Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

The KGB and the JFK case

Recommended Posts

On 2/27/2018 at 4:27 PM, David Josephs said:

5a95da8ee9d04_63-10-10CIAcables-thebeginningofHENRYOSWALDfrom201file.thumb.jpg.e007802cf18683204a9f3ef0bdb8911d.jpg

 

David,

 

I never spent too much time on the Mexico City question, so this question has probably been asked a thousand times before, but if the guy who contacted the Soviet Embassy on October 1st did so by calling them, how did the author of this first cable you provided know what the guy looked like?

Also, do you know if the telegram that's being asked about was ever revealed?

 

Steve Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

David,

 

I never spent too much time on the Mexico City question, so this question has probably been asked a thousand times before, but if the guy who contacted the Soviet Embassy on October 1st did so by calling them, how did the author of this first cable you provided know what the guy looked like?

Also, do you know if the telegram that's being asked about was ever revealed?

 

Steve Thomas

No worries...

The description "supposedly" comes from the image taken on the 4th.  Goodpasture claims the 1222 Oct 2 photo was from Oct 1st and is related to the transcript...
We are to remember that NOTHING happens on Monday the 30th...  (did a quick check and no holiday on that day) but only on Tuesday the 1st...

If the man was in such a rush - so much so as to go to the Soviet compound on "Saturday"... yet he does not go on Monday ??

----

Which telegram are you referring to?  

...

5aa04bd90ffac_63-10-02FilmLogofthephotosofMysteryMan-ActualdatesofMysteryManimages.jpg.6234c56a9edd0888ac387960fb5ccd49.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

   .......

Which telegram are you referring to?  

   .......

 

 

David (with a capital "d"),

 

With all due respect, I believe the "telegram" Steve is referring to is the one allegedly sent by Kostikov and the boys to the Soviet Embassy in Washington, DC, on Friday, September 27, 1963, to determine whether or not "Oswald" had, as he had allegedly claimed, been in contact with it (the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C.) previous to his (probably non-existent) journey to Mexico City on or around Thursday, September 26, and if so, whether or not said embassy in Washington D.C. had told him (Oswald) that he could get an instant visa to Cuba and/or the USSR in Mexico City. 

In other words, the same "telegram" that "Oswald" was asking about over the phone on Tuesday, October 1, 1963.

You know, as to whether or not Kostikov and the boys had heard back yet from the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C.?

You know, on that alleged matter?

 

Yes?

 

--  Tommy  :sun

 

PS  That "telegram" never showed up after the so-called end of the Cold War, did it? 

Which supports my contention that the Ruskies contrived that Friday, September 27 (and the Saturday, September 28) meeting with Oswald in order to portray him as one crazy and violence-prone dude, someone, in fact, capable of ... (gasp) ... killing a U.S. president.

And which I suppose you would say that it somehow proves that the evil, evil, evil CIA killed JFK, no?

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

No worries...

The description "supposedly" comes from the image taken on the 4th.  Goodpasture claims the 1222 Oct 2 photo was from Oct 1st and is related to the transcript...
We are to remember that NOTHING happens on Monday the 30th...  (did a quick check and no holiday on that day) but only on Tuesday the 1st...

If the man was in such a rush - so much so as to go to the Soviet compound on "Saturday"... yet he does not go on Monday ??

----

Which telegram are you referring to?  

...

5aa04bd90ffac_63-10-02FilmLogofthephotosofMysteryMan-ActualdatesofMysteryManimages.jpg.6234c56a9edd0888ac387960fb5ccd49.jpg

David,

 

Thanks. I hadn't looked up at the top left hand corner of the cable.  It took them 9 days before they cabled Washington? For some reason, that doesn't sound right.

I had asked if the telegram this "Lee Oswald" was asking about had ever been found. Do you know if the Soviets ever turned one over to the U.S.?

 

Steve Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

the one allegedly sent by Kostikov and the boys to the Soviet Embassy in Washington

Could you please point to the support for KOSTIKOV sending a telegram...

The discussion on the 27th had to do with the OSWALDS waiting on DC...  "MAN INSIDE" is the one calling from the Soviet compound at 1626 (4:26pm) discussing with DURAN about Oswald having been there earlier in the day and that OSWALD must wait months for his answer from DC.

it is not until the Oct 1st discussion that mentions sending a telegram.... OSWALD asks if they have heard anything from DC...
the reply is nothing has been heard back...  and the man hangs up on the Oswald bit player....

BUT WAS THERE ACTUALLY A TELEGRAM AT ALL?  A telegram about Oswald via the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City would look pretty incriminating - yet how could we know one way or another if it is real or not??

There would be no reason at all for KOSTIKOV to follow thru on this...

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32106383.pdf 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

David,

 

Thanks. I hadn't looked up at the top left hand corner of the cable.  It took them 9 days before they cabled Washington? For some reason, that doesn't sound right.

I had asked if the telegram this "Lee Oswald" was asking about had ever been found. Do you know if the Soviets ever turned one over to the U.S.?

 

Steve Thomas

Especially in light of GOODPASTURE telling us it was not more than 15-30 minutes after she gets the previous day's "take" that the important things get to SCOTT.

Why didn't Mexico tell HQ until the 8th?

David Atlee Phillips arrives as head of the CUBA desk at the Mexico City CIA station 

... on Oct 7th...

5aa060713e99b_63-10-07PHILLIPStoMexicoCityOCT7.thumb.jpg.bfc404036180203dfa3890d3f231b6f9.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

   .......

 

 

56 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

David (with a capital "d"),

 

With all due respect, I believe the "telegram" Steve is referring to is the one allegedly sent by Kostikov and the boys to the Soviet Embassy in Washington, DC, on Friday, September 27, 1963, to determine whether or not "Oswald" had, as he had allegedly claimed, been in contact with it (the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C.) previous to his (probably non-existent) journey to Mexico City on or around Thursday, September 26, and if so, whether or not said embassy in Washington D.C. had told him (Oswald) that he could get an instant visa to Cuba and/or the USSR in Mexico City. 

In other words, the same "telegram" that "Oswald" was asking about over the phone on Tuesday, October 1, 1963.

You know, as to whether or not Kostikov and the boys had heard back yet from the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C.?

You know, on that alleged matter?

 

Yes?

 

--  Tommy  :sun

 

PS  That "telegram" never showed up after the so-called end of the Cold War, did it? 

Which supports my contention that the Ruskies contrived that Friday, September 27 (and the Saturday, September 28) meeting with non-present Oswald in order to portray him (Oswald) as one crazy and violence-prone dude, someone, in fact, capable of ... (gasp) ... killing a U.S. president.

And which I suppose you would say that it somehow proves that the evil, evil, evil CIA killed JFK, no?

 

Edited, expanded, and bumped for David "With a Capital "D" Josephs.

 

Because he apparently missed the "allegedly" in the the original.

Hopefully I won't have to explain what I meant in the just-now added "PS" at the bottom ...

 

--  Tommy  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Because he apparently missed the "allegedly" in the the original.

Hopefully I won't have to explain what I meant in the just-now added "PS" at the bottom ...

Then show us the source for KOSTIKOV allegedly doing so....

Bottom line (tommy with a little "t") is you misrepresented the date, the person and the expectation...

We all know your proclivity for being the self-anointed grammar, syntax, meaning and spelling Nazi around here....

yet you simply BUTCHER facts like it was nobody's business...  present speculation and opinion without reason or support...

and hope beyond all hope that your wit shows, even just once in a while...

:up

 

No tommy... there is nothing you'll ever offer that requires an "explanation" to understand...  stop fooling yourself...    :pop
Simply adding the word "allegedly"  relieves you from doing any work to support your statement...   as usual.

If you do go look at the info, I wonder how long it takes until you realize you got it wrong... or if you'd admit it.

---------------------

So once again...  SPY WARS....  point to something in the book which strikes you so hard as to make such a wholehearted recommendation to read it...

What did YOU get that we haven't already discussed here?

Golitsyn - read any of his books... yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Then show us the source for KOSTIKOV allegedly doing so....

Bottom line (tommy with a little "t") is you misrepresented the date, the person and the expectation...

We all know your proclivity for being the self-anointed grammar, syntax, meaning and spelling Nazi around here....

yet you simply BUTCHER facts like it was nobody's business...  present speculation and opinion without reason or support...

and hope beyond all hope that your wit shows, even just once in a while...

No tommy... there is nothing you'll ever offer that requires an "explanation" to understand...  stop fooling yourself...  
Simply adding the word "allegedly"  relieves you from doing any work to support your statement...   as usual.

If you do go look at the info, I wonder how long it takes until you realize you got it wrong... or if you'd admit it.

   .......

 

 

David,

With all due respect, what date, person, and expectation did I "misrepresent"?

Did I say in my post that the Oswald Impersonator had claimed over the phone that KOSTIKOV had sent a "telegram" to the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C. on "Oswald's" behalf?

Did not an Oswald Impersonator ask the Soviet Embassy Ruskie (over the phone on Tuesday October 1, 1963) about a telegram that he, "Oswald," evidently assumed (or had been assured by Kostikov and/or Yatskov and/or Nechiporenko on  Friday or Saturday, 9/27 or 9/28) would be sent, on "his" behalf, from the Soviet Embassy-Mexico City to the Soviet Embassy-Washington, D.C.?

--  Tommy  :sun

PS  By the way, David, just keep it up with your Forum Rules-breaking insults, and maybe you can get your you-know-what kicked off the Forum again.

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

insults tommy?   cause I don't start my posts with your all too insincere "with all due respect" ?  kinda like someone saying TRUST ME all the time... if you deserve the trust, or offer the respect - repeatedly saying so usually implies the opposite...

or do you mean the fact that you revise your posts to expand them to include anyone and everyone you know as a source and every date as a possibility?...

Or the fact you try wit when fact is needed...  or that your opinions, especially in this thread, are simply that... a thought most any 5th grader looking at the data could have.... with nothing more to post but incredulousness at being questioned over your lack of substance...

:sun

Cause so far you've added ZERO to the idea that the KGB orchestrated 1, some or all aspects of the JFK assassination...  whereas you started with the kinda dull observation that DURAN/AZCUE were describing LEONOV...

Teresa PROENZA tells us the man (Oswald-like) only spoke English and could not speak Spanish, so she turned him over to someone who could speak English... DURAN....   Turns out the "MAN" first encounters TERESA...

How does that bode for your LEONOV theory?

PS - You didn't know that about TERESA - did you?   :up

 

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

insults tommy?   cause I don't start my posts with your all too insincere "with all due respect" ?  kinda like someone saying TRUST ME all the time... if you deserve the trust, or offer the respect - repeatedly saying so usually implies the opposite...

or do you mean the fact that you revise your posts to expand them to include anyone and everyone you know as a source and every date as a possibility?...

Or the fact you try wit when fact is needed...  or that your opinions, especially in this thread, are simply that... a thought most any 5th grader looking at the data could have.... with nothing more to post but incredulousness at being questioned over your lack of substance...

:sun

Cause so far you've added ZERO to the idea that the KGB orchestrated 1, some or all aspects of the JFK assassination...  whereas you started with the kinda dull observation that DURAN/AZCUE were describing LEONOV...

Teresa PROENZA tells us the man (Oswald-like) only spoke English and could not speak Spanish, so she turned him over to someone who could speak English... DURAN....   Turns out the "MAN" first encounters TERESA...

How does that bode for your LEONOV theory?

PS - You didn't know that about TERESA - did you?   :up

 

 

David,

With all due respect, relax, my friend.

Take some deep breaths.

In through the nose, out through the mouth ...

Your buddy,

--  Tommy  :sun

 

Teresa Proenza?  You mean that member of the Cuban Communist Party who was the Cultural Attache or some such thing at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City?  

And Nikolai Leonov, the noticeably short, skinny, 30 year-old, very thin-faced, blond or dark-blond haired, blue-eyed, suit-wearing KGB colonel "Third Secretary 'diplomat'" at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City?

You do realize, don't you, that I believe KGB-boy Leonov didn't go to the Cuban Consulate at all on Friday, September 27, but that Fidel Castro had Cuban Consul Eusebio Azcue describe, in 1978,  the (non-existent) "Oswald" with whom Azcue had "virtually dealt" on 9/27/3 in such a way as to  point a guilty finger at Leonov (and the KGB in general)?

 

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

David,

With all due respect, relax, my friend.

Take some deep breaths.

In through the nose, out through the mouth ...

Your buddy,

--  Tommy  :sun

 

Teresa Proenza?  You mean that member of the Cuban Communist Party who was the Cultural Attache or some such thing at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City?  

And Nikolai Leonov, the noticeably short, skinny, 30 year-old, very thin-faced, blond or dark-blond haired, blue-eyed, suit-wearing KGB colonel "Third Secretary 'diplomat'" at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City?

You do realize, don't you, that I believe KGB-boy Leonov didn't go to the Cuban Consulate at all on Friday, September 27, but that Fidel Castro had Cuban Consul Eusebio Azcue describe, in 1978,  the (non-existent) "Oswald" with whom Azcue had "virtually dealt" on 9/27/3 in such a way as to  point a guilty finger at Leonov (and the KGB in general)?

 

It's a trap, David...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tommy...  calm yourself.    (Michael - tommy's posts come with a "TRAP" warning label... :pop    )

You knew that the OSWALD character spoke first to Teresa... or not until I told you and posted the evidence....

What you "believe" remains the problem since it is not until 1977 that AZCUE's description is even recorded...

yet when did he say to the press that is was NOT the same man as the man Ruby killed?  Sept 19, 1978?

So please explain how waiting 15 years to contradict himself - how THIS is the basis for your "beliefs" that Castro was manipulating the KGB over the JFK assassination in 1963...

====

One last thing...  The testimony from McAdams for TIRADO has a misprint...  LOPEZ was a very small man... he was not 199 lbs and only 5'4"...  he was 119 lbs

HSCA DURAN statement - the man was about 5'4" 120 lbs.....

Ooops.

5aa07e9315e42_78-09-19AzcuestoryinOhioPaper-andDurandescription.thumb.jpg.79ed18063de8cb0120b656b4469b6933.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/7/2018 at 4:09 PM, David Josephs said:

   .......

 

 

David,

 

Not sure what you're getting at in trying to make a big issue out of the fact that Azcue said in '77-'78 that the "Oswald" he'd (virtually, i.e., not really) dealt with on 9/27/63 --  an apparition which both Duran in '63 & '78 and Azcue in '78, for some strange reason, "described" in such a way as to point a guilty finger at the physically-very-distinctive-and-easy-to-distinguish-from-others Nikolai Leonov --  (gasp) ... WAS NOT the same guy Ruby killed. 

I mean, I mean, I mean ... I don't have a problem with that, do you?  I mean ... seeing as how neither of us think Oswald went to the Cuban Consulate on 9/27/63, or was even in M.C. at the time?

As I see it, the problem is that to the Mexican Police and to the HSCA, Sylvia Duran, like Azcue in '77-'78, effectively described the guy (with whom, I reiterate, neither Duran nor Azcue had dealt with on 9/27/63), in such a Nikolai Leonov-like way  --  quite short, blond-haired, blue-eyed, 5' 7"-ish & 120 lbs -- but contradicted Azcue when she said this (virtual) dude was the same guy Ruby killed on 11/24/63.

Poor girl, I guess she had to say something.

Ditto Azcue.

But who told her to say THAT, and why did she and Azcue differ on this crucial point?

Question:  Was Oswald quite short (according to really short Duran and probably to Azcue, who didn't bring it up -- lol), blond or dark-blond haired, about 30, skinny, blue-eyed, and very thin-faced?  No, he wasn't.  And only one person that we know of in Mexico City at that time matched that description -  KGB-boy Nikolai Leonov.  Who didn't go to the Cuban Consulate on Friday, September 27.  For any reason whatsoever.  Not even to somehow try to impersonate Lee Harvey Oswald (nor did anybody else for that matter -- Hey! Not Even Oswald, himself!) but was later very cleverly alleged by Duran and Azcue, in so many words, to have done so. 
 

David with a big D? 

Or do you agree with Sandy that the evil, evil, evil CIA must have sent a Nikolai Leonov clone down to M.C.?  LOL

 

--  Tommy  :sun

Nice "catch" on Eddie's being only 5' 4" and 119 pounds in 1978, btw, "Big D"!

 

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/7/2018 at 5:11 PM, Thomas Graves said:

 

David,

 

Not sure what you're getting at in trying to make a big issue out of the fact that former Cuban Consul Eusebio Azcue said in 1978 that the "Oswald" he'd (virtually, i.e., not really) dealt with on 9/27/63 --  an apparition which both Sylvia Duran (in '63 & '78) and Azcue (in '78) for some strange reason "described" in such a way as to point a guilty finger at the physically-very-distinctive-and-easy-to-distinguish-from-others Nikolai Leonov --  (gasp) ... WAS NOT the same guy Ruby killed. 

I mean, I mean, I mean ... I don't have a problem with that, do you?  I mean ... seeing as how neither of us think Oswald went to the Cuban Consulate on 9/27/63, or was even in M.C. at the time?

As I see it, the problem is that to the Mexican Police and to the HSCA, Sylvia Duran, like Azcue in '77-'78, effectively described the guy (with whom, I reiterate, neither Duran nor Azcue had dealt with on 9/27/63), in such a Nikolai Leonov-like way  --  quite short, blond-haired, blue-eyed, 5' 7"-ish & 120 lbs -- but contradicted Azcue when she said this (virtual) dude was the same guy Ruby killed on 11/24/63.

Poor girl, I guess she had to say something.

Ditto Azcue.

But who told her to say THAT, and why did she and Azcue differ on this crucial point?

Question:  Was Oswald quite short (according to really short Duran and probably to Azcue, who didn't bring it up -- lol), blond or dark-blond haired, about 30, skinny, blue-eyed, and very thin-faced?  No, he wasn't.  And only one person that we know of in Mexico City at that time matched that description -  KGB-boy Nikolai Leonov.  Who didn't go to the Cuban Consulate on Friday, September 27.  For any reason whatsoever.  Not even to somehow try to impersonate Lee Harvey Oswald (nor did anybody else for that matter -- Hey! Not Even Oswald, himself!) but was later very cleverly alleged by Duran and Azcue, in so many words, to have done so. 
 

David with a big D? 

Or do you agree with Sandy that the evil, evil, evil CIA must have sent a Nikolai Leonov clone down to M.C.?  LOL

 

--  Tommy  :sun

 

Nice "catch" on Eddie Lopez's being only 5' 4" and 119 pounds in 1978, btw, "Big D"!

 

bumped

--  Tommy  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

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

×