Oswald’s Proficiency in the Russian Language

[Mathias Baumann]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Mathias,

I have done plenty of original research. You can check out my web page at McAdams' site or my current blog for that. I think I could write a good article on LHO's Russia ability, I just need the time to do it.

Tracy,

I've read some of the articles on your blog.  Your main goal seems to be to "debunk" other people's research - which is okay I guess. After all peer review is an integral part of research.

So if you want to write another article to debunk "Harvey & Lee", go ahead. I personally think it would be a waste of time. If however you want to do some useful research, then try to find out how and where Oswald REALLY learned Russian. Unfortunately I lack both the time and the resources to do so myself - all I've come to believe is that the official story is highly dubious. Even more dubious than the single bullet theory or other phantasies in the Warren Report.

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Mathias,

Thanks for agreeing to the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald was an exceptional individual.   It is not only that his IQ was higher than average, but in my opinion, his personal biography as given by his mother, Marguerite Oswald, to the Warren Commission, during several days of testimony, reveal a very ambitious youth with no economic opportunities.

This would certainly lead young Lee Oswald to Marxism as a moral choice in his early childhood -- perhaps even before he turned 15 years old.  Life in the USA was unfair.  He saw this with his own eyes.  Boys with lower IQ and aptitude were getting far better opportunities in America.  He apparently feels this personally at an early age.

This, in my humble opinion, made Lee Harvey Oswald into a over-achiever, to the best of his ability.  Also, remember that he was the youngest of three boys, and his older brothers were not necessarily gentle with him.  Competition was the norm.  Ambition was survival.

It seems to me that Lee Harvey Oswald was disappointed with the opportunities he had as a Marine.  Radar tracking was too easy for him.  He was bored with it.  He was also bored with the people he was working with.   And they were the cream of the Marines.  He thought about being an officer, until he saw the Marine officers -- whom he saw as muscle-heads and bootlicks, and he wanted no part of it (cf. Thornley).  

Lee Oswald knew Marxism -- sort of.  But he liked what he saw -- the overthrow of an unfair system, and the creation of a government of perfect Equality.  To a young man, especially to a young man with bitterness about a poverty-stricken childhood -- this was a powerful motivation.

I am aware of the theories that Lee Oswald entered the USSR on behalf of the ONI.  Former CIA agent Victor Marchetti suggests that Oswald could have been part of a large ONI "dangle"  operation, in which dozens of "dangles" who did not know each other, or the Big Picture, would report randomly whenever they saw a target person in a given area.  Such a program would require a three-year commitment, with the promise of Intel advancement.  There was such a program, and many were known to be so inclined.

I admit that this is a possibility.  Yet I propose another possibility -- that what we see is what we get with Lee Harvey Oswald.  He semi-defected.  He wanted to see with his own eyes what the Communists had to offer, right there in Russia.  It takes an ambitious person to do that.  It was profoundly original.  Furthermore, Lee Harvey Oswald refused to give up his US Passport, and he refused to apply for Russian citizenship.  He just hung low, and lived the best he ever lived in his life -- relative to the population.

He not only had a steady job, he also got a healthy subsidy from the Red Cross, and he lived in the new apartments in Minsk - the envy of the neighborhood.  His income was roughly the same as his manager.  Marina, who was also ambitious, thought of Lee Oswald as an economic wizard.  But that's another story.

My point is, that there is no need to suggest that Lee Harvey Oswald was just another bright Marine who studied in Monterey and took an ONI spy position in Russia.  It is also possible -- though more rare -- that Oswald was really a high-IQ person who taught himself Russian and tricked his way into the USSR to see what it was like.  Remember that he also wrote his memoirs of this trip, and hoped to sell his memoirs when he returned to the USA.   (Perhaps he saw himself as a sort of Hemingway, whom he admired).

This aspect of Lee Harvey Oswald -- that he really was what he appeared to be -- doesn't seem to get enough attention, in my opinion.

Oh -- and as for Jim Root's hypothesis that perhaps General Walker and Lee Harvey Oswald passed in the night -- I find insufficient evidence to accept it today.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

I guess nothing is impossible. But if Oswald really was as intelligent and as ambitious as you think he was, then I wonder why he never managed to keep a job for more than a couple of weeks or why he failed at school.

The school pychologist had to say this about him: "Lee scored an IQ of 118 on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. According to Sokolow, this indicated a "present intellectual functioning in the upper range of bright normal intelligence." So it seems he was more intelligent than average but not a exactly a genius.

On the other hand Greg Parker has suggested that Oswald might have had Asperger's. I guess that's a possibility worth investigating, because it might explain his sometimes awkward behavior in social situations. However, language being an inherently social process I don't see how an Asperger's patient would develop a special intellectual interest in it. So far I've failed to find any evidence that Asperger's is beneficial in language acquisition.

 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Mathias Baumann

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Mathias,

If I wrote an article on LHO's Russian ability, it would not be to specifically address H&L issues. It would be a detailed study that would show how LHO gradually acquired the language as Paul has explained very well.

[Mathias Baumann]

8 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Mathias,

If I wrote an article on LHO's Russian ability, it would not be to specifically address H&L issues. It would be a detailed study that would show how LHO gradually acquired the language as Paul has explained very well.

Tracy,

what makes you so sure Paul is right?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Accepting the accounts of the people who knew him best and lacking any other evidence regarding any other way he could have learned the language, Paul's version is correct.

[Mathias Baumann]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Accepting the accounts of the people who knew him best and lacking any other evidence regarding any other way he could have learned the language, Paul's version is correct.

Tracy,

here and on other threads I've shown that

- the target level of foreign language tests in the US military is that of a native speaker

- Russian is one of the most difficult languages in the world, only the Asian languages are harder to learn

- Oswald got about half the answers right on that test, which would've qualified him to be a language analyst.

- people of average intelligence normally need hundreds of lessons to reach that level

- Oswald was not considerably more intelligent than an average person.

Furthermore Jim Hargroves has shown that Oswald probably only had two or three months to prepare for the test.

 

 

Do you disagree with any of the above statements?

Edited September 22, 2017 by Mathias Baumann

[Paul Trejo]

3 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Paul,

I guess nothing is impossible. But if Oswald really was as intelligent and as ambitious as you think he was, then I wonder why he never managed to keep a job for more than a couple of weeks or why he failed at school.

The school pychologist had to say this about him: "Lee scored an IQ of 118 on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. According to Sokolow, this indicated a "present intellectual functioning in the upper range of bright normal intelligence." So it seems he was more intelligent than average but not a exactly a genius.

On the other hand Greg Parker has suggested that Oswald might have had Asperger's. I guess that's a possibility worth investigating, because it might explain his sometimes awkward behavior in social situations. However, language being an inherently social process I don't see how an Asperger's patient would develop a special intellectual interest in it. So far I've failed to find any evidence that Asperger's is beneficial in language acquisition.

Mathias,

Lee Harvey Oswald didn't "fail" at school.   His family was dirt poor, so he chose to join the Marines at age 17 in order to escape POVERTY.   Not because the school work was too hard.

Perhaps people in the 21st century can hardly imagine that sort of poverty anymore -- and dropping out of college may be understandable today, but not dropping out of high school.

However, you may be surprised to learn that Walt Disney dropped out of school *before* high school.  That was because his family was dirt poor.  He didn't join the Marines, but he did need to get a job right away, at 14 years old.  That's the way things were a half-century ago and more.

As for Oswald's awkward behavior in social situations, I don't mind the possibility of Asperger's, but it is just as easily explained by his inner rage at his dirt-poor poverty -- which also erased his chances at learning social skills.   Oswald was a latch key kid for most of his childhood -- his mother worked, and his two brothers worked until nightfall -- and he was ordered (and accustomed) to come right home after school (cf. the WC testimony of his natal family).

What did Oswald do while home alone for years?  HE READ BOOKS.  He could hardly spell.  He couldn't drive a car.  He had few social manners.  He did not study test-passing skills.  BUT HE WAS A SUPERIOR READER.  His cousin, Marilyn Murret (a school teacher) said that Lee Harvey Oswald would read ENCYCLOPEDIAS the way other people read NOVELS.   That makes sense to me.  This was his main skill.

It also explains Oswald's arrogant attitude.  He had read so much more than people ten years and even twenty years older than himself -- that he soon became full of himself.  He was so arrogant that he actually became ADMIRABLE in his boldness (IMHO) for example, it seems to me that he decided entirely on his own to quit the Marines, abandon his aging and domineering mother, and trick his way into the USSR in order to "see the world."

It is because we refuse to believe anybody was really that bright and bold in 1963 that these "ONI" CT's can get so much press.  But it seems to me that we are short-changing Lee Harvey Oswald.  He was a great reader -- so great that he taught himself to read Russian well enough to score 50/50 in a US Marines Russian language test -- and to trick his way into the USSR and live there for more than two years -- and even get married.

In my humble opinion, Lee Harvey Oswald remains one of the most misunderstood people in US History.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited September 22, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Mathias Baumann]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Mathias,

Lee Harvey Oswald didn't "fail" at school.   His family was dirt poor, so he chose to join the Marines at age 17 in order to escape POVERTY.   Not because the school work was too hard.

Perhaps people in the 21st century can hardly imagine that sort of poverty anymore -- and dropping out of college may be understandable today, but not dropping out of high school.

However, you may be surprised to learn that Walt Disney dropped out of school *before* high school.  That was because his family was dirt poor.  He didn't join the Marines, but he did need to get a job right away, at 14 years old.  That's the way things were a half-century ago and more.

As for Oswald's awkward behavior in social situations, I don't mind the possibility of Asperger's, but it is just as easily explained by his inner rage at his dirt-poor poverty -- which also erased his chances at learning social skills.   Oswald was a latch key kid for most of his childhood -- his mother worked, and his two brothers worked until nightfall -- and he was ordered (and accustomed) to come right home after school (cf. the WC testimony of his natal family).

What did Oswald do?  HE READ BOOKS.  He could hardly spell.  He had few social manners.  He did not study test-passing skills.  BUT HE WAS A SUPERIOR READER.  His cousin, Marilyn Murret (a school teacher) said that Lee Harvey Oswald would read ENCYCLOPEDIAS the way other people read NOVELS.   That makes sense to me.  This was his main skill.

It also explains Oswald's arrogant attitude.  He was so much better read than people ten years and even twenty years older than himself -- that he soon became full of himself.  He was so arrogant that he was actually ADMIRABLE in his boldness (IMHO) for example, it seems to me that he decided entirely on his own accord to quit the Marines, abandon his aging and infirm mother, and trick his way into the USSR in order to "see the world."

It is because we refuse to believe anybody was really that bright and bold in 1963 that these "ONI" mythologies get so much press.  But it seems to me that we are short-changing Lee Harvey Oswald.  He was a great reader -- so great that he taught himself to READ RUSSIAN well enough to break even in a Russian test -- and to trick his way into the USSR and live there for more than two years -- and even get married.

In my humble opinion, Lee Harvey Oswald was one of the most misunderstood people in US History.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

on a different thread Jim Hargroves has just posted this quote from Oswald's former principal:

Quote

I tracked down Kudlaty in Waco, where he now lives in retirement after a lengthy career as a school administrator in several Texas cities. He related the incident that turned out to be his brush with infamy. The day after the assassination, Mr. Wylie, Stripling’s principal, asked him to pull Oswald’s records and hand them over to FBI agents. Kudlaty recalled those events and briefly examined the records before handing them over. “I do recall the grades were not good,” he told me. That has bothered him ever since. “A person of that mind could teach himself Russian and pass himself as Russian? I don’t think so,” Kudlaty said.

So maybe he didn't exactly fail, but it appears he was NOT a good student.

 

But I agree with your last statement, because I myself still do not understand Oswald. He's still an enigma to me.

You know in theoretical physics when scientists do not understand a certain phenomenon they postulate a new particle - the neutrino is a famous example for that. Right now people think there's got to be a thing called "dark matter" because of certain anomalies in the movement of galaxies. Or think of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics - both theories explain quite neatly what goes on in their respective realms, but neither can fully explain what happens when those two realms meet - for instance in a black hole or in the Big Bang. So right now scientist are looking for ways to unify both theories - the String Theory is one such attempt. It postulates that at the Planck scale space and matter are divided into tiny vibrating strings.

And that is in a way what Jim, Sandy and others are doing - they postulate a second Oswald to explain all the contradictions in Oswald's biography. They're ridiculed here by many - but none of the critics has an answer to the question who Oswald really was.

Was he a convicted Marxist? An agent provacateur? A CIA/FBI/ONI agent/asset/informer? Or did he work for the KGB? Did he admire Kennedy? Or did he think he should be killed because of the failure at the Bay of Pigs? Was he in Mexico City? Was he not? Did he want to be a spy for US intelligence? Or did he want to overthrow the government? Was he an expert marksman? Or couldn't he even shoot a rabbit? Was he indispensible to the plot (because of the link to Kostikov)? Or just one of many possible patsies (think Gilberto Lopez, Thomas Vallee)? etc.

For a long time I thought that the answer was quite easy - Oswald was a phony communist working as an agent provocateur for the CIA/FBI. But there's just too much evidence that he was very serious in his belief in equality and justice.

Could Oswald really have been a completely unwitting pawn manipulated by invisible hands? If so how exactly did the plotters manage to maneuver him in the right place at the right time?

My point is: The longer you look at Oswald the less you seem to understand what kind of person he really was. And that is what makes it so difficult to fit him into any kind of plot. So what we need is some sort of "Unified Oswald Theory" to reconcile all the contradictory aspects of Oswald's biography and his role in the assassination.

 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Mathias Baumann

[Paul Trejo]

18 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Paul,

...What Jim, Sandy and others are doing - they postulate a second Oswald to explain all the contradictions in Oswald's biography. They're ridiculed here by many - but none of the critics has an answer to the question who Oswald really was.

Was he a convicted Marxist? An agent provacateur? A CIA/FBI/ONI agent/asset/informer? Or did he work for the KGB? Did he admire Kennedy? Or did he think he should be killed because of the failure at the Bay of Pigs? Was he in Mexico City? Was he not? Did he want to be a spy for US intelligence? Or did he want to overthrow the government? Was he an expert marksman? Or couldn't he even shoot a rabbit? Was he indispensible to the plot (because of the link to Kostikov)? Or just one of many possible patsies (think Gilberto Lopez, Thomas Vallee)? etc.

For a long time I thought that the answer was quite easy - Oswald was a phony communist working as an agent provocateur for the CIA/FBI. But there's just too much evidence that he was very serious in his belief in equality and justice.

Could Oswald really have been a completely unwitting pawn manipulated by invisible hands? If so how exactly did the plotters manage to maneuver him in the right place at the right time?

My point is: The longer you look at Oswald the less you seem to understand what kind of person he really was. And that is what makes it so difficult to fit him into any kind of plot. So what we need is some sort of "Unified Oswald Theory" to reconcile all the contradictory aspects of Oswald's biography and his role in the assassination.

Mathias,

The following is my opinion.

Until we see all of the US government documents that have been locked up for 54 years, we are all entitled to our theories of Lee Harvey Oswald -- and to our outrage at the theories of others.

The key for me -- as for James Norwood -- is WHOM we choose to believe among the Warren Commission witnesses.

I choose to believe Marguerite Oswald, Robert Oswald, John Pic, Marina Oswald, and all members of the Murret family.   That's for starters.   Then, I also believe Michael Paine and Ruth Paine (though Michael Paine held back whatever he wasn't directly asked, e.g. about the Walker shooting; Ruth Paine held back nothing at all).   Then, I also believe every single one of the Russian Expatriates, without exception, including George DeMohrenschildt (though like Michael Paine he also held back whatever he wasn't directly asked, e.g. about the Walker shooting).

Based on my acceptance of these witnesses, I believe that we can know a lot about Lee Harvey Oswald.  However, if one takes the approach that even these family members were also CIA agents -- going back for years -- then I can only shake my head in disdain.

As for the more rational JFK researchers, their main flaw is that they try to pigeon-hole Lee Harvey Oswald.   But that is impossible, based on the testimony of his family and those who knew him personally.   Here is the result of my reading of the WC testimony and other primary sources:

Was he a convinced Marxist?  YES AND NO.   It depends on the episode of his life.

Was he an agent provocateur?   YES AND NO.   It depends on the episode of his life.

A CIA/FBI/ONI agent/asset/informer?   CLEARLY HE WAS a CIA asset in the sense that David Atlee Phillips confessed (in his 1988 novel) that during the NOLA/MC episode, that Phillips had a hand in grooming Oswald to kill Fidel Castro.

Or did he work for the KGB?   HECK NO.  NEVER.  We have USSR sources on this.

Did he admire Kennedy?  YES AND NO.   Depends on the specific topic.

Or did he think Kennedy should be killed because of the failure at the Bay of Pigs?  CERTAINLY HE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE BAY OF PIGS; we know this from Volkmar Schmidt and from George De Mohrenschildt.

Was he in Mexico City?  HECK YES.  Edwin Lopez testified that he certainly was, without any question of a doubt.  We have him on video for this.

Did he want to be a spy for US intelligence?  NO DOUBT.  This was the opening that David Ferrie needed to exploit Oswald.

Did he want to overthrow the government?  NO, as Michael Paine explained, a truly dedicated Communist would have joined a Party and followed ORDERS.  Lee was too Undisciplined.

Was he indispensable to the plot (because of the alleged link to Kostikov)?  ABSOLUTELY NOT.  There were many other Patsies.

Was he just one of many possible patsies (think Gilberto Lopez, Thomas Vallee)?  OF COURSE.

Was he was very serious in his belief in equality and justice?   AGAIN, IT DEPENDS on the period of his life.  When his wife was eight months pregnant, without money, without health insurance, without a job, then I'm fairly certain he didn't care about ANYTHING until he could get back on his feet.  He went to MC, probably because he thought his best job prospect was with Guy Banister and Clay Shaw.  What a disappointment.

Could Oswald really have been a completely unwitting pawn manipulated by invisible hands?  ABSOLUTELY.

If so how exactly did the plotters manage to maneuver him in the right place at the right time?   BY PROMISING HIM A STEADY JOB IN THE CIA (which they could never provide, anyway).

So, you see, Mathias, the problem is that people want to pigeon-hole Lee Harvey Oswald with some label or other.   Lee hated that.  He was an Individualist, first and foremost.  He didn't even care (at first) that he neglected his own children because of this.  This only dawned on him when it was too late.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited September 23, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Mathias Baumann]

5 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Mathias,

The following is my opinion.

Until we see all of the US government documents that have been locked up for 54 years, we are all entitled to our theories of Lee Harvey Oswald -- and to our outrage at the theories of others.

The key for me -- as for James Norwood -- is WHOM we choose to believe among the Warren Commission witnesses.

I choose to believe Marguerite Oswald, Robert Oswald, John Pic, Marina Oswald, and all members of the Murret family.   That's for starters.   Then, I also believe Michael Paine and Ruth Paine (though Michael Paine held back whatever he wasn't directly asked, e.g. about the Walker shooting; Ruth Paine held back nothing at all).   Then, I also believe every single one of the Russian Expatriates, without exception, including George DeMohrenschildt (though like Michael Paine he also held back whatever he wasn't directly asked, e.g. about the Walker shooting).

Based on my acceptance of these witnesses, I believe that we can know a lot about Lee Harvey Oswald.  However, if one takes the approach that even these family members were also CIA agents -- going back for years -- then I can only shake my head in disdain.

As for the more rational JFK researchers, their main flaw is that they try to pigeon-hole Lee Harvey Oswald.   But that is impossible, based on the testimony of his family and those who knew him personally.   Here is the result of my reading of the WC testimony and other primary sources:

Was he a convinced Marxist?  YES AND NO.   It depends on the episode of his life.

Was he an agent provocateur?   YES AND NO.   It depends on the episode of his life.

A CIA/FBI/ONI agent/asset/informer?   CLEARLY HE WAS a CIA asset in the sense that David Atlee Phillips confessed (in his 1988 novel) that during the NOLA/MC episode, that Phillips had a hand in grooming Oswald to kill Fidel Castro.

Or did he work for the KGB?   HECK NO.  NEVER.  We have USSR sources on this.

Did he admire Kennedy?  YES AND NO.   Depends on the specific topic.

Or did he think Kennedy should be killed because of the failure at the Bay of Pigs?  CERTAINLY HE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE BAY OF PIGS; we know this from Volkmar Schmidt and from George De Mohrenschildt.

Was he in Mexico City?  HECK YES.  Edwin Lopez testified that he certainly was, without any question of a doubt.  We have him on video for this.

Did he want to be a spy for US intelligence?  NO DOUBT.  This was the opening that David Ferrie needed to exploit Oswald.

Did he want to overthrow the government?  NO, as Michael Paine explained, a truly dedicated Communist would have joined a Party and followed ORDERS.  Lee was too Undisciplined.

Was he indispensable to the plot (because of the alleged link to Kostikov)?  ABSOLUTELY NOT.  There were many other Patsies.

Was he just one of many possible patsies (think Gilberto Lopez, Thomas Vallee)?  OF COURSE.

Was he was very serious in his belief in equality and justice?   AGAIN, IT DEPENDS on the period of his life.  When his wife was eight months pregnant, without money, without health insurance, without a job, then I'm fairly certain he didn't care about ANYTHING until he could get back on his feet.  He went to MC, probably because he thought his best job prospect was with Guy Banister and Clay Shaw.  What a disappointment.

Could Oswald really have been a completely unwitting pawn manipulated by invisible hands?  ABSOLUTELY.

If so how exactly did the plotters manage to maneuver him in the right place at the right time?   BY PROMISING HIM A STEADY JOB IN THE CIA (which they could never provide, anyway).

So, you see, Mathias, the problem is that people want to pigeon-hole Lee Harvey Oswald with some label or other.   Lee hated that.  He was an Individualist, first and foremost.  He didn't even care (at first) that he neglected his own children because of this.  This only dawned on him when it was too late.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

what you've written makes a lot of sense. But I have some questions:

- There may have been other patsies, but to my knowlegde none of them was linked to KGB terrorist Kostikov. John Newman thinks that this made Oswald "toxic" and that this was an integral part of the plot. What do you think of that?

- What exactly did Oswald say to Volkmar Schmidt about the Bay of Pigs?

- What role does Clay Shaw play in your theory?

- When and why did Oswald make the switch from Marxist to right-winger?

Edited September 23, 2017 by Mathias Baumann

[Paul Trejo]

On 9/23/2017 at 6:06 PM, Mathias Baumann said:

Paul,

what you've written makes a lot of sense. But I have some questions:

- There may have been other patsies, but to my knowlegde none of them was linked to KGB terrorist Kostikov. John Newman thinks that this made Oswald "toxic" and that this was an integral part of the plot. What do you think of that?

- What exactly did Oswald say to Volkmar Schmidt about the Bay of Pigs?

- What role does Clay Shaw play in your theory?

- When and why did Oswald make the switch from Marxist to right-winger?

Mathias,

Here is my opinion.

(1) The link with Kostikov sounds like an after-thought to me -- a lucky break for Guy Banister (who supplied Oswald with the data for that "Resume" which Oswald took to MC).

1.1.  Because the "Resume" failed to work to get Oswald his instant Visa into Cuba, the Cuba Consulate Clerk said he might get it quicker if the Soviet Embassy approved.   So, Oswald rushed to the Soviet Embassy to put on a good show.

1.2.  As we know from KGB agent Oleg Nechiporenko (Passport to Assassination, 1993) he and Kostikov thought that Oswald was a mental case.  Oswald had wept, kept coming back, brought a pistol, and all these drama queen antics.

1.3.  But Oswald had no idea who he was talking to.  He had no idea that Kostikov was a KGB assassin.

1.4.  Anyway, Oswald went back to the Cuban Consulate and said, "The Soviets said it was OK."   So the clerk called the Soviet Embassy and asked if it was OK, and they said, "Absolutely not!"   At that point, the Cubans basically threw Oswald out.

1.5.  But on the very next day -- notice how quickly -- some middle-level person in the CIA, probably David Morales (Simpich, 2014) -- impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald by using the Cuba Consulate telephone to call the Soviet Embassy.  This was the most wire-tapped phone in the world at that time.   

1.6.  The intent of that phone call was to get it on record that Oswald had spoken to Kostikov.  It was now official.  (Except that the CIA emergency translators knew within 15 minutes that the speaker was not Lee Harvey Oswald!  It was an impersonation!  So the CIA started a top-secret Mole Hunt (Simpich, 2014)).

1.7.  My point is that David Morales did not EXPECT that Lee Harvey Oswald would speak with Kostikov -- but some lower-level CIA person told Morales, and then Morales took it upon himself to link Oswald with Kostikov in the official records.

1.8.  IT DIDN'T WORK.   A Mole-Hunt started instead!  

1.9.  So, the net effect was that the Kostikov connection did not have the impact on the JFK assassination that David Morales and the Radical Right were hoping for.

1.10.  When we read James Hosty's book, Assignment Oswald (1996), we see that he makes a big deal about Kostikov -- exaggerating this alleged connection between Oswald and Kostikov.  He claims he knew about it back in October 1963.  So, in my opinion, this makes James Hosty part of the conduit of information from David Morales.  He sure didn't get that data from the heads of the CIA, because they had a top-secret Mole Hunt going on for this topic (SImpich, 2014).

(2) According to Volkmar Schmidt -- Lee Harvey Oswald told him that he was outraged at the way that JFK mishandled the Bay of Pigs.  He expressed real hatred, said Schmidt.   We have Schmidt on YouTube, and he also told this to our Forum member, Bill Kelly, here:

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2008/01/volkmar-schmidt-interview.html

(3) In my CT, Clay Shaw is a money-man.   He supports the Radical Right in New Orleans with money and lawyers when they need it.  Since Jim Garrison connected Clay Shaw with Oswald in Clinton, Louisiana, we have him very close to the Guy Banister framing of Oswald.  

3.1.  Since Clay Shaw was a data provider to the CIA overseas, and to the FBI domestically, he was very much able to convince Oswald that he could get Oswald a full-time job in the CIA if Oswald would play ball with Guy Banister.  I think that was Clay Shaw's biggest contribution.

3.2.  That charade was in support of David Ferrie, Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin and Tommy Beckham, among others.  It worked, IMHO.

3.3.  In addition, Clay Shaw would give Oswald a little money now and then, to keep him happy.   This is what Tommy Beckham said (Mellen, 2005)

(4) Oswald's switch from Marxist to Right-winger was something he toyed with from childhood.   Both of his brothers were in the military.  Oswald had no father figure -- only his brothers -- and so he chose the military early in life.   His mother refused to let Lee join at age 16, but she let him join at 17.

4.1.  It is virtually impossible for any Marine to be a genuine Marxist.  What would be the point?

4.2.  When Lee joined the Marines, he was not a Marxist -- he was a MARINE.

4.3.  Lee was allowed to take Radar Training.  The only explanation is that he scored high enough on an IQ test.

4.4.  Lee let the whole Radar position go to his head.  Also, he made few friends, because of his atrocious social skills.

4.5.  According to Nelson Delgado, Lee Oswald in January 1959 only wanted to help Fidel Castro -- like Nelson himself, and many other patriotic Americans.  He asked Nelson to help him learn Spanish.

4.6.  In my reading, there was nothing Marxist about Lee's desire to help Castro in 1959, because the US News Media did not know in 1959 that Castro was going to become a Communist.

4.7.  According to Nelson Delgado, sometime early in 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald began to teach himself Russian.  Sometime during the year he decided to study the PRAVDA newspaper.   

4.8.  In my opinion, it was DURING 1959 that all of his childhood reading of Karl Marx came RUSHING back to him.   He then decided to become a Marxist, with his whole heart.

4.9.  By the end of 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald had hatched a plan to get into the USSR by any means possible, so that he could see with his own eyes if all the glorious propaganda about the USSR was true.  Was it really a worker's paradise?  Would it be heaven on earth?

4.10.  So, Mathias, my answer is this -- Oswald turned from a moderate rightwing Marine into a Marxist in 1959.

4.11.  Then, Oswald lived as a Marxist from 1959, to 1961.   Sometime in late 1961, he decided that the USSR propaganda about Russia was all baloney, and he was glad he never surrendered his USA passport.  

4.12.  Oswald asked the USA State Department to help him get out of the USSR, and the USA State Department was happy to help.

4.13.  That is when Oswald turned from a Marxist back into a moderately right-wing Southern boy, ready to go back home.

4.14.  But life in the USA was much harder than life in the USSR.  Lee could only get a pitiful paying minimum wage job -- and Marina Oswald was very disappointed in this result.  (In the USSR, Lee lived better than the average worker.   In the USA, Lee lived much worse than the average worker).

4.15.  Over the course of his full year of failures in the USA, Lee Harvey Oswald grew from a moderate right-winger, to a Radical Right winger, because he hoped to get a full-time job as a CIA double-agent super-spy.   This boy was still quite immature, though his second baby was on the way.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited September 25, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Mathias Baumann]

8 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Mathias,

Here is my opinion.

(1) The link with Kostikov sounds like an after-thought to me -- a lucky break for Guy Banister (who supplied Oswald with the data for that "Resume" which Oswald took to MC).

1.1.  Because the "Resume" failed to work to get Oswald his instant Visa into Cuba, the Cuba Consulate Clerk said he might get it quicker if the Soviet Embassy approved.   So, Oswald rushed to the Soviet Embassy to put on a good show.

1.2.  As we know from KGB agent Oleg Nechiporenko (Passport to Assassination, 1993) he and Kostikov thought that Oswald was a mental case.  Oswald had wept, kept coming back, brought a pistol, and all these drama queen antics.

1.3.  But Oswald had no idea who he was talking to.  He had no idea that Kostikov was a KGB assassin.

1.4.  Anyway, Oswald went back to the Cuban Consulate and said, "The Soviets said it was OK."   So the clerk called the Soviet Embassy and asked if it was OK, and they said, "Absolutely not!"   At that point, the Cubans basically threw Oswald out.

1.5.  But on the very next day -- notice how quickly -- some middle-level person in the CIA, probably David Morales (Simpich, 2014) -- impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald by using the Cuba Consulate telephone to call the Soviet Embassy.  This was the most wire-tapped phone in the world at that time.   

1.6.  The intent of that phone call was to get it on record that Oswald had spoken to Kostikov.  It was now official.  (Except that the CIA emergency translators knew within 15 minutes that the speaker was not Lee Harvey Oswald!  It was an impersonation!  So the CIA started a top-secret Mole Hunt (Simpich, 2014)).

1.7.  My point is that David Morales did not EXPECT that Lee Harvey Oswald would speak with Kostikov -- but some lower-level CIA person told Morales, and then Morales took it upon himself to link Oswald with Kostikov in the official records.

1.8.  IT DIDN'T WORK.   A Mole-Hunt started instead!  

1.9.  So, the net effect was that the Kostikov connection did not have the impact on the JFK assassination that David Morales and the Radical Right were hoping for.

1.10.  When we read James Hosty's book, Assignment Oswald (1996), we see that he makes a big deal about Kostikov -- exaggerating this alleged connection between Oswald and Kostikov.  He claims he knew about it back in October 1963.  So, in my opinion, this makes James Hosty part of the conduit of information from David Morales.  He sure didn't get that data from the heads of the CIA, because they had a top-secret Mole Hunt going on for this topic (SImpich, 2014).

(2) According to Volkmar Schmidt -- Lee Harvey Oswald told him that he was outraged at the way that JFK mishandled the Bay of Pigs.  He expressed real hatred, said Schmidt.   We have Schmidt on YouTube, and he also told this to our Forum member, Bill Kelly, here:

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2008/01/volkmar-schmidt-interview.html

(3) In my CT, Clay Shaw is a money-man.   He supports the Radical Right in New Orleans with money and lawyers when they need it.  Since Jim Garrison connected Clay Shaw with Oswald in Clinton, Louisiana, we have him very close to the Guy Banister framing of Oswald.  

3.1.  Since Clay Shaw was a data provider to the CIA overseas, and to the FBI domestically, he was very much able to convince Oswald that he could get Oswald a full-time job in the CIA if Oswald would play ball with Guy Banister.  I think that was Clay Shaw's biggest contribution.

3.2.  That charade was in support of David Ferrie, Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin and Tommy Beckham, among others.  It worked, IMHO.

3.3.  In addition, Clay Shaw would give Oswald a little money now and then, to keep him happy.   This is what Tommy Beckham said (Mellen, 2005)

(4) Oswald's switch from Marxist to Right-winger was something he toyed with from childhood.   Both of his brothers were in the military.  Oswald had no father figure -- only his brothers -- and so he chose the military early in life.   His mother refused to let Lee join at age 16, but she let him join at 17.

4.1.  It is virtually impossible for any Marine to be a genuine Marxist.  What would be the point?

4.2.  When Lee joined the Marines, he was not a Marxist -- he was a MARINE.

4.3.  Lee was allowed to take Radar Training.  The only explanation is that he scored high enough on an IQ test.

4.4.  Lee let the whole Radar position go to his head.  Also, he made few friends, because of his atrocious social skills.

4.5.  According to Nelson Delgado, Lee Oswald in January 1959 only wanted help Fidel Castro -- like Nelson himself, and many other patriotic Americans.  He asked Nelson to help him learn Spanish.

4.6.  In my CT, there was nothing Marxist about this desire to help Castro in 1959, because the News Media did not know in 1959 that Castro was going to become a Communist.

4.7.  According to Nelson Delgado, sometime early in 1959, Lee Oswald began to teach himself Russian.  Sometime during the year he decided to study PRAVDA newspaper.   

4.8.  In my opinion, it was DURING 1959 that all of his childhood reading of Karl Marx came RUSHING back to him.   He then decided to become a Marxist, with his whole heart.

4.9.  By the end of 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald had hatched a plan to get into the USSR by any means possible, so that he could see with his own eyes if all the glorious propaganda about the USSR was true.  Was it really a worker's paradise?  Would it be heaven on earth?

4.10.  So, Mathias, my answer is this -- Oswald turned from a moderate rightwing Marine into a Marxist in 1959.

4.11.  Then, Oswald lived as a Marxist from 1959, to 1961.   Sometime in late 1961, he decided that the USSR propaganda about Russia was all baloney, and he was glad he never surrendered his USA passport.  

4.12.  Oswald asked the USA State Department to help him get out of the USSR, and the USA State Department was happy to help.

4.13.  That is when Oswald turned from a Marxist back into a moderately right-wing Southern boy, ready to go back home.

4.14.  But life in the USA was much harder than life in the USSR.  Lee could only get a pitiful paying minimum wage job -- and Marina Oswald was very disappointed in this result.  (In the USSR, Lee lived better than the average worker.   In the USA, Lee lived much worse than the average worker).

4.15.  Over the course of his full year of failures in the USA, Lee Harvey Oswald grew from a moderate right-winger, to a Radical Right winger, because he hoped to get a full-time job as a CIA double-agent super-spy.   This boy was still quite immature, though his second baby was on the way.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

thank you for your detailed answers, most of which seem reasonable to me.

However, I disagree with your interpretation of the Mexico City phone call. I tend to think that it was not a deliberate attempt to link Oswald to Kostikov. If you look at the transcript of the first phone call you'll notice that it seems more like an amateurish attempt to gather information about the visitor to the Soviet embassy. It appears that the caller didn't even know Oswald's name and Kostikov's doesn't come up either. And when Kostikov's name is mentioned in of the later calls it does so in a rather innocuous context, if I remember correctly.

The impersonation was certainly a risky business, because it triggered a "mole hunt", as you put it. So it would appear that the plottes deemed the Kostikov link crucial to the success of the operation, if that was indeed the purpose of the call. But why did the plotter not also attempt to create the same "toxic" link to Valle and Lopez as well? That doesn't make much sense in my opinion.

So if your theory is correct and Morales impersonated Oswald to make him the fall guy for the Kennedy assassination that raises various other questions:

How did Morales know Oswald would end up working in a tall office building in Dealey Plaza two months later? Was Oswald some sort of puppet in his hands that he could manipulate at will? If so, why did he fake the phone call and so risk exposure? Why did he not just, say, place Kostikov's business card in Oswald's wallet? Or tell him to make the call himself?

 

Edited September 24, 2017 by Mathias Baumann

[Jim Hargrove]

Sandy Larsen and I were having a conversation about trying to determine the true level of Oswald's Russian language abilities as they were measured by the U.S. Army exam.  I sent the basics of our discussion to Prof. Norwood and got back this reply,

Jim,

This is a good discussion among the various group members.  My take is as follows:

(a)  The fact that Oswald took the Russian proficiency exam in the first place supports the thesis that he was a native speaker.  Even without speculating on what level of achievement (e.g., nine-year-old, etc.) his score may suggest, the main point is that Oswald took this extremely specialized exam.  That act demonstrates his competency.  As we know virtually beyond doubt that he had no formal training in school and there is no evidence of self-study, the conclusion is that he was a native speaker.

(b) The most important point made in your notes below is when you write that "As I see it, one of the problems we face is that we know so little about the Army language exam itself."  Indeed, this is the main problem in attempting to derive conclusions from an exam that is presently an unknown quantity.  If this topic is important to members, then the next step is to research the Department of Army's foreign language tests to learn more about the actual exam that was administered to Oswald in 1959.  I do not think that the nine-year-old estimate diminishes Oswald's language competency; I just don't believe we have enough data to draw such a conclusion, based on an exam that no one yet fully understand.  To interpret the exam score, we need more substantial support than merely the word of Mathias.   For me, the radio code exam is an important benchmark.  It is clear that Oswald flunked the radio code test.  But from that exam score, can we conclude that he had no skills whatsoever in radio code?   

(c)  We do not know Oswald's state of mind at the time he took the Russian exam.  He may have been tired from the large batch of tests.  Again, his test-taking skills may have adversely affected the exam results.    

Another topic that would make for good discussion is to debate the question of why Oswald took this exam in the first place.  The timing is relevant, as this is the moment when Oswald is outwardly proclaiming his interest in Russian language, culture, and Marxist ideology.   Again, the point about why he would take this exam is crucial, and the obvious implication (to my way of thinking) is that the exam was part of Oswald's preparation for the phony defection later in the year.  

Perhaps you could revise point #2, underscoring the fact that Oswald's attempt at this exam in Russian indicates that he was competent in the language and the scores may point to the ability of a nine-year-old native Russian speaker, at the least.  But more work needs to be done to ascertain the true nature of the exam that was administered to him in 1959.

Please feel free to copy this response to the other members.

All the best,

James

I'd like to repost a revised version of my list of our common beliefs about Oswald's Russian language abilities, but I was hoping to get reactions from a few people first, particularly Mathias and Sandy.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Jim Hargrove

[W. Tracy Parnell]

7 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The fact that Oswald took the Russian proficiency exam in the first place supports the thesis that he was a native speaker.  Even without speculating on what level of achievement (e.g., nine-year-old, etc.) his score may suggest, the main point is that Oswald took this extremely specialized exam.  That act demonstrates his competency.  As we know virtually beyond doubt that he had no formal training in school and there is no evidence of self-study, the conclusion is that he was a native speaker.

(b) The most important point made in your notes below is when you write that "As I see it, one of the problems we face is that we know so little about the Army language exam itself."

So if I take a foreign language exam, that supports the idea I am a native speaker of that language? Wow is all I can think of. But the good doctor is right that we know very little about the exam. For example, maybe it was multiple choice and he guessed well. 

Edited September 24, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Paul Trejo]

12 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Paul,

...But why did the plotter not also attempt to create the same "toxic" link to Valle and Lopez as well? That doesn't make much sense in my opinion.

So if your theory is correct and Morales impersonated Oswald to make him the fall guy for the Kennedy assassination that raises various other questions:

How did Morales know Oswald would end up working in a tall office building in Dealey Plaza two months later? Was Oswald some sort of puppet in his hands that he could manipulate at will? If so, why did he fake the phone call and so risk exposure? Why did he not just, say, place Kostikov's business card in Oswald's wallet? Or tell him to make the call himself?

Mathias,

1. How could David Morales link Valle and Lopez with Kostikov, since they were not in Mexico City at that time?  

1.1.  The telephone call (which the caller knew was tapped) successfully and brilliantly linked the names of Oswald and Kostikov.  

1.2.  The caller knew that this would make bells ring in the CIA.   It did.

2. Morales had no foreknowledge that Oswald would be working in the TSBD.  The original plan (in my opinion) was simply to: (i) use Gerry Patrick Hemming to convince Oswald to hand over his rifle to some confederate; (ii) just shoot Oswald in the street after the JFK assassination.   

2.1. Oswald was already sheep-dipped as an FPCC Communist in New Orleans and Mexico City.   

2.2.  Nothing else would have been needed.   The only thing that could have gone wrong with that plot would have been if Lee Harvey Oswald had sneaked out of Dallas by 11/22/1963.  Then another Patsy would have been used.  Otherwise, just killing Oswald in cold blood would have been enough.

2.3.  The TSBD was icing on the cake.  It was unnecessary, but it worked out very nicely for the Radical Right in Dallas.

3. Getting hold of Kostikov's business card was much harder than David Morales making that easy phone call. 

3.1.  David could not tell Oswald to make that call, because Oswald did not know (and would not trust) David Morales.  Lee Harvey Oswald took orders from Guy Banister -- and those closest to Banister.   He did not know Morales (even if Morales knew him).

4.  So, to keep this thread on theme -- I think I have demonstrated that Lee Harvey Oswald could have (and did) teach himself to read the Russian language in 1959, at the El Toro Marine Base in California, by using the Berlitz method.

4.1.  I find no connection between Lee Harvey Oswald's language skills and the JFK assassination.

4.2.  The only exception is that Oswald's Russian language skills helped him defect to Russia, which made the Radical Right in Dallas hate his guts, which influenced their selection of Lee Harvey Oswald as their Patsy.

There's my opinion.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited September 25, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Mathias Baumann]

On ‎24‎.‎09‎.‎2017 at 5:28 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

So if I take a foreign language exam, that supports the idea I am a native speaker of that language? Wow is all I can think of. But the good doctor is right that we know very little about the exam. For example, maybe it was multiple choice and he guessed well. 

Tracy,

as James Norwood has pointed out Oswald also received a decent score in writing. So the test was certainly not all multiple-choice.