James Hosty and KGB Agent Kostikov

[Pamela Brown]

On 1/20/2017 at 3:01 PM, Paul Trejo said:

Pamela,

I truly appreciate your input into this thread.  You take a historian's objective approach. 

I have thoroughly examined the testimony of Ruth Paine, and I can find no fault in it whatsoever.  If you can find something , please let me know.

I have also examined the testimony of Michael Paine, and the only fault I find is that he swore to tell the "whole truth," and yet he omitted to tell the WC what he later told Dan Rather (1998) namely, that when he first met Lee Harvey Oswald on April 2, 1963 there at the Neely Street apartment, Michael actually saw one of the Backyard Photographs.

That was a major omission, IMHO, and I think Michael was terrified of admitting that, because so many people in 1964 were looking for scapegoats and for accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald.  The Paines seemed like likely suspects to many.

Well -- very many -- we can include Dallas Deputy Buddy Walthers among others in suspecting if the Paines were part of a Communist plot with LHO to kill JFK.  There were others.

Is that what you also suspect, Pamela -- that the Paines are hiding a Communist plot to kill JFK?   Or do you sympathize with the CTers who suspect that the Paines were in the CIA, and were part of a CIA plot to kill JFK, mainly because the Paines came from wealthy families on the East Coast?

Why do you think they're hiding something?  Did they know something about Kostikov, too?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

To believe anyone blindly and find 'no fault' with what they say is what someone in a cult would do.  I start with the opposite position, which is not to find anything about Ruth Paine credible simply because everywhere LHO got into trouble Ruth was conveniently available to make him the scapegoat.  

I have my own hypothesis about how the Paines may have been used to set LHO up.  

Paul said:

Pamela,

If you have anything solid or even interesting about Ruth Paine, please share it here.  Even James Hosty didn't find anything suspicious about her.  Why would you?  What part of Ruth Paine's WC testimony sounds questionable to you?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

It seems to me that our research orientation may be quite different.  You seem to choose to *believe* or *disbelieve* a witness.  I don't.  I am looking objectively at Ruth Paine and everything she has been involved in.  She 'conveniently' shows up to 'help' at a number of critical points in the life of LHO, don't you agree?  I see that as possibly suspicious.  I don't know why Hosty didn't. I didn't ask him about her.  

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 11:49 AM, Pamela Brown said:

It seems to me that our research orientation may be quite different.  You seem to choose to *believe* or *disbelieve* a witness.  I don't.  I am looking objectively at Ruth Paine and everything she has been involved in.  She 'conveniently' shows up to 'help' at a number of critical points in the life of LHO, don't you agree?  I see that as possibly suspicious.  I don't know why Hosty didn't. I didn't ask him about her.  

Pamela,

Thanks for your reply.

I remember that this line of thought (suspicious that Ruth Paine even appeared within LHO's life at all) was first raised in the 1990's, within Probe Magazine published by CTKA, edited by James Di Eugenio.  The main writer in this series was the attorney, Carol Hewett.  I have carefully reviewed her work, and have found it to be full of errors.   I'm happy to share examples here, if you like.

Ruth Paine's WC testimony is the longest of all testimonies in the Warren Commission volumes.  Even more than Marina Oswald's.  More than anybody.  The general line of questioning seemed to be whether she was involved in a Communist Conspiracy with LHO against the US Government. 

Well -- Ruth Paine was a Quaker -- she did come from a wealthy family from the East Coast, but that in itself is no crime.  She was educated.  Perhaps in Texas in 1963 to be an educated woman from a wealthy, East Coast family was the same as being a Communist -- but today we are beyond all that.

Ruth Paine testified that she appeared in Marina Oswald's life -- not LHO's.  Ruth had no interest in LHO -- her interest was in Marina Oswald, and Marina Oswald was complaining to Ruth Paine that LHO was threatening to send her back to the USSR without him. Plus, Marina was pregnant.

Ruth Paine, the Quaker charity lady, sprang into action.  She liked Marina Oswald very much, and she acted as much as she could to help Marina Oswald, and to avoid disrupting Marina's marriage to LHO.  Ruth didn't like LHO for most of the time she knew him, but she tolerated LHO with her sense of Quaker charity.

In April, 1963, LHO lost his job at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, and he decided to move to New Orleans by himself, leaving Marina Oswald and baby June in Dallas until he got a job and a place.  Then, LHO planned to send a letter to Marina (because they had no telephone) to take the bus to join him when he was ready.  Ruth Paine saw a chance here -- she offered to let Marina stay at her house with her own two babies, until LHO got a job, and then LHO could use her telephone to tell Marina, and then Ruth Paine herself would drive Marina and baby June, along with her own two babies, to New Orleans.

Ruth and Marina both considered the chance that LHO would just abandon Marina.  In that case, Ruth Paine would help Marina stay in the USA and become a successful single mother in the USA.  (Remember that Marina had a college degree in pharmacology.)

So, LHO jumped at the offer.   Ruth Paine took Marina and baby June home with her, and LHO took a bus to New Orleans.  Only a couple weeks later, LHO called Marina on the telephone with a new job and a new apartment.  True to her word, Ruth drove Marina and baby June to New Orleans.

Five months later, Ruth Paine visited Marina and family in New Orleans, to learn that LHO had lost his job again, and now Marina was eight months pregnant, and had no money and no health insurance, and had not even seen a doctor.  Ruth again offered to take Marina and June back to Texas with her to register her at Parkland Hospital for delivery of the baby.   LHO agreed.

So, that's what Ruth Paine did.

Everything else in the sad saga of LHO was a surprise to Ruth Paine.  She only wanted to help Marina Oswald.  And then all this.

I not only studied every word of the 5,000 questions fired at Ruth Paine from the Warren Commission, but I also watched the many videos online on YouTube in which Ruth Paine has given interviews over the past half-century.  Ruth has probably given more interviews than any other WC witness, so there is no excuse for anybody being uninformed about her story.

Ruth Paine is still willing to talk to intelligent, scholarly people about her story.   I was privileged in 2015 to speak with her.  She is very intelligent and very polite.  Also, it still hurts her when people suggest that she was part of a plot to assassinate JFK.   Well, it would hurt anybody.

As noted, even James Hosty himself found nothing in Ruth Paine except a polite, educated Quaker lady, even though Hosty was keen to prove a Communist Conspiracy (hidden by the CIA) in the JFK assassination.

I find absolutely nothing suspicious in the behavior or the words of Ruth Paine.  If you find something, Pamela, would you please share it on this thread?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 6, 2017 by Paul Trejo
grammar

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 11:49 AM, Pamela Brown said:

To believe anyone blindly and find 'no fault' with what they say is what someone in a cult would do.  I start with the opposite position, which is not to find anything about Ruth Paine credible simply because everywhere LHO got into trouble Ruth was conveniently available to make him the scapegoat.  

I have my own hypothesis about how the Paines may have been used to set LHO up.   

It seems to me that our research orientation may be quite different.  You seem to choose to *believe* or *disbelieve* a witness.  I don't.  I am looking objectively at Ruth Paine and everything she has been involved in.  She 'conveniently' shows up to 'help' at a number of critical points in the life of LHO, don't you agree?  I see that as possibly suspicious.  I don't know why Hosty didn't. I didn't ask him about her.  

Pamela,

It's not a matter of "blind belief" with me.  I look for contradictions in sworn testimony.  I found none in the testimony of Ruth Paine.

Yet - can we get back to James Hosty's 1996 book, Assignment Oswald, and to the Kostikov theme?  I would like to move on to the next pages in which Hosty cites his Kostikov beliefs.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 8:37 PM, Pamela Brown said:

Glad to know you are acknowledging that there  was such a cable. I think if you start with the premise that Hosty was 'doing his best' (or thought he was) and bungled, you might avoid the pitfalls of taking a more sinister stance on him.  Just my 2 cents...

Pamela,

This post was from two months ago, and you were referring to the fact that Chris Newton found that 10/18/1963 CIA cable that James Hosty claimed he saw on page 48 of his book, Assignment Oswald (1996).  Although I was mistaken to guess it never existed -- what is crucial now about this cable is that it calls LHO "Lee HENRY Oswald."

This name was cited by Bill Simpich (2014) as the name that the CIA placed into LHO's 201 File, in their effort to catch the Mole who impersonated LHO in Mexico City, over the telephone from the Cuban consulate to the USSR Embassy.

So, Hosty cites a CIA cable about LHO that uses data from LHO's 201 CIA File which was deliberately falsified by the CIA high command, to catch anybody who spread that falsified data around.  Hosty got this cable from somebody in the CIA (he doesn't say exactly who) in late October, 1963.   This was about one month before the JFK assassination.     

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 10, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 9:01 PM, Pamela Brown said:

I don't see why you are putting Ruth Paine on a pedestal.  She is a clever manipulator who is responsible for getting LHO into a lot of hot water.  

As for Marina, Hosty told me he thought she was a 'snake-in-the-grass' and said that if anyone was a spy in the Oswald family, it was her.  Everyone in the WC knew Marina was not telling the truth, or certainly not telling everything she knew.  Garrison wanted to treat her as a hostile witness, but thought better of it due to the sympathy surrounding her.  Both of these women were at the center of these events.  Neither of them has come clean, imo.

Pamela,

I put Ruth Paine on a pedestal because I carefully examined all of her WC testimony -- hundreds and hundreds of pages -- and I found not one single problem with any of it.  She is an articulate and honest person -- to the very best of my knowledge.

That cannot be said for all of the WC witnesses.

Further, Ruth Paine testified far more than any other WC witness.   The WC attorneys grilled her over the fire for a long time.

As for Marina Oswald, in his book, Assignment Oswald (1996), James Hosty suggested that Marina Oswald was a "sleeper" KGB agent.  This was part of his general theory that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was a Communist who killed JFK, in connection with KGB agent Valeriy Kostikov.  That is evidently the repeated theme of his book, from start to finish.

Yet Marina Oswald's role in 1963 was simply that she was a pregnant woman, with a baby already in arms, with a husband who could not hold down a steady, minimum-wage job.  Since they arrived in the USA in June, 1962, until the day he died on November 24 1963, LHO had four low-paying jobs (welder, photo trainee, grease man, and schoolbook order-filler).  In those 17 months, LHO was unemployed about 7 of those months.  LHO just wasn't serious about supporting his family.

LHO played the 'hunter of fascists' in Dallas, with George De Mohrenschildt with his Walker shooting antics.  Also, LHO played superspy in New Orleans along with Guy Banister.  That was basically proved by Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen.  This got in the way of LHO caring for his pregnant wife. 

Throughout all of this, LHO simply lied to Marina.  For example, LHO was laid off from Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall in early April, 1963, but he didn't tell Marina until mid-April, 1963.   He still left home in the morning, every day.  The same thing happened in New Orleans -- he was laid off on July 19, but didn't tell Marina for several weeks.  He still left home in the morning, every day.  LHO lied to Marina continually. 

So, Marina Oswald had no medical attention for her second baby, and no money, and no medical insurance in September 1963, when Ruth Paine came to visit them in New Orleans.  This was the actual, material situation.  This was why Ruth Paine got involved.   No other reason.

In conclusion -- it is clear that LHO told Marina and Ruth virtually nothing about his secret political life.  The irony is that the WC interviewed Ruth and Marina more than any other witnesses -- and in fact they knew next to nothing about what LHO was doing.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 21, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

On 12/10/2016 at 6:12 PM, Pamela Brown said:

But wait, Paul!  Isn't this memo was written a month after the LHO letter that you claim was not written 'early' enough to take into consideration?

Pamela,

Thanks to this thread, I've learned a lot about James Hosty and the context of this memo, which I will reproduce here, because your comment is already two months old:

---------------------------- BEGIN FBI MEMO ABOUT LHO AND KOSTIKOV 11/23/1963 ------------------------

Memorandum

To:  Mr. W.C. Sullivan
Date: 11/23/1963
From: Mr. D.J. Brennan, Jr.
Subject: LEE HARVEY OSWALD 
               IS - R

The following information was furnished to the Liaison Agent on 11/23/63, by Pete Bagley, CIA.

Bagley made reference to information previously disseminated to the Bureau by CIA indicating that on 10/18/63, Oswald had contacted Valeriy Vladimirivich Kostikov, Soviet Embassy, Mexico City, on 9/28/63.  

At that time, Oswald inquired if there had been any response from Washington, DC, concerning a request which he apparently had made.  He again contacted the Soviet Embassy on 10/1/63, concerning the same matter.  CIA developed this information through a technical surveillance of the Soviet Embassy.

Bagley stated that he wished to point out that Kostikov, known KGB agent, is the same individual who has been in touch with the Bureau double-agent in the case referred to as TUMBLEWEED.  (This case relates to a double agent, Guenter Schulz, who is being operated by us against the Soviets.  He has had contact with the Soviets in Mexico City.  Bagley pointed out that Kostikov has been tentatively identified with the Thirteenth Department of the KGB, which handles sabotage and assassinations.)

With regard to his contacts with the Soviets, we knew, through a sensitive informant, on 11/18/63, that Lee Harvey Oswald had been in contact with the Soviet Embassy, Washington, DC, at which time he related he had recently met with "Comrad Kostin," Soviet Embassy, Mexico City.  

Oswald indicated to the Soviet Embassy, Washington, DC, that he was unable to remain in Mexico because of the Mexican visa restriction of 15 days, and that he could not request a new visa unless he used his real name.  

The same informant indicated that Oswald originally had intended to visit the Soviet Embassy in Havana, Cuba, where he would have had time to "complete his business but could not reach Cuba."

--D.J. Brennan

cc: 
Mr. Belmont
Mr. Rosen
Mr. Brannigan
Mr. Turner
Mr. Rogge
Mr. Papich

---------------------------- END FBI MEMO ABOUT LHO AND KOSTIKOV 11/23/1963 ------------------------

Now that I finally admit that this memo is based on a fact -- the fact of a CIA cable that proposes to link LHO with Kostikov -- I can finally understand your question.   It has taken me this long to process your good question.

You ask me to notice that this memo was written a month after the LHO letter -- the USSR Embassy Letter -- after I had somewhere claimed that this letter wasn't written early enough to be considered for this CIA cable.  

This letter has been called, "Oswald's Last Letter."   Ruth Paine testified that LHO wrote this letter on 11/9/1963 at her home, and typed it on her typewriter.   The letter was postmarked, November 12th.

The FBI intercepted this letter before it was finally sent to the USSR Embassy -- and the FBI of course copied it before they sent it on.  

This memo that you cited says that that FBI knew by 11/18/1963, that LHO had been in contact with the USSR Embassy, and refers to "Comrade Kostin."   So, obviously, the FBI is referring to "Oswald's Last Letter."

Conclusion: LHO's letter was written early in November, and this FBI memo was written late in November -- which one could say was about a month later.  Therefore, Pamela, I now admit you were right about this.   "Oswald's Last Letter" was certainly written early enough for the FBI to take it into consideration.   

Point well taken.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 11, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎11‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 4:36 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

Are you really serious?  You are trying to say that somehow Hosty and his knowledge about Kostikov in 1996 shows that somehow he was privy to something that was so super secret he had to be part of the plot?

The presence of Kostikov in Mexico City was pretty obvious to many people back in the nineties.  John Newman talked about it in his book in 1995.

Eddie and Danny had to know about it while their report was being declassified in 1994.  But even prior  to that in 1993, Kostikov and Oswald in MC were discussed in 1993 at thee Harvard Conference.

But beyond that, the meeting was also discussed in the book put out by those three Russian diplomats.  There is a question about whether or not the meeting ever took place.  And people argue about whether or not Oswald was there.  The CIA put out a story that he really was there, but that was on the day of the assassination.  But they held back all the evidence that seems to indicate he was not.   But even today, some people think he was there, like Newman and Hancock.

So what are you trying to say, besides giving another free ad to Simpich and his book? Thank God you didn't try and double that up with your usual sales pitch for Caufield and Harry Dean.

James,

Yes, absolutely -- I'm saying that FBI agent James Hosty claimed to know for a fact that Oswald and KGB agent V.V. Kostikov met in Mexico City in late September 1963.

As the Lopez Report affirms -- if Oswald really did meet with Kostikov in Mexico City, then it is 100% certain that the Communists really did kill JFK.

Also, the Lopez Report demonstrates conclusively -- Lee Harvey Oswald really did visit Mexico City in late September 1963.  Oswald took with him a Fake resume to show that he was an Officer of the FPCC in New Orleans.  This included mainly newspaper clippings, referring to his arrest, to his radio spots, and to his TV appearance.

Yet as Bill Simpich showed in his landmark eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014), the claim that Oswald contacted V.V. Kostikov was supported only by a known Impersonation of Oswald over the most wire-tapped phone on the planet at the time -- the phone between the Cuban consulate and the USSR Embassy.  The CIA had that conversation on the local CIA Director's desk within 15 minutes.  The translators knew immediately that it was not really Lee Harvey Oswald.

So -- whoever said that Oswald contacted Kostikov was part of the plot to frame Oswald -- and therefore part of the plot to assassinate JFK -- by proxy.

In his 1996 book, Assignment Oswald, FBI agent James Hosty shows that he was ready to promote the fiction that Oswald contacted Kostikov in Mexico City -- and that he knew about this in 1964.  But the only people who knew this fiction were those who invented the fiction.  Thus, Hosty has convicted himself.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Well, it appears that this thread has run out of steam.

Therefore, I will draw my conclusions.

FBI agent James Hosty's book, Assignment Oswald (1996) emphasizes from start to finish his theory that Lee Harvey Oswald was working with KGB agent, Valeriy Kostikov.  Kostikov was suspected of being an expert in assassinations.

Hosty claims throughout his book that the CIA knew this, but refused to share this information with James Hosty himself, though Hosty was charged with monitoring Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas.

Hosty also notes that he had access to early CIA documents -- as early as October 1963 -- demonstrating the link between Oswald and Kostikov.

What Hosty failed to realize in 1996 when he published his book, was that the CIA knew very well that the Oswald-Kostikov connection in Mexico City was a FAKE, and it was invented by a Mole inside the CIA or FBI.  As Bill Simpich showed in his landmark eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014), the CIA started a Mole Hunt specifically to discover exactly who had impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald on this telephone in Mexico City -- the most wire-tapped telephone in the world at that time.

Therefore -- the Oswald-Kostikov link was a Fake -- and the Fakers knew it, and the CIA knew it -- and in fact it was a State Secret and nobody else was supposed to know about it.

Yet FBI agent James Hosty knew about it, and vouched for its correctness -- as late as 1996. 

This suggests to me -- and I hope to other readers -- that James Hosty should be a suspect in the plot to impersonate Oswald in Mexico City, and therefore to frame Oswald as a Communist, and therefore to make Oswald a patsy in the murder of JFK.

So, there it is.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

Well, if you want to put words in Hosty's mouth fine.

The point is, he says he did not know who Kostikov was.

The point made by many others before you is that Hosty knew that Oswald was an informant, this is why his surveillance of him was so lax, which it should not have been.

[Paul Trejo]

On 2/21/2017 at 2:25 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Well, if you want to put words in Hosty's mouth fine.

The point is, he says he did not know who Kostikov was.

The point made by many others before you is that Hosty knew that Oswald was an informant, this is why his surveillance of him was so lax, which it should not have been.

James,

Hosty still claimed that Oswald met Kostikov -- and that is the main point.

Actually, Oswald never met Kostikov, and Bill Simpich showed that very well.

Just by making the claim, Hosty showed his true colors.  The Lopez Report remarks that if Oswald really did meet Kostikov, then it's 100% certain that the KGB killed JFK.

The impersonation of Oswald calling Kostikov was a top CIA secret, says Simpich (2014).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 23, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 2:25 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Well, if you want to put words in Hosty's mouth fine.

The point is, he says he did not know who Kostikov was.

The point made by many others before you is that Hosty knew that Oswald was an informant, this is why his surveillance of him was so lax, which it should not have been.

James,

And another thing.  Bill Simpich (2014) made it very clear that the alleged meeting of LHO and Hosty was instantly hidden from everybody except the tippy-top of the CIA high-command.   This occurred only 15 minutes after the impersonation itself.

They started a Mole Hunt to catch the Mole who impersonated LHO over the telephone.  They modified LHO's 201 file in order to catch the Mole.  Not only did they remove all of LHO's photographs, and inserted photos of a large Russian dude, but also they changed LHO's middle name to Henry.

Thus -- only people who even HEARD about the alleged LHO-Kostikov meeting were therefore guaranteed to be part of the PLOT.   Also, anybody who pulled LHO's Top Secret File after that point, would get bogus data. 

The 10/18/1963 alleged CIA cable that James Hosty cited to prove that there was an LHO-Kostikov meeting, gave LHO's middle name as Henry!

Therefore -- the fact that James Hosty proved that he had even HEARD of the alleged LHO-Kostikov meeting also PROVED that he was part of the PLOT.

That's a viable CT.  

Respondez vous,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 13, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

On 3/11/2017 at 4:47 PM, Paul Trejo said:

 Thus -- only people who even HEARD about the alleged LHO-Kostikov meeting were therefore guaranteed to be part of the PLOT.    

That's a viable CT.   

Well, it's been two and a half years since I started this thread.  I am returning to it for a number of reasons.

First, I want to emphasize that I challenged writers here to produce the 10/18/1963 CIA memo that James Hosty claimed that he saw (cf. page 48 of his book, Assignment Oswald (1996).

Within a couple of weeks, Chris Newton produced that CIA memo.   Great work, I said, and still say.

In the interim (in other threads on this Forum) I have moved on to the book by Oleg Nechiporenko, Passport to Assassination: The Never-Before-Told Story of Lee Harvey Oswald by the KGB Colonel Who Knew Him (1993), which I find believable.

Now, Nechiporenko claims that he worked alongside Valery Kostikov in Mexico City.  He admits they were both in the KGB.  He also says that he and Kostikov reluctantly met with this "neurotic" guy named Lee Harvey Oswald," who behaved very erratically, returning to their offices again and again, crying tears and brandishing a loaded pistol (which they gently removed from his hand, and removed the bullets).

This changes my theory substantially -- but does not erase it.  I now propose:

1. James Hosty told the truth about about the 10/18/1963 CIA memo that INS agent Jeff Woolsey accidentally told him about -- but could not show him, which claimed that LHO met with Kostikov in Mexico City on 9/28/1963.   Hosty urgently asked the New Orleans FBI if they heard anything about it, and they sent Hosty the memo directly.  This was in late October, 1963, he said -- just days before he would visit Ruth Paine to ask about -- not LHO, he said, but Marina Oswald.  (Yet, as Ruth Paine testified, Hosty asked her several questions about LHO, and almost none about Marina Oswald  -- after all, she had just delivered a baby.)

2.  James Hosty told the truth -- that LHO really had met Kostikov, and Kostikov was KGB, as Nechiporenko admitted in 1993.

3.  Nevertheless -- I return to my original suspicion -- that the harsh judgment which tried to link LHO to the KGB was more than a paranoia -- it was a deliberate conspiracy.  

4.  It was a conspiracy, because somebody OTHER THAN LHO had telephoned the Soviet Embassy on October 1st, from the most wiretapped telephone on earth -- the Mexico City line between the Cuban Consulate and the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City.

5.  That person was not LHO, as the CIA immediately recognized (within 15 minutes, according to Bill Simpich).

6.  So, somebody was trying to frame LHO in Mexico City -- even though LHO (as a fool) really DID meet with Kostikov, and there really was a CIA memo about it, dated 10/18/1963 -- naming LHO "Lee HENRY Oswald," just as Bill Simpich (2014) said the CIA Mole Hunt had set up, in order to catch the Insider who had impersonated LHO.

CONCLUSION:  I don't need the 10/18/1963 memo to be fake, or the meeting with Kostikov to be fake, in order to agree with Bill Simpich that the LHO was impersonated over the telephone in Mexico City, and the CIA has ample record of the fact.

Now -- the real question is what this means about James Hosty's claim (which aligns with Edwin Lopez) that since LHO met with Kostikov in Mexico City, this makes it 100% certain that the Communists used LHO to assassinate JFK.

I will continue to argue my main point -- that the guilty parties in the JFK Assassination were those who  claimed that LHO was an actual Communist (when the FBI brass J. Edgar Hoover and Alan Belmont knew, and testified to the Warren Commission, that LHO was never a Communist).

Somebody was sending false information to the CIA and to the FBI that LHO was a dangerous Communist -- as early as 9/28/1963.

The culprits?   General Walker and Robert Alan Surrey, first and foremost.    Secondly, Dallas Police and Sheriff leaders.

Thirdly -- James Hosty and Forrest Sorrels, along with yet unnamed Rightist sympathizers inside the FBI and CIA.

The plot remains thick.

All best,
--Paul Trejo

 

[David Andrews]

Not a direct answer to Paul's post, nor a direct question to him:

If Oswald, or an "Oswald," actually met with Kostikov, and performed the antics of brandishing a pistol, etc., as Kostikov and his witnesses later said on film that he did -- were these histrionics an attempt to stop the American plot, or at least get Oswald/"Oswald" removed from it?

Was this the equivalent of Richard Case Nagell shooting a hole in a bank wall in El Paso?

Yet this Oswald-pistol legend brings up other issues:

Would Oswald/"Oswald" be incautious enough to smuggle a pistol into Mexico?

And, if he wanted out, why not let himself get caught with the pistol at the US border?

A possible conclusion was that Oswald/"Oswald" was ordered to play those histrionics with the pistol in front of Kostikov.  But why?

Edited August 7, 2019 by David Andrews

[Michael Clark]

On 12/2/2016 at 11:59 PM, Paul Trejo said:

Pamela,

You are revealing to me, IMHO, that you.....

You say that....

You have basically agreed with me, IMHO, although you don't quite see it yet.  

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

On 12/4/2016 at 3:59 PM, Pamela Brown said:

I said no such thing.  I said I ........

I disagree that Kostikov was 'top secret' .  And I have pointed out that ....

What you have presented is called a strawman argument.  That is a fallacy of logic.  

 

————————————————————————————————————————————

On 12/6/2016 at 8:15 PM, Paul Trejo said:

Pamela,...

...  Chris Newton has already shown that .......

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

On 12/7/2016 at 3:08 AM, Chris Newton said:

Wait. That's not what I said. I said that............

 

——————————————————————————————

 

On 12/6/2016 at 8:15 PM, Paul Trejo said:

 

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?  .

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Yes.

——————————————————————————

On 12/7/2016 at 7:03 AM, Paul Trejo said:

Pat,

First, I agree with you 100% on your point that ......

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

 

 

On 12/7/2016 at 11:52 AM, Pat Speer said:

Uh, no. That wasn't my point at all. ....

 

 

—————————————————————————-

[James DiEugenio]

👏

That took some work Mike.