Thomas Graves

Wake up, Neo something or other. PS I assume your response means that you can't explain those two things ...

Cliff, I agree that it ended up being a big "nothing burger." But the way it was closed down in July and then reopened about ten days before the election it was, with all the fake news (Russian, as it turns out) going on in social media, very damaging to Hillary Clinton's chances of being elected, wouldn't you agree? https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-a-dubious-russian-document-influenced-the-fbis-handling-of-the-clinton-probe/2017/05/24/f375c07c-3a95-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.22e4f756f91c -- Tommy PS I voted for her. Is that "politically acceptable" on this forum? Or should I be banned, again? LOL

Davis, With all due respect, sorry, but I don't have a full-blown Trejo-like theory for you. But don't you find it interesting that Duran and Azcue (and especially Azcue) described the person who did, or did not, visit them on Friday, September 27 in such a way that so closely resembled the English and Spanish-speaking, suit-wearing KGB "diplomat" Nikolai Leonov? (Who, ironically, was caught on film down there on October 2, one day after the mysterious "Kostikov" phone call.) And don't you find it interesting that many years later, Leonov thought that it was so important to dissociate himself from the real or imagined Oswald impersonator role that he (effectively) contradicted his Mexico City KGB colleagues by claiming that HE alone had met one-one-one with the very same emotional-and-pistol-brandishing Oswald on Sunday, September 29? So, a question for you now, David. Will you be able to incorporate these facts into your grand, all-inclusive theory, or will you, like Bill Simpich, have to end up brushing the Duran and Azcue dealie off as a "red herring"? A "red herring" thrown out into the middle of the street by whom, and for what purpose, David? -- Tommy

Okay, Paz Marverde's entire post consisted of two short sentences: 1 ) "Nothing to add." 2 ) "KGB had NOTHING to do with the plot." Fearless Leader James DiEugenio gallantly replied: "Correct Paz. But somehow that is not important" (i.e., to me, Thomas Graves/ aka "Tommy" / "Tom" / "Graves" / or even DiEugenio's slightly dehumanizing and dismissive "TG") Question for Fearless Leader James DiEugenio: How do you know that the KGB had nothing to do with the assassination of JFK? Is that what Julian Assange, Oliver Stone, or Vladimir Putin, himself, told you, James? Or is it that you actually believed false defector Yuri Noskenko when he said that he had personally handled Oswald's KGB file three times (lol), and that Oswald was so crazy and dangerous-looking that KGB hadn't even interviewed or monitored him during the two and one-half years he lived in Minsk (not far, strangely enough, from a KGB training school)? Hmm? -- Tommy

James, With all due respect (LOL), the post by Paz that I "overreacted to" was, iirc, the one in which she wrote two short sentences. (Maybe you missed that one.) Which one are YOU referring to? -- Tommy

David "Arcane and Hard-to-Follow" Josephs, With all due respect, if I were to read WHAT description? I honestly don't understand if you're agreeing with me that Oswald and Leonov looked very different from each other, or if you're disagreeing with me on that point. Regardless, do you always have to write in an arcane, minimalist / modernistic-poetry-kind-of way (in which the reader has to try to "fill in the blanks" to make sense out of it) whenever you are (evidently) disagreeing with me about something? Although I suppose in a way I should be flattered, shouldn't I. For you seem to assume that I'm ... like ...really, really intelligent and / or that I can read your incredibly brilliant mind or something. Or is that another "5-yard penalty" in-an-of-itself? LOL -- Tommy

Bill, With all due respect (and with you I really do mean that)... Thanks! -- Tommy Initial comment: Isn't it logical to assume that the "SR" they're talking about was, in reality, the separate division in the CIA known at that time as "Soviet Russia Division," the name of which was later changed to "Soviet Block Division"? Which separate division had its own Counterintelligence Department or Section (think my personal hero Tennent H. Bagley, et al.)?

edited a widdle bit and bumped

David, With all due respect, you really are too arcane and hard to follow when you get upset. "worried" ? "the reaction" ? "conspiracy" ? "Russians ..." ? "Cold War is over .... Remember?" ? What in the world are you referring to? Regardless, wanna get all defensive and insulting and get kicked off the forum, again? I certainly hope not, because believe it or not, you DO have a lot to offer. Sometimes.

David, With all due respect (and with apologies to LHO) -- "Your the genius detective, Josephs. YOU figure it out." And while you're at it, give a plausible explanation for Duran's and Azcue's collectively describing ... -- Tommy Btw, have those probable coincidences and unexplanable anomalies (whatever it is you're referring to here) been proved to have been part-and-parcel of the evil, evil, evil CIA's conspiracy? You know, "altering the wounds," the fifteen caskets, "the phony x-rays," "the missing x-rays," the really, really, really suspicious radio transmissions --- those sorts of things? Or will I have to read "Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites" to understand it all?

David, With all due respect: 1) Are you talking to me? 2) "Verifiable evidence" regarding WHAT in my posts? That Leonov really was only 5' 7"? That he had blonde hair and blue eyes? That he had a very thin face? That Golitsyn was a flawed true defector and Nosenko was a flawed false defector? That the Soviets/Russians have been waging highly-sophisticated active measures counterintelligence operations against us and our allies (and against Nazi Germany before and during WW II) for 90-plus years, artfully interwoven with 58 years of highly-sophisticated Second Chief Directore Department 14 "operational deception" (aka "strategic deception") ops*** ? (Don't take it from me, David, just read that evil, evil, evil Tennent Bagley's "Spy Wars," and his follow-up PDF "Ghosts of the Spy Wars.") -- Tommy *** The biggest and most dramatic example of which, imho, may very well have been The Assassination Of JFK, followed closely by Putin's installation of his blackmail-able "useful idiot" Donald James Trump as our president? And why would he do that? Install Trump, that is? Well, to tear this country apart, by golly!

Paz, With all due respect, do YOU have anything to add to this thread? A thread, by the way, that your colleague James DiEugenio went out of his way to create for widdle old me on which to expound my theories about the evil, evil, evil KGB and the JFK assassination, so that I might cease and desist from "trying to hijack" his own precious "DiEugenio Slams The Washington Post" or somesuchthing thread? In short, are you trying to hijack or disrupt this thread by diverting attention away from my (usually) thoughtful, time-consuming posts with your smiley faces and your absolutely incredibly informative and insightful two-liners, like -- "Nothing to add. KGB had NOTHING to do with the plot"? Shall I bring your recent posts like these to the attention of the moderators? Or would you care to expound a bit on your statement, i.e., "KGB had NOTHING to do with the plot" ? You know, try to refute my posts or whatever, with some verifiable evidence (whatever THAT is)? You know, that sort of thing? You know, to make you look like a serious member of this forum, and not just like some DiEugenio sycopant, or a "The Evil, Evil, Evil CIA Killed Kennedy" cheerleader, or a witting or unwitting ... gasp ... "Russian t-r-o-l-l," or something? I mean, I mean, I mean ... -- Tommy

bumped -- Tommy

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

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 "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?

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

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 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' ...

James, You wrote: "But I am sure TG will show us how the KGB infiltrated CBS and was the real cause behind Salant, Stanton, and Paley turning around Midgley and Schorr. Or why, maybe Salant was a KGB double agent. And Golitsin told the CIA about him." With all due respect, I have no idea what you're talking about, but I must say that your cynical denigration of Golitsyn leads me to say that it's a pity you apparently have neither the gonads, the intellectual honesty, nor the inquisitiveness to read Tennent H. Bagley's 2007 book "Spy Wars," and his 2015 follow-up PDF, "Ghosts of the Spy Wars." For if you were to buck up sufficient courage to do so, you would realize that Anatoliy Golitsyin was a flawed true defector, and Yuri Nosenko was a flawed false defector, and that the latter was sent to the U.S. to cast doubt on the leads to moles and Ruskie spies the former was giving to U.S. counterintelligence, and to try to convince those agencies that the KGB had had absolutely nothing to do with Lee Harvey Oswald, a former Marine radar operator who had recently worked with the super-secret U-2 spy plane, during the two and one-half years Oswald had lived in the USSR. https://archive.org/details/SpyWarsMolesMysteriesAndDeadlyGames http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362 Your refusal to do so, considered in the light of your prodigious writing and posting and speaking and so forth and so on ... and, of course, the resultant "oodles and gobs" of devout followers that you surely must have after all these years of "so forth and so on" ... reminds me of that famous painting by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, "The Blind Leading the Blind." (Either that, or his equally wonderful, "Tower of Babel.") -- Tommy

Douglas, Thank you for posting this. 'Tis interesting truly patriotic stuff on your part, indeed, and I suspect that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has paid, or is paying, close attention to it. -- Tommy

James, With all due respect, who is "TG"? Tim Gratz? -- Tommy PS It's a pity your name isn't Billy Mangross, or Bob Miller, or Bobo Martinelli, or some such thing. The initials would be perfect! PPS Why would early, "golden" Golitsyn say such a stupid thing? (You are aware, aren't you, that Golitsyn helped the evil, evil, evil CIA and FBI to uncover several active moles and Ruskie spies, both in the U.S. and abroad, whereas your hero, fake defector Yuri Nosenko, didn't do squat in that regard?)

Michael, With all due respect ... what a load of crap. -- Tommy

With all due respect, Comrade, Given what's going on nowadays, what Hennelly and Policoff "anayzed," above, sounds more like a highly successful, interwoven, long-term "active measures" and "strategic deception" Ruskie Job. -- Tommy PS: Mark Lane? You mean the guy who "unwittingly" accepted funding from an organ of the CPUSA? Making him a "useful idiot" of the KGB, at best?

Sandy, With all due respect, does Greg's observation that there are two different handwritings (indicating two different dentists and/or dental technicians) on the form have any bearing on this discussion? I mean, I mean, I mean ... in your "genius opinion"? -- Tommy

Douglas, Thanks for posting this fascinating article last March about Donald Trump's former campaign manager. -- Tommy