Jump to content
The Education Forum

Was A Mexico City KGB Operations Officer Eusebio Azcue's "Blond, Very Thin-Faced" Oswald"?


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:
12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Leonid Ivanov

LeonidIvanov

Leonov

Nikolai Leonov

 

Sandy,

With all due respect, are you going into numerology and code breaking now?

The dude's historical name is Nikolai Leonov.

Last time I checked, he was a member of that highly democratic institution known as the Russian parliament or Duma.



You don't think he was KGB in 1963?

 

Tommy,

I was just wondering where the name Leonid Ivanov came from. Presumably that is a cover name.

It appears to me that he was KGB in 1963. But others would know better than I.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 5/3/2017 at 5:40 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Tommy,

  .....

My gut tells me that Oswald was never in Mexico City. Which would mean that Nikolai Leonov's Oswald/pistol/table story is a fabrication. Interestingly, it is very similar to a story told by Oleg Nechiporenko in his book "Passport to Assassination"  David Lifton -- who believes that version of the story -- was touting the book on another thread and in this post specifically. Lifton paraphrased the story as follows:

"LHO was seated in a room with three (3) officials: Nechiporenko, Kostikov, and Yatsov.   LHO then staged this dramatic scene, in which he was crying, said he was being followed, and then--suddenly--took out a pistol and laid it on the table. One of the three Soviets grabbed at the gun, opened it, and immediately "disarmed" Oswald by taking out the bullets."

I wonder if the Oswald/pistol/table story is a KGB or Russians fabrication used to show others that Oswald was a crackpot who they never would have trusted working for them.  (emphasis added by T.G.)

Your hypothesis that Leonov was the blond Oswald seems quite possible to me. If Leonov did impersonate Oswald, maybe he (Leonov) later adopted the Oswald/pistol/table story in an attempt to hide that fact. I mean... he can't be both himself and Oswald simultaneously!

 

 

Sandy,

 

I couldn't agree more.

Personally, I think it's almost as though the Russians knew in advance that Oswald was either going to try to kill JFK (either for himself, for themselves, for Castro, or for the evil, evil CIA), or was going to be patsied for same, and they were trying to proactively dispel the notion that KGB had recruited Oswald during the 2.5 years he lived in the USSR.

What really "seals the deal" for me in this regard is that Nikolai Leonov, himself, is on record (in the National Inquirer newspaper and in a book written in the Russian language) as claiming that he had met one-on-one at the Soviet Embassy with an unstable, revolver-brandishing Oswald on Sunday, September 29, 1963, one day after the three stooges, mentioned above, had allegedly met with the same crazy-dangerous guy..  

So, we have five dubious Ruskies alleging that Oswald couldn't have killed JFK for the KGB:  KGB false defector Nosenko, KGB-boy Nechiporenko, KGB-boy Yatskov, good ol' (Department 13?) KGB-boy Kostikov, and, yep, that 35 year-old, quite short, blond-haired, blue-eyed, very-thin faced "Blond Oswald in Mexico City," KGB colonel Nikolai Leonov.

Talk about overkill!  (Pardon the pun.)



--  T.G.

PS  I like the idea that the Ruskies found out that Castro was going to pay Oswald kill JFK, and that Castro was gonna try to blame the assassination on the Russians ...

 

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

I couldn't agree more.

Personally, I think it's almost as though the Russians knew in advance that Oswald was either going to try to kill JFK (either for himself, for themselves, for Castro, or for the evil, evil CIA), or was going to be patsied for same, and they were trying to proactively dispel the notion that KGB had recruited Oswald during the 2.5 years he lived in the USSR.

 

Tommy,

The difference between us is apparently this:  You believe that the KGB was behind the assassination. In contrast, I believe the assassination was a CIA false flag operation designed to make it look like the KGB was behind the killing. It was really the CIA that killed Kennedy.

It makes absolutely no sense that the KGB would try to kill Kennedy. This is demonstrated by the lengths at which the Soviets went to to deny having anything to do with Oswald. The assassination and the Mexico City evidence pointing to the Soviets was a nightmare situation for them. It's not something they would have intentionally brought upon themselves.

IMO

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Tommy,

The difference between us is apparently this:  You believe that the KGB was behind the assassination. In contrast, I believe the assassination was a CIA false flag operation designed to make it look like the KGB was behind the killing. It was really the CIA that killed Kennedy.

It makes absolutely no sense that the KGB would try to kill Kennedy. This is demonstrated by the lengths at which the Soviets went to to deny having anything to do with Oswald. The assassination and the Mexico City evidence pointing to the Soviets was a nightmare situation for them. It's not something they would have intentionally brought upon themselves.

IMO

 

 

Sandy,


 

As far as why Nikita Khrushchev might have killed JFK, I refer you to pages 207 - 208 in Mark Riebling's fine book Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA.

If I can summon up enough energy, I might even copy-and-paste (if it's viewable on googlebooks), or ... gasp ... type up the whole one-page excerpt here for your enlightenment.



--  T.G.



PS  OH MY GOODNESS, LOOKIE-LOOKIE WHAT I FOUND!

 

But what would the Soviets possibly gain from 
Kennedy’s death that would be worth the risk of U.S. 
retaliation? From a pragmatic Western perspective, there 
seemed little profit indeed, but Angleton thought about 
the problem with more subtlety. First of all, the nuclear 
age precluded any massive U.S. retaliation — as Johnson’s 
craven cover-ups of all possible communist connections 
were already demonstrating. Second, if the Soviets had 
truly penetrated the Soviet Division at CIA, as Angleton 
believed, the KGB might even have hoped to steer U.S. 
investigation of the crime. As for the Soviet motive: Out 
was Kennedy, a charismatic leader who could “sell” a 
socially conscious anticommunism in the Third World 
and even to Western liberals. In was Johnson, who would 
only “heighten the contradictions” between East and West 
and therefore hasten (by Feninist dialectical reasoning) 
the ultimate collapse of late capitalism. 

Angleton also took seriously the observations marshaled in
a November 27 memo by defector Deriabin, 
who cited the Kennedy administration’s opposition to 
long-term credits to the Soviets, which he said were vital 
to survival of the USSR. Johnson, by contrast, came from 
an agricultural state and had always supported grain sales 
to Russia. Moreover, Western pressure on the USSR 
“would automatically ease up” if the KGB murdered the 
president. As evidence, Deriabin noted a “conciliatory 
telegram” by a frightened and disoriented Lyndon 
Johnson to Khrushchev. A more amenable America 
would “strengthen Khrushchev’s hand” at a time when the 
Soviet leader was under intensifying internal pressures 
because of mismanagement of the 1963 harvest and 
disputes with China. Kennedy’s death, as Deriabin put it, 
thus “effectively diverts the Soviets’ attention from their 
internal problems. It directly affects Khrushchev’s 
longevity.” Finally, Deriabin ventured that “the death of 
President Kennedy, whether a planned operation or not, 
will serve the most obvious purpose of providing proof of 
the power and omniscience of the KGB.” Much later, 
Angleton would obliquely compare the Soviets’ probable 
motivation to a famous scene in Mario Puzo’s novel The 
Godfather, in which a Mafia chieftain puts a horse’s head 
into the bed of a stubborn film producer, in order to 
demonstrate “pure power.” 


https://archive.org/stream/WedgeFromPearlHarborTo911HowTheSecretWarBetweenTheFBIAndCIAHasEndangeredNationalSecurity/Wedge+-+From+Pearl+Harbor+to+9%3A11+-+How+the+Secret+War+between+the+FBI+and+CIA+Has+Endangered+National+Security_djvu.txt

 

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

 

15 minutes ago, Ian Lloyd said:

Just thinking about the likeness of the cop on the steps behind Montgomery to Mexico City man...

:cheers    Interesting Ian... that's one helluva great memory and eye for detail - I think Mystery Man is more bald....

Have you heard the theory about YURI MOSKALEV being Mystery Man?

155207429_63-11-22WinScotttoJCKing-PhotoofapersonKNOWNTOYOU.jpg.3e55620af7bbef87e7c00d83f1c3cb19.jpg

 

972857863_MexicoOswald-collage-manonTSBDsteps.thumb.jpg.e1a7fc7145841ee101d7e778c808c179.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

Regarding the baldness, maybe it depends on the angle at which the photographs have been taken - the photos of MCM are generally at approximately the same level as MCM, whereas the photo of TSBD steps man is taken from a relatively low angle in comparison, so the baldness is not so visible. Look at the photo of MCM on the middle left of the collage you posted - the baldness isn't very visible...all about angles, I guess!?!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

the similarities you notice between the two men are very real Ian....

I just see an enlarging bald spot on Mystery Man... but again... eerie similarity of a bunch of doppelgangers in DP that day....

DJ

ps... and it remains absurd to me that no one identified this person... part of Litimal/9's job was to ID people in LI-  photos...

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=147765#relPageId=14&tab=page

October 15, 1963 Summary report from L-9 to L. Barker

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=147765#relPageId=32&tab=page

October 3, 1963 Summary report (dated Oct 3 yet says Oct 7)

Needless to say....  yet no Oswald - only a tall, blond American student reported on Nov 7th...

703499225_63-11-07LITAMIL-9reportmentionstallblondAmericanstudent-noOswald-smaller.jpg.2290a5bd449e06c404b24b465a6f6897.jpg

493693442_DuransaidOswaldwasBlonde-cropped.jpg.e6e3a7cb52549ac0ddd6aad1b0e9da5f.jpg

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
×
×
  • Create New...