Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

The KGB and the JFK case

Recommended Posts

On 2/2/2018 at 3:30 PM, James DiEugenio said:

When he returns to Dallas from Mexico, is anyone going to argue that the Paines or Wesley Frazier were Russian agents?

You mention a new paradigm.  "When he returns" is that paradigm....

Despite evidence he was not there, other than via CIA, Hoover claims mystery man is a second man down there using Oswald's name..

When we rightfully put him in Dallas via Austin from the 26th to the 3rd... 

Why does it make so much sense, and supports the LITAMIL-9 reports.... And the Phillips timing...

If we keep him in Mexico..... Odio needs a better explanation than the WCR offering

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2018 at 3:28 AM, Thomas Graves said:

David Josephs, who has extensively researched the "Mexico City" issue, has recently (somewhat grudgingly) admitted  that the descriptions Duran and Azcue gave of "Oswald" matched the unique description of KGB "diplomat" Nikolai Leonov.

Tommy,

Please add to the story...   Assume that Azcue and Duran are running a CI op against the big dogs.... 

Is that it?  Do you have anything else to support using Leonov, a KGB agent close to both Castro, their boss and Russia, his boss.

The purpose of Mexico was to turn spies and gather Intel.... What does Castro and G-2 gain?

Bottom line Tommy, a similar description is a start... What else suggests a Cuba plot via Azcue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David:

I should add, "according to the Warren Report".

I agree with you that there is less and less evidence to support LHO ever being in Mexico City.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Tommy,

Please add to the story...   Assume that Azcue and Duran are running a CI op against the big dogs.... 

Is that it?  Do you have anything else to support using Leonov, a KGB agent close to both Castro, their boss and Russia, his boss.

The purpose of Mexico was to turn spies and gather Intel.... What does Castro and G-2 gain?

Bottom line Tommy, a similar description is a start... What else suggests a Cuba plot via Azcue?

 

David,

 

With all due respect, perhaps you should read my applicable posts again.  If you do, you'll realize that, unlike Paul Trejo, I don't have all the answers regarding the assassination, or even "Mexico City."

Regardless, why should I assume that Duran and Azcue ran anything?

What do you mean, "The purpose of Mexico" ?

Are you referring to everything all of the so-called "JFK Assassination Experts" have pointed out and/or postulated about "went down" down there (or didn't) between Thursday, September 26th and Thursday(?), October 4th(?), 1963, vis-a-vis Oswald, "Oswald", or some invisible "Oswald," and all of the other usual suspects?

The whole enchilada, so to speak?

Etc, etc.

Are you trying to "lead" me by your somewhat arcane, rhetorical questions to see things "In Mexico" the way you see them, you sneaky little devil, you?  I.e.,"the evil, evil, evil CIA dood da deed"?

LOL

 

--  Tommy  :sun


PS   Why do YOU think Duran and Azcue described certain physical aspects of Oswald, "Oswald," or an invisible "Oswald" in such a way as to so closely resemble the distinctive physical characteristics of KGB "diplomat" Nikolai Leonov?

Just between you and I, what I'm starting to realize is really interesting is the fact that Duran and Azcue disagreed on some things, and it's interesting to speculate about those deviations.  For example, Sylvia Duran told the HSCA that the Oswald, "Oswald," or invisible "Oswald" she'd dealt with weighed about the same as 199-pound Eddie Lopez (did he really weigh that much in 1978, or was that a "typo" in the transcript? -- LOL), that he was rather poorly dressed, that he was the same person as in the visa photos stapled to the applications, and that he was the same man that Jack Ruby killed on 11/24/63.

WHEREAS ... Eusebio Azcue said the dude was thin (as in skinny), that he was wearing a "Prince of Wales" suit, and that he was NOT the same guy that Ruby killed on 11/24/63.

The fact that Duran only "halfheartedly" described the guy in a Nikolai Leonov-like way ("He was a little taller than my 5' 3.5" and he had blond hair"), but Eusebio Azcue went "whole hog" ("He was about 30, he had blond or dark-blond hair, he was thin (skinny), he had a very thin face, and he was wearing a (diplomat-like) Prince of Wales suit") intuitively leads me to believe that Duran was obfuscating a bit (perhaps to save her own skin), and that Azcue was either telling the truth, OR was more accurately describing the "Invisible "Oswald" in such a way as to, for whatever reason, implicate Leonov for impersonating, or "virtually impersonating?" Lee Harvey Oswald on Friday, September 27, 1963.

Maybe it boils down to the fact that Duran was a Mexican citizen, living in Mexico, whereas Azcue was a Cuban citizen, and just might have been more amenable to Fidel Castro's instructions?

"Hey, Azcue! This is an order.  Describe that Invisible Oswald in such a way that closely resembles that S.O.B. Nikolai Leonov. You know, so we can implicate or have leverage over him and his S.O.B. KGB buddies."

 

Just sayin' ...
 

 

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Tom - insead of blathering on about the evil evil this and the evil evil that, just take all of that away and read these stories:

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/17/anti-trumpists-use-mueller-indictments-to-escalate-tensions-with-nuclear-armed-russia/

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/16/russians-spooked-by-nukes-against-cyber-attack-policy/

There's plenty of "evil" to go around...on both sides of the "aisle." Not saying either is more or less evil.

Mr. Binney is a Trumper, which I learned during an interview with him on Dennis Bernstein’s KPFA show. That being said, there is a lot to chew on, especially in the second article. Yet I also agree with Kirk that there is much misdirection going on. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to parse truth, even for those of us that are attentive to propaganda. The real scandals are voter suppression, which is not a Russian operation, and Trump’s financial connections. He’s a crook, and so are many of those in his circle. Those connections to Russians and to foreign banks predate the election and are very real. Trump fired the Attorneys General who were building a case against him. I really do agree with the author of the second article when she points out that, in my words, we can’t trust our own propaganda machine. There is indeed plenty of evil to go around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Mr. Binney is a Trumper, which I learned during an interview with him on Dennis Bernstein’s KPFA show. That being said, there is a lot to chew on, especially in the second article. Yet I also agree with Kirk that there is much misdirection going on. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to parse truth, even for those of us that are attentive to propaganda. The real scandals are voter suppression, which is not a Russian operation, and Trump’s financial connections. He’s a crook, and so are many of those in his circle. Those connections to Russians and to foreign banks predate the election and are very real. Trump fired the Attorneys General who were building a case against him. I really do agree with the author of the second article when she points out that, in my words, we can’t trust our own propaganda machine. There is indeed plenty of evil to go around.

Paul,

With all due respect, one sublime form of voter suppression is getting a particular party's potential voters so confused and frustrated and angry about conflicting fake news about that party's candidates that they say "To heck with it!" on election day, and do not go to the polling place to vote, but stay at home, watch the boob tube, and drink a six pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon beer.

--  Tommy  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 1:03 PM, James DiEugenio said:

This is a good example of the differences in how some people evaluate evidence and also their knowledge of and interest in history.

I named ten pretty much indisputable observations which show that the KGB was not involved in the JFK case, including the fact that they themselves suspected a high level plot within the US government.  

 

I want to add to your list the impossibility of Russia continuing a cover-up until now.

 

Mr DiEugenio I would be very grateful if you could give your view on Nechiporenko, Yatsev, and Kostikov claiming that Oswald visited them on Friday, September 26. We cannot know whether they were lying or not, but can you postulate a reason why they would say this? I would suggest it points to post-assassination cooperation between the Johnson administration and the Russians. To deny he visited would lend weight to a covert Kostikov meeting. To confirm he visited adds weight to a Lone Gunman narrative, and accusing him of histrionics helps even further.  

Edited by Eddy Bainbridge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

David,

 

With all due respect, perhaps you should read my applicable posts again.  If you do, you'll realize that, unlike Paul Trejo, I don't have all the answers regarding the assassination, or even "Mexico City."

Regardless, why should I assume that Duran and Azcue ran anything?

What do you mean, "The purpose of Mexico" ?

Are you referring to everything all of the so-called "JFK Assassination Experts" have pointed out and/or postulated about "went down" down there (or didn't) between Thursday, September 2nd and Wednesday, October 3rd, 1963, vis-a-vis Oswald, "Oswald", or some invisible "Oswald," and all of the other usual suspects?

The whole enchilada, so to speak?

Etc, etc.

Are you trying to "lead" me by your somewhat arcane, rhetorical questions to see things "In Mexico" the way you see them, you sneaky little devil, you?  I.e.,"the evil, evil, evil CIA dood da deed"?

LOL

 

--  Tommy  :sun


PS   Why do YOU think Duran and Azcue described certain physical aspects of Oswald, "Oswald," or an invisible "Oswald" in such a way as to so closely resemble the distinctive physical characteristics of KGB "diplomat" Nikolai Leonov?

Just between you and I, what I'm starting to realize is really interesting is the fact that Duran and Azcue disagreed on some things, and it's interesting to speculate about those deviations.  For example, Sylvia Duran told the HSCA that the Oswald, "Oswald," or invisible "Oswald" she'd dealt with weighed about the same as 199-pound Eddie Lopez (did he really weigh that much in 1978, or was that a "typo" in the transcript? -- LOL), that he was rather poorly dressed, that he was the same person as in the visa photos stapled to the applications, and that he was the same man that Jack Ruby killed on 11/24/63.

WHEREAS ... Eusebio Azcue said the dude was thin (as in skinny), that he was wearing a "Prince of Wales" suit, and that he was NOT the same guy that Ruby killed on 11/24/63.

The fact that Duran only "halfheartedly" described the guy in a Nikolai Leonov-like way ("He was a little taller than my 5' 3.5" and he had blond hair"), but Eusebio Azcue went "whole hog" ("He was about 30, he had blond or dark-blond hair, he was thin (skinny), he had a very thin face, and he was wearing a (diplomat-like) Prince of Wales suit") intuitively leads me to believe that Duran was obfuscating a bit (perhaps to save her own skin), and that Azcue was either telling the truth, OR was more accurately describing the "Invisible "Oswald" in such a way as to, for whatever reason, implicate Leonov for impersonating, or "virtually impersonating?" Lee Harvey Oswald on Friday, September 27, 1963.

Maybe it boils down to the fact that Duran was a Mexican citizen, living in Mexico, whereas Azcue was a Cuban citizen, and just might have been more amenable to Fidel Castro's instructions?

"Hey, Azcue! This is an order.  Describe that Invisible Oswald in such a way that closely resembles that S.O.B. Nikolai Leonov. You know, so we can implicate or have leverage over him and his S.O.B. KGB buddies."

 

Just sayin' ...
 

 

Respect noted...

Between you and me don't you think your posts suggest something... Dare I say, specific?  A Castro led, G-2 op with Azcue playing a key role.

Duran was arrested by DFS.... Phillips and Scott oversaw the interrogation.  Azcue got nothing of that....  

A close friend and confidant and double agent was LITAMIL-9.... Who never once reveals his exposure to any sort of plan like that....  Depending on how you interpret his reports I guess.

Things that should have been reported in March (rifle), Oct And Nov which were claimed to now exit after 11/22, were not.  

So I humbly ask if you have anything beyond the similar description to tie Azcue to a Cuban Op to mess with the Soviet KGB... Do tell...  If not, then how about toning the presentation of the theory at every opportunity down a smidge?  The real likelihood without any other evidence is that they just look similar....  Why can't Duran remember where she sent the man for photos? She only named 2.... :huh:

 

Tommy, do you see a FBI asset in this equation? 

Anyone believing that anything said by anyone Soviet in this equation is imo taken in.... As is anyone believing a mafia figure....  These 2 entities were at constant war with the US bosses... In whatever field....  And lied at every chance to spread disinformation....  Watch the news as they are finally getting it... Disinformation is the KGB stock and trade as Golitsyn told Angleton....   Not stealing info, planting dis-info.

If anything, G-2 spies within the DFS or manning the LI project ...

Who, what did Cuban intelligence feel were top priorities at their spybase embassy in Mexico?

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is something I don't understand.

 

I have read that some people believe that Oswald in Mexico was part of Angelton's mole hunt. And I asked myself, "how would sending Oswald down to Mexico help catch a spy in the U.S. Government? The way you catch moles is to put a piece of bad information or a piece of good information in a place that has tightly controlled access. If you start seeing that information being shared or floated in KGB circles, you go back and see who had access to where that information was being stored.

 

And I got thinking to thinking about that whole, "I can't extend my visa unless I used my real name" business.

Am I right in assuming that there was only one Lee Henry Oswald file, or only one Lee Henry Oswald document, and that was kept in the part of the CIA under Angleton's control?

If information started getting back to the Russians about a Lee Henry Oswald, would Angleton or CI/SIG or whatever it was have looked to see who accessed that file?

Maybe the Lee Henry file wasn't a typo, but was deliberate

 

Steve Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve - I think Lee Henry Oswald was deliberate.

Tommy - what did Golitsyn have to say about the assassination of JFK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Steve - I think Lee Henry Oswald was deliberate.

Tommy - what did Golitsyn have to say about the assassination of JFK?

Paul,

 

I hadn't done any research on this Lee Henry Oswald business before I posted what I did, but I find it was covered before. See the topic Lee Henry Oswald in the Education Forum here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/4023-lee-henry-oswald/

 

Steve Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve... 

Dated Oct 16 is the letter from Win Scott... Hosty has a source at IN&S, Woosley who tells him the info in that memo as he was cc'd.   

"Henry" goes out to a long list... Why is the mole hunt not within that list of agencies?   If Henry was the marked card.... Quite a few saw it yet only the FBI memos know its not their Oswald from the word go... Imo...

 Oct 1 is Tues. 28th is Saturday, 30 days hath Sept.    Nothing on Monday... Nothing.

They reply with Henry supplied/created ultimately by Angleton to see where Henry is repeated outside where expected... Czech, Yugoslav, allies, enemies.... Etc...   And within the Cuban Embassy for reasons I feel are obvious...?  (ok... Cuban Desk Mexi city)

Counter Intel... It kinda screams at you after a while... And yet, after it all, Castro and Cuba fade away within 2 months... At least for the CIA and SE Asia folk....

 

58bddc95ecebd_63-10-08104-10418-10327LADILLINGERsendsinitalcablereLIMPROVEACCLIENVOY1OCT63onOswaldinMexicotowho.thumb.png.1c16a06eb8aef7ffb090f79c7af2ff02.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2018 at 10:27 AM, David Josephs said:

Respect noted...

Between you and me don't you think your posts suggest something... Dare I say, specific?  A Castro led, G-2 op with Azcue playing a key role.

Duran was arrested by DFS.... Phillips and Scott oversaw the interrogation.  Azcue got nothing of that....  

A close friend and confidant and double agent was LITAMIL-9.... Who never once reveals his exposure to any sort of plan like that....  Depending on how you interpret his reports I guess.

Things that should have been reported in March (rifle), Oct And Nov which were claimed to now exit after 11/22, were not.  

So I humbly ask if you have anything beyond the similar description to tie Azcue to a Cuban Op to mess with the Soviet KGB... Do tell...  If not, then how about toning the presentation of the theory at every opportunity down a smidge?  The real likelihood without any other evidence is that they just look similar....  Why can't Duran remember where she sent the man for photos? She only named 2.... :huh:

 

Tommy, do you see a FBI asset in this equation? 

Anyone believing that anything said by anyone Soviet in this equation is imo taken in.... As is anyone believing a mafia figure....  These 2 entities were at constant war with the US bosses... In whatever field....  And lied at every chance to spread disinformation....  Watch the news as they are finally getting it... Disinformation is the KGB stock and trade as Golitsyn told Angleton....   Not stealing info, planting dis-info.

If anything, G-2 spies within the DFS or manning the LI project ...

Who, what did Cuban intelligence feel were top priorities at their spybase embassy in Mexico?

 

David,

 

"The fly in the ointment" is ... Lee Harvey Oswald and Nikolai Leonov did not "look similar" at all, other than the fact that they were both male and they were both white. 

Just talking clothing, was Oswald ever known to have worn a blue "Prince of Wales"-like suit with "reddish" highlights in the jacket, or, come to think of it, as Sylvia "Dissembling" Duran claimed LHO had done -- to dress noticeably poorly in formal-like situations (like visiting an embassy or a consulate, for example)?

I mean, I mean, I mean ... don't you "get" it, David? 

(With all due respect.  LOL)

 

--  Tommy  :sun

 

"Colombo-like, Tommy pauses at the door, turns and slowly returns, consciously dropping cigar ash on the fine carpet.  'Uhhhhhhh, ... there's just one thing ...'"

Something I just now thought of --  Maybe Leonov really did impersonate Oswald on Friday, September 27.  Maybe he knew Duran wouldn't know who he really was, for the simple reason that she was relatively new on the job, iirc.  

Naw, that doesn't work.  Why would Leonov intentionally and unnecessarily provoke Eusebio Azcue into coming out of his office and getting into a memorable argument with him.  Cuban consul Azcue, someone who was bound to recognize him as that very short, blond-haired, skinny, very-thin faced, Spanish-and-English-speaking, thirty-something, suit-wearing Third Secretary Russian "diplomat," Nikolai Leonov? 

Is there a remote possibility that Azcue didn't know Leonov?

 

Pardon me for rambling a bit and thinking out loud here, but does Leonov's telling National Enquirer many years later that he had met one-on-one with Oswald at the Soviet embassy on Sunday, September 29, have a certain smell about it?  The stink of someone Leonov's trying to dispel the possibility that he, Leonov, had impersonated Oswald?

Hmm... 

 

PS  Tone WHAT down, btw?

 

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2018 at 9:58 AM, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I want to add to your list the impossibility of Russia continuing a cover-up until now.

 

Mr DiEugenio I would be very grateful if you could give your view on Nechiporenko, Yatsev, and Kostikov claiming that Oswald visited them on Friday, September 26. We cannot know whether they were lying or not, but can you postulate a reason why they would say this? I would suggest it points to post-assassination cooperation between the Johnson administration and the Russians. To deny he visited would lend weight to a covert Kostikov meeting. To confirm he visited adds weight to a Lone Gunman narrative, and accusing him of histrionics helps even further.  

 

Eddy,

With all due respect, I would say that if Nechiporenko, Yatskov, and Kostikov were lying about having met with a relatively normal-acting Oswald on Friday, September 27, and a crying, pistol-brandishing Oswald on Saturday, September 28, ... and if "Third Secretary" KGB-boy Nikolai Leonov was lying when he implicitly refuted having met with Oswald on either of those days when he, many years later claimed, without bringing up the alleged Friday and Saturday meetings of Oswald and the other boys  -- in a National Enquirer article of all things -- that he-and-only-he had met one-on-one with ... (gasp; wouldn't you know) ... a crying and pistol-brandishing Oswald on Sunday, September 29, then one could reasonably assume that 

above-referenced N&Y&K thing that you brought up was done solely in order to "establish" that Oswald was one crazy, stupid, violence-prone dude (i.e., more than capable of assassinating someone by his own widdle self), and that the above-mentioned Leonov -and-Oswald-on-Sunday thingy was done to (somewhat implausibly) do that, too, but also, and more importantly, to try to discredit the possibility that KGB-boy Nikolai Leonov had himself impersonated Oswald at the Cuban consulate on Friday, September 27

By the way, which alleged "crazy, stupid, and dangerous" assessment of Oswald in Mexico City, was, ironically(?), the same as the explanation given by false defector Yuri Nosenko for KGB's not wanting to have anything to do with the Marine Corps radar operator during the 2.5 years he lived in the Soviet Union, i.e., Oswald was just too crazy, stupid, and dangerous-looking to interview!

But wait a second .... hmmm .... I guess that begs the following question:  If the Ruskies, back in late 1959, thought defector or "defector" Oswald was too crazy and stupid and dangerous-looking for the KGB to monitor very closely or interview, why in the heck then did they not only interview him twice, but monitor him like crazy and let him stay there for two and one-half years? 

I mean, I mean, I mean, ... why didn't they just arrest him, put him in a straight jacket, take him to the American Embassy and say "Here, we don't want this crazy, stupid, and dangerous-looking dude!  He's all yours!" ??

 

--  Tommy  :sun

 

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2018 at 12:30 AM, James DiEugenio said:

6. It is clear that once Oswald left for New Orleans he was again associating with reactionary, CIA associated figures like Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and Guy Banister

Nothing to add. KGB had NOTHING to do with the plot

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

×