter since the 18th. They'd intercepted it through the post office. But they had no way of entering it into the record without compromising their letter-opening operation. But then Ruth Paine comes to their rescue and gives them a draft of the letter that Oswald just so happened to leave out in plain sight, for days. How convenient!

Well, the thought occurs that Ruth and Hosty had a relationship, and that she was his snitch. And that she held off telling the DPD about the letter out of courtesy, seeing as Oswald spent much of the letter complaining about Hosty. But another possibility is that Oswald destroyed the draft to his letter, and that the FBI re-created one at HQ, so that they could enter it into the record without revealing their letter opening operation. And that Ruth Paine did them a favor by pretending to find the letter..

Pat,

You're mostly right about Ruth Paine;   I was privileged to speak with Ruth Paine at length at the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2016 in the context of a paper for US History at UT Austin.   I think I can clarify this.

Ruth Paine has always been profoundly conservative.  In her mind, the FBI outranks the local police.  James Hosty had visited Ruth Paine's house twice in early November, 1963, and when Ruth found this handwritten letter next to her typewriter on November 10, 1963, slamming the FBI, it enraged her.  She made a hand-copy of that letter for the specific purpose of handing it over to FBI agent James Hosty -- no other reason.  That's why she didn't give it to the local police when they came to her house on 11/22/1963.  

Ruth had held onto this "Mexico City Letter" because she was certain that James Hosty was going to return to her house to visit her and Marina again.  He said he was going to come, and she fully expected it.  He never came, however, until after the JFK assassination.   Then Ruth Paine handed it to him.

Ruth Paine's story about the "Mexico City Letter" is reasonable.  It is also confirmed by Michael Paine, because Ruth was so upset by the letter when she read it, that she showed Michael Paine that day.  Michael didn't like the idea of snooping into other people's private mail, but he briefly looked at it because Ruth was so upset.  Michael thought it read, "Dear Lisa," instead of "Dear Sirs," and he became annoyed with Ruth for prying in to Lee Oswald's personal life.

You are largely correct, Pat, going by my reading and discussions with Ruth Paine,, that Ruth had a "relationship" with James Hosty and was his "snitch" to put it crudely.  

I also agree with you 100% that Ruth withheld Oswald's "Mexico City Letter" from the Dallas police out of courtesy to James Hosty, who had visited her twice at her home.

Ruth Paine placed the "Mexico City Letter" back on her table, in exactly the same place and position she had found it.   Lee Oswald later came back and got it, evidently.  No further words were spoken about it.  However, Lee did mail the letter to the USSR Embassy in Washington DC, and (probably as planned) the FBI intercepted it and made a copy of the typewritten letter at that time.  This went into Lee Oswald's FBI file that James Hosty was busy maintaining.

Ruth Paine knew nothing about that part.

Ruth Paine did not pretend anything, in my reading.  Ruth Paine handed the letter over to James Hosty as she originally planned to do -- because she truly respected the FBI as an institution.  Ruth Paine was livid that Oswald's "Mexico City Letter" claimed several falsehoods.  Ruth didn't like lies, and this was the first time in her life that Lee Harvey Oswald had lied to her directly (as she saw it, because it was her house, her typewriter and her table, and Oswald left the letter there for two days).  

Oswald had written there that the FBI was no longer interested in him, while Ruth knew that James Hosty had visited twice in the past week alone asking about Oswald.  Ruth was convinced the "Mexico City Letter" was just a pack of lies.  She wanted Hosty to see it ASAP -- but she trusted Hosty to visit her the next weekend.  It didn't happen.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Well, the thought occurs that Ruth and Hosty had a relationship, and that she was his snitch

 

Hey Pat, that might explain the File Boxes (containing index cards on subversives) hauled away in the trunk of Buddy Walther's car.

<Trejo bomb in 3... 2....1.... >

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

×