Thomas Graves

Robert, Does the fact I can prove neither that 1) the Mitrokhin Archive was a KGB "active measures disinfo project," nor 2) it wasn't a Langley Production, somehow prove that it must have been an evil, evil, evil Langley Production? Analogous to the fact that I can't prove the earth isn't flat? IIRC, John Newman found documentary evidence that Oswald was debriefed / interviewed by CIA upon his return to the good old USA -- someone by the name of Anderson / Andersen? Regardless, would that little fascist, Spas T. Raikin, count? According to golden, pre-1965 Golitsyn (whom I assume you don't trust; pity that) KGB's Second Chief Directorate's ... gasp ... Department 13 ... had a standing policy of interviewing every defecting U.S. military type. You know, to glean any kind of military info, no matter how mundane, from themand to see if that person could be either recruited (even to possibly becoming ... gasp ... a KGB assassin, or ... gasp! ... "flipped." Rhetorical question: If Oswald was indeed so unstable (hmm ... did Ozzie slash both wrists, as indicated by the hospital's records, or just one, as he wrote in his "Historical Diary"?) and dangerous-looking, why didn't the Soviets bundle him up and dump him at the front gate of the U.S. Embassy as soon as he'd "recovered"? Why did they let him stay for two and one-half years, instead? Because some woman, on the Politboro or some-such thing, ... intervened? My methodology? I obviously "pivoted" when I realized that you were about half-right, and tried to salvage a modicum of credibility and self-respect by pointing out that the Mitrokhin Archive's being a KGB, "disinfo job" is almost more damaging to tinfoil hatters, in the long run, than Lane's perhaps unwittingly, accepting $16, 000 in today's money from the KGB. (Which point I believe I've just made, come to think of it!) -- Tommy

On February 25th, Robert Charles-Dunne wrote: ....... My edited reply: Shouldn't we look at the Mitrokhin Archive, then, as a "mixed bag," a "limited hangout," a massive Ruskie disinfo project -- another "KGB" active measures counterintelligence op, interwoven oh-so-skillfully with yet another strategic deception op (i.e., the "defection" to the U.S. of Mitrokhin)? It's obvious to me that "the KGB" has, by waging "active measures" counterintelligence ops against us and our EU/NATO allies during the past ten years or so on social media's algorithm-based "platforms," recently installed a blackmail-able, expendable-for-Putin, "useful idiot" as our president, in order to sow discord and chaos, especially in "the main adversary," America. -- Tommy Do you think Christopher Andrew, official historian for British Intel is secretly working for the CIA, and that's why he's helping KGB officer Mitrokhin spread these (probably untrue) rumors about your hero Mark Lane ? IS the Mitrokhin Archive just another insidious "Langley Production," OR is it (more likely, imho) ... gasp ... a "KGB" disinfo / deception op?

James, With all due respect, do you think "dental sealant" should have its own special category, all by it widdle self? How many other special categories do you think there should there be on that limited-space-for-writing form? (LOL) -- Tommy

Why does the so-called Mitrokhin Archive say the dean of JFK assassination researchers, Mark Lane (RIP), was paid by the KGB to debunk the Warren Commission Report? 1) Because it's "true," and "goes to show" that back in the 1960s, progressive-minded humanists in the Kremlin were seriously interested in seeing that Oswald be exonerated, the Far Right and the CIA be implicated, and that "justice be done" in the good ol' U.S.A. 2) Because The Mitrokhin Archive was a vicious and elaborate CIA fabrication created in order to cast aspersions on Left-leaning JFK Assassination researchers. 3) Because TMA was a clever KGB/FSB strategic deception operation full of minor revelations and gross misinformation, calculated to sow confusion and dissention among JFK, MLK, and RFK Assassination researchers. From John Simkin's Spartacus Blog, "The KGB and Martin Luther King": "[The Mitrokhin Archive says that the] KGB also arranged for Mark Lane to receive $1,500 to help his research. However, the document makes it clear that Lane was not told the source of the money. The same person arranged for Lane to receive $500 to help pay for a trip in Europe in 1964. KGB agent, Genrikh Borovik, was also assigned to help Lane with his research for Rush to Judgement(1965)." -- Tommy PS I say the answer to the question is number 3). What say you?

Sandy, I wrote: (Are you trying to prove) that neither those nice KGB Ruskies, who installed expendable, blackmail-able, "useful idiot" Donald Trump as our president, nor Fidel Castro, who hated both Khrushchev and Kennedy, killed Kennedy, but that your favorite punching bag, the evil, evil, evil CIA dood da deed? LOL (You really disappoint me, you "genius," you.) -- Tommy " ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- With all due respect ... belongs on another thread? How so? By the way, you haven't proved jack you-know-what. -- Tommy PS Greg Parker's explanation for the notations on that form / those forms is eminently logical and understandable. Perhaps you should give up and start concentrating on Gloria Calvery, again. More your cup of tea, one would think.

Sandy, With all due respect, what are you trying to prove? That neither those nice KGB Ruskies (who installed expendable, blackmail-able, "useful idiot" Donald Trump as our president) nor Fidel Castro (who hated both Khrushchev and Kennedy) killed Kennedy, but that your favorite punching bag, the evil, evil, evil CIA dood da deed? LOL (You really disappoint me, you "genius," you.) -- Tommy

James, With all due respect, you don't believe that a young Russian-speaking Hungarian boy (who grew up to speak the English language better than most college graduates, grammar-wise) and his mother were chosen by the evil CIA to participate in a double-double doppelganger "Oswald Project" (aka "Harvey and Lee and Two Marguerites - One Smiling, One Not") with another boy and his mother, which project culminated in the assassination of JFK? -- Tommy PS Where's your cheerleader tonight?

Well spoken, Michael. (Although I personally would have said "more kooky" rather than "more kookier," but hey, nobody's perfect.) -- Tommy PS Watch him come back now and say we're ganging up on him.

James, With all due respect, don't you believe in Harvey and Lee?? -- Tommy

Paul, How do we know that Oswald visited the Soviet embassy on Friday, September 27, and Saturday, September 28 (according to Nechiporenko, Yatskov, and ... (gasp) ... Kostikov), and on Sunday, September 29 (according to thin, short, Blond-haired, blue-eyed, very thin-faced, 30 year-old KGB "diplomat" Nilolai Leonov)? Because they said so? -- Tommy

Greg, Excellent, rational, easy-to-understand explanation. Thanks! (Sometimes it almost seems to me as though Putin sent Hargrove, Larsen, Josephs, DiEugenio, et al., here (plus a cheerleader) to deflect the attention of serious students away from more important issues than the absurd "Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites" Theory.) -- Tommy PS IMHO, Josephs sounds particularly desperate! (I guess he doesn't know what a mild Southern "twang," covered by "sum Bwonks," sounds like in New Joisey or Mary-land, or wherever.) Way too much ear-splitting noiv-vus laff-tah!

Bill, Thank you! -- Tommy PS Although you and I appear to have arrived at different "tentative conclusions" (yours less tentative and flexible than mine, I'm afraid), I do believe that it's very important for every "researcher" and serious student of the assassination to read and re-read "State Secret." To help "connect some dots," if nothing else ...

Paul, With all due respect .... like, ... DiEugenio (and cheerleader), and Josephs, et al., aren't just a widdle bit insulting from time-to-time towards members who have the temerity to disagree with them when they rabidly proclaim that the evil, evil, evil CIA killed JFK? And it's okay for Bill Simpich to accuse me of "putting words in his mouth" when he hypocritically turns around and does the same thing, by omission, to me? (sigh) Regardless, do you have anything intelligent to add to this thread, Maestro? -- Tommy

A question for Bill Simpich. Bill, why do you say "Soviet Union (sic) section (sic), Pete Bagley -- Angleton's man" ? Do you not realize that CIA's Soviet Russia Division-Counterintelligence department was independent of Angleton's Counterintelligence Staff? Do you not realize that Angleton and Bagley disagreed from time to time? Have you not read Bagleys 2007 book "Spy Wars" (nor his follow-up PDF, "Ghosts of the Spy Wars" (2015))? -- Tommy

edited a teensy weensy bit and bumped, with this addition: Neck Scratcher (Morales?) can be seen ... uh ... scratching his neck ... at 3:57 of this Black Op Radio video. ( Hint: He's the only guy scratching his neck. At ... uh ... 3:57 ) -- Tommy

Bill, With all due respect, ... insults? What insults? It's okay for you to accuse me of "putting words in your mouth" when you, by a very "clever" process-of-omission, do that to me? Over the past year or so I've posted several times on this forum the words that Duran and Azcue used to describe "The Oswald Impostor" (or, as I'm coming to prefer, "The Invisible Impostor"). Duran: He was blond (haired), he was about the same short height as my 5' 3.5", and he had small blue eyes. Azcue: He was about thirty years-old, he was thin, he was blond or dark-blond (haired, obviously), he was very thin-faced, and he was wearing a blue suit (the jacket of which had a pattern of crossed lines and some kind of reddish highlights). Yet you have the gall to more-or-less accuse me in your earlier post of relying on (the only?) "three things" that Duran and Azcue said about "The Oswald Impostor" (or, as mentioned above, the concept I'm coming to prefer -- "The Invisible Impostor") which suggest, to me at least, that they were obviously talking about KGB "diplomat" Nikolai Leonov? I.E., that he was 1) shortish, 2) he had "lighter-than-jet-black-hair," and 3) he was wearing, according to Azcue, a "Prince of Wales" suit. (Which "diplomat"-like suit Azcue didn't specifically identify as a "Prince of Wales" suit, but fashion-conscious investigators and ... (gulp) ... lawyers probably correctly realized that that was exactly what Eusebio had been trying to describe.) Regarding your comment that "Castro and Angleton got hung out to dry -- just like Oswald did," -- hung out to dry by whom, Bill? That evil, evil, evil James Jesus Angleton, himself? By that incorrigible neck scratcher, David Sanchez Morales? Bill Harvey? Bill Bright? Or is it more likely that Castro "patsied" (Khrushchev's) KGB and (Kennedy's) CIA? (Oh yeah, and Oswald, too?) -- Tommy PS How does one describe a person (for whom another person goes to great lengths to point out, from a distance, somebody that's hard to "spot" in an Internet video) who cannot bring himself to say, even in a very private Personal Message, "Okay, thanks, Tommy. NOW I see who you're talking about"? "Just way too busy, busy, busy, busy ..."? or "Ingrate researcher who is loathe to acknowledge the possible discovery by another so-called "researcher" of something which might help him or her to 'connect the dots' in his or her 'grand theory,' even though said "teensy weensy putative widdle contribution" had come from someone who still, at that time, basically agreed with Head Honcho Researcher that the evil, evil, evil CIA MUST have killed JFK?" PPS The above words in lavender represent what I consider to be "advocate-words," in so many ... uh ... words.

Bill, With all due respect, maybe you haven't had time to read all of my posts. (You never were able to follow my instructions for spotting "Neck Scratcher" / possible David Sanchez Morales in the heavily segmented James Doyle film. Just too rushed to give it another shot after you'd confused "Neck Scratcher" for another gray-suit-wearing guy, I guess.) I also speculate that not only did Oswald not go to Mexico City, but that nobody at all impersonated him at the Cuban consulate. It's possible that both Duran and Azcue were forced, not by the evil, evil, evil CIA, but by the Mexican Police and / or that very nice man, Fidel Castro, to describe "him" like Nikolai Leonov. -- Tommy And not only that, Bill, but you're either not a very thorough reader or, you've got a poor memory, or you're being a little... (gasp) ... intellectually dishonest here. In your post you said that I only "have" three things which suggest that the impersonator (or the non-existent impersonator; see above) was Leonov: 1) he was described by Azcue as wearing a blue suit (with some kind of hard-to-describe lined pattern in the jacket, and with reddish highlights), 2) that he was short, and 3) that he was blond-haired (blond-haired, Bill, otherwise why would Azcue have described "him" as being "blond or dark-blond"?). I have pointed out several times on this forum that Duran not only said, in so many words, that "he" was quite short (and blond (haired),of course), but that "he" had blue eyes (despite what Webster-like physical characteristics Fain and Bright managed to slip into Oswald's files, you and I both know that Oswald didn't have blue eyes), and that Azcue said that he was about thirty years of age, that he was thin, and that he had a very thin face. But I guess you missed all of that several times, huh? Or maybe you just don't remember? PS Oh yeah. And that "diplomat"-like blue suit. With the pattern of crossed lines and the reddish highlights and all ... -- Tommy

Nice catch, Len! Hmm... Wonder if it traces back to Russia? -- Tommy

James, With all due respect, are you admitting that you used to take me seriously? You mean, you mean, you mean ... back in the day when I, too, thought the evil, evil, evil CIA had killed Kennedy, and was already pointing out the alarming number of factual errors and logical fallacies you tend to make in your posts? -- Tommy PS Did you vote for Donald Trump, James? If not, would you vote for him now, seeing as how he's "pivoted" away from being "Anti-Swamp" and is now, like you, rabidly anti-"Deep State" (or anti-"Military Industrial Intelligence Complex," or some-such-thing), and he's refusing to enforce the new sanctions against Russia for invading Ukraine and for hacking our election (you do agree that Putin hacked our election, don't you, James, or do you prefer to go with Binney and Assange on that one?), and because he's supporting "Poison Gasser" Assad? Etc, etc? Anybody but Hillary, right, James?

Sandy "Brainwashed by 90-plus Years of Soviet/Russian Active Measures, Interwoven With 58 Years of Operational Deception Ops" Larsen, Hey! Maybe Leonov was impersonating his own impersonator! Or maybe "Leon" was the cover name for Henry Harvey Lee Oswald. You know, of the "Harvey and Lee and Henry, Too" Theory? -- Tommy PS How was the evil, evil, evil CIA going to "associate" Lee Harvey Oswald with Nikolai Leonov to make their evil, evil, evil plan work, Sandy? Photograph them holding hands and sharing an icecream cone at the Sunday afternoon bullfights? Photographing them doing "The Nudie Boody Twist" together at Duran's party? Come up with an old Civil Air Patrol photo showing Ferrie, Lee, AND "Leon"? A hot-off-the-press CIA photo showing Leonov handing Oswald a parcel full of curtain rods?

Sandy "Brainwashed by 90-plus Years of Soviet/Russian Active Measures, Interwoven With 58 Years of Operational Deception Ops" Larsen, Hey, maybe those two 10/02/63 Mexico City CIA photos of "Leon" were of CIA's Leonov look-alike! (LOL) -- Tommy PS Please explain to me again how CIA's implicating KGB "diplomat" Nikolai Leonov as the 9/27/63 impersonator of Lee Harvey Oswald would have helped CIA achieve its goal of killing JFK and/or covering up in role in that ugly business? I thought evil, evil CIA wanted to blame the shooting on Oswald.

Dear Sandy "Brainwashed by 90-plus Years of Soviet/Russian Active Measures, Interwoven With 58 Years of Operational Deception Ops" Larsen, What purpose would it have served CIA to have someone who looked so unlike Oswald impersonate Oswald? Why would CIA have wanted to implicate KGB "diplomat" Leonov in particular? -- Tommy

Yes, it has, -- Tommy

Sandy, With all due respect, in my ever-evolving "theory" I think it was probably the other way around. I think it's possible that Castro (who, in late 1961, had publicly excoriated Khruschev for withdrawing the missiles without consulting with Fidel, and who knew that the brothers Kennedy were trying to invade again and/or kill him) set THEM up, or at least their respective intelligence services, by forcing Duran and Azcue to describe "Oswald" like Leonov, and by having one of his (Castro's) Russian-and-English-speaking agents call the Soviet Embassy on 9/28 (with help from Duran), and on 10/01 (the "Kostikov call"), thereby setting off a mole hunt (or giving invigorated impetus to an ongoing one) by CIA which ended up appearing to implicate CIA in the assassination. How else to explain Duran's telling DFS and the HSCA after the assassination that Invisible Oswald -- ("invisible" because nobody physically impersonated Oswald on 9/27/63 -- that part of the story was made up out of thin air) -- was quite short, blond, and blue-eyed (just like KGB "diplomat" Nikolai Leonov), and for Cuban Consul Eusebio Azcue's describing the same 9/27/63 invisible troublemaker as being "30 years old, blond or dark-blond, blue-suited, thin (i.e., skinny), and very thin-faced"? How many people matching THAT description do you think were walking around Mexico City, Sandy? Do you think Duran and Azcue described "Oswald" as some short-statured, blond-haired, very thin-faced dude to implicate some short, thin-faced albino working in the circus, or that CIA, knowing full well that real-deal Oswald was 23 years old, 5' 9.5", approximately 140 pounds, brown-haired, and not particularly thin-faced, would send to Mexico City somebody matching what was basically Nikolai Leonov's description in order to impersonate Oswald? Really? -- Tommy

"I remember Duran saying she thought the man they saw was short - I remember Azuce saying he was wearing a blue Prince of Wales suit. Is that the kind of suit Leonov was wearing?" -- Simpich In 1978, Duran implied that "Oswald" (or "Invisible Oswald," if no one at all impersonated Oswald face-to-face on Friday, September 27) was real short when she said that he was about the same height as her (she was 5' 3.5"). She also said that he was blond-haired. In 193, she told DFS agents that the dude had blue eyes. (Leonov, whom I believe is still alive, has blue eyes.) As you know, Azcue described him as being about 30 years old, as wearing a Prince of Wales suit that was basically blue with some "reddish" in it," as having blond or dark-blond hair, and as having a very thin face. As you know, Leonov was at that time a suit-wearing, thirty year-old, very short (5' 7"), thin (see photo, below), blond-haired, very thin-faced KGB colonel with "Third Secretary" diplomatic cover in Mexico City. A "Prince of Wales" suit is all about the distinctive, small-check pattern of the jacket, not the cut of the jacket per se. Can you prove from those two lousy, not-very-close-in CIA photos that Leonov wasn't wearing a jacket with small checks and wide-spaced, narrow, reddish "highlight" stripes on October 2, 1963, Bill? Note: Prince of Wales jackets often have "highlight" stripes in them that are of a different color than the basic color of the jacket. Here's Azcue's HSCA testimony: Mr. PREYER. Well, in the photographs on the application, and also in the passport, Oswald appears to have on a tie and a sweater. How was he dressed when he came to the Embassy, to the consulate? Senor AZCUE. I always imagine him or visualize him as wearing a suit, coat and pants, trousers, with a pattern of crossed lines, not very clear design. Blue, some reddish. I never conceived of him or visualized him wearing a light sweater. When I saw this photograph in April of this year, I also noticed that the clothing he was wearing was not the same. Mr. PREYER. So that the clothing he was wearing in the photographs was not similar to that which he was wearing when he actually visited you in the Embassy. Senor AZCUE. I am almost in a position to assure that. Mr. PREYER. When he returned with the photographs and with his application, visa application form, and his passport pictures, would you have looked at the pictures on the visa application and on the passport? Senor AZCUE. No, I did not see the photograph, nor did I witness the preparation of the form. I did not see the photograph at that time. I only saw this photograph last April, when they came to Cuba. Mr. PREYER. So that at the time of processing his visa and the passport, you never looked at the photographs, you never compared them with the Man standing before you. Senor AZCUE. No, I was never present during the preparation of this form nor of the affixing of the photograph. (The applications were signed by the new consul, Miribal, whom Leonov was still training.) -- Tommy