Thomas Graves

Paul, I'm on my android right now (seriously), so it's a little awkward for me to look up. Sounds interesting, though. How does it grade out on https://mediabiasfactcheck.com ? -- Tommy

Dear Paul, So I take it you're not going to substantively address the questions, comments, and suggestions in my last post. For example, have you found any "High Factual-Reporting" news sources, (regardless of their Left or Right or Centrist biased-ness) that YOU like on that, IMHO, very useful website: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com ? -- Tommy

Chris, How do you like the idea that LHO didn't go to the Cuban Consulate *or* to the Soviet Embassy, but that Leonov went to the former to tell Duran and Azcue what was "goin' down" with the "joint op", and while he was there told them, "Aw, what the heck -- go ahead and describe him like me -- that'll confuse the non-rogue dudes at the CIA REAL good!" -- Tommy PS What do you suppose Trejo means by "the Leonov theory of the JFK assassination"?

Douglas, Basically true but maybe with a little "Left-Biased" with "Mixed" factual reporting RAW STORY hyperbole thrown in? https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/raw-story/ Thanks for posting it, BTW. Hadn't heard about it yet. -- Tommy

Copied and pasted here from Jon Simkin's excellent "Sylvia Duran and Lee Harvey Oswald" thread. My questions and comments are in red. -- Tommy One of the most interesting aspects of Jeff Morley’s book, “Our Man in Mexico”, is his account of Sylvia Duran, a Mexican employee in the Cuban consulate in Mexico City. Are the following your paraphrased extracts, Mr. Simkin, or were they "lifted" from the book? [5/21/17 edit: note the quotation marks] At 11.00 a.m. on Friday, 27th September, 1963, Oswald told Duran that he wished to travel to the Soviet Union via Cuba. Duran told him that he would need a passport photograph to apply for a visa for Cuba. He returned an hour later with the photograph. Duran then told him he would need to visit the Soviet embassy to get the necessary paperwork. This he did but Vice Consul Oleg Nechiperenko [Don't mean to nitpick, but weren't Kostikov and Yatskov allegedly with Nechiporenko at the time?] informed him that the visa application would be sent to the Soviet embassy in Washington and would take about four months. Oswald then returned to the Cuban consulate at 4.00 and lied to Duran about his meeting with Nechiperenko. Duran checked Oswald’s story on the phone [with Kostikov, right?] and after a brief argument he left the consulate. Six times Oswald needed to pass the newly installed LIERODE camera [Weren't they having technical problems with that camera at the time? Wasn't that particular camera installed on 9/27/63?]. The CIA surveillance program worked and on Monday, 30th September, Anne Goodpasture recorded details of Oswald’s visits to the Cuban consulate. As Goodpasture noted, the two types of “security” information that most interested the CIA station concerned “U.S. citizens initiating or maintaining contact with the Cuban and Soviet diplomatic installations” and “travel to Cuba by U.S. citizens or residents.” (page 182) The CIA tape of the Oswald call was marked “urgent” and was delivered to the station within 15 minutes of it taking place. Win Scott read Goodpasture’s report and next to the transcript of Duran’s call to the Soviet embassy, he wrote: “Is it possible to identify”. It later emerged that the CIA station in Mexico was already monitoring Sylvia Duran. According to David Phillips and Win Scott, the CIA surveillance program had revealed that Duran was having an affair with Carlos Lechuga, the former Cuban ambassador in Mexico City, who was in 1963 serving as Castro’s ambassador to the United Nations. We also now know that Lechuga was involved in the secret negotiations with Lisa Howard on behalf of JFK. Soon after the assassination of JFK Win Scott contacted Luis Echeverria and asked his men to arrest Sylvia Duran. He also told Diaz Ordaz that Duran was to be held incommunicado until she gave all details of her contacts with Oswald. Scott then reported his actions to CIA headquarters. Soon afterwards, John Whitten, the CIA head of the Mexican desk, called Scott with orders from Tom Karamessines that Duran was not to be arrested. Win told them it was too late and that the Mexican government would keep the whole thing secret. Karamessines replied with a telegram that began: “Arrest of Sylvia Duran is extremely serious matter which could prejudice U.S. freedom of action on entire question of Cuban responsibility.” What did Karamessines mean by this? [Good question!] Why [or what?] did he not want the Mexicans to find out? What we do know is that John Whitten was also surprised by Karamessines’ order and initially opposed sending the message to Scott. Duran, her husband and five other people were arrested. Duran was “interrogated forcefully” (Duran was badly [How badly? Really badly? -(lol)] bruised during the interview). Echeverria reported to Scott that Duran had been “completely cooperative” and had made a detailed statement. This statement matched the story of the surveillance transcripts, with one exception. The tapes indicated that Duran made another call to the Soviet embassy on Saturday, 28th September. Duran then put an American on the line who spoke incomprehensible [ I thought it was just "nearly incomprehensible" ] Russian. This suggests that the man could not have been Oswald who spoke the language well. Duran was released but was then rearrested and questioned about her relationship with Oswald. Despite being roughed up she denied having a sexual relationship with Oswald. Echeverria believed her and she was released. However, Duran later admitted to a close friend that she had dated Oswald while he was in Mexico City. A week after the assassination Elena Garro reported that she had seen Oswald at a party held by people from the Cuban consulate in September 1963. The following week, June Cobb, a CIA informant, confirmed Oswald presence at the party. She also had been told that Oswald was sleeping with Duran. Win Scott reported this information to CIA headquarters but never got a reply. (page 241) Why did the CIA want Sylvia Duran kept out of this story? One released document reveals that a Mexican source on the CIA payroll suggested that it would be very easy to recruit Duran as a spy. (page 210) Did Karamessines via Phillips recruit Duran as a spy? If so, Win Scott and John Whitten were kept out of the loop. Why? Was there an unofficial CIA operation involving Duran and Oswald? To be more correct, someone posing as Oswald. [Edit: Or maybe Oswald didn't even go to Mexico City, but some intel ops by the U.S., the U.S.S.R. and / or Mexico and Cuba were "piggybacked" on each other in such a way that "required" an imaginary Oswald to be there?] It later emerged that when Duran was interviewed by the Mexican authorities soon after the assassination she described the man who visited the Cuban consul's office as being "blond-haired" and with "blue or green eyes" [Hmm .. Just like Nikolai Leonov!]. Neither detail fits in with the authentic Oswald. But these details had been removed from the statement by the time it reached the Warren Commission. [Are transcripts of the Mexican interrogations available to us? IDK, but I rather doubt it.] Duran was interviewed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978. This testimony is classified. However, in 1979 Duran told the author, Anthony Summers that she told the HSCA that the man who visited the office was about her size (5 feet 3.5 inches). [Holy Toledo! What a coincidence! Blond-haired, blue-eyed Leonov was only 5' 6" ! ] This created problems as Oswald was 5 feet 9.5 inches. When Summers showed Duran a film of Oswald taken at the time of his arrest, Duran said: "The man on the film is not like the man I saw here in Mexico City." Win Scott died on 26th April, 1971, while he was negotiating with the CIA about publishing his memoirs that included an account of Oswald’s time in Mexico. Scott told Helms that he would not be talked out of publishing the book. When Anne Goodpasture heard the news of Scott’s death she went straight to Jim Angleton’s office [I'm probably wrong, but wasn't Goodpasture in Mexico City at the time?] to tell him that Scott had classified documents in his home safe (Scott had tapes and photos of Oswald). Angleton went straight to Mexico City and took control of this material). -- Tommy

Bumping this thread

Sandy, Yep. Good post. -- Tommy

David, No one was punished. That must confirm it, then. -- Tommy PS As regards who killed JFK, I'm looking neither high nor low, but probably somewhere in the middle. Oh yeah, and the Ruskies, too, as in --- also. And I'm looking really high there.

bumping this thread

Dear Paul, What's "a minefield"? Don't know who the hell to trust, but you're already convinced that the U.S. is an evil, evil country and the Ruskies are the good guys? (lol) Maybe you're what I consider to be "Alt Left", in which case I guess it's fair for me to assume you've been led to believe that the United States government and foreign policy is controlled by the evil, evil, evil, evil "MilitaryIndustrialntelligence Complex", whereas Russia's government and foreign policy are incredibly benign by comparison. Are you highly skeptical of "Main Stream Media" like "Left-Center Bias" with "High Factual Reporting" Washington Post , New York Times , CNN , PBS? If that's the case, then IMHO there's no hope for you, and there's no need for us to continue this conversation. Suggestion: Why don't you go back to mediabiasfactcheck.com and click on the category "LEFT Bias" (not just "Left-Center"), go to that page, and click on them one-by-one to see which ones are rated as having "High" factual reporting. Maybe those will be more palatable to you. -- Tommy

bumped I still think "Neck Scratcher" Morales was captured in James Doyle's film while monitoring (or mentoring?) LHO in New Orleans on 8/09/63. Comments? -- Tommy PS Too bad Bill looked at the wrong guy when I tried to point him out to him in the video. I don't see what's so hard about it. After all, there's only one guy in the film who's scratching his neck, and right in front of the camera!

bumping this thread kinda awkwardly

And there's always this old standby.

I'm bumping this thread because it ties in with the "Tom Dooley" thread. -- Tommy

And then there's this one.

My Dad (R.I.P.) told me about 55 years ago that Dr. Tom Dooley visited our apartment / house? in San Diego / La Jolla? when I was an infant (around 1950 -1951) and held me "in his arms". My Dad had been a M.A.S.H.-like Navy eye surgeon (attached to 1st Marine Division) in the Korean War (he was eventually transferred to a hospital in Japan where he had better operating conditions), and I guess he met Dooley there (in Korea or Japan). I don't remember the details now. Just bragging some more, of course, but it's true. -- Tommy

Bet ya can't listen to it just once! -- Tommy

bumped click on the curved "go back arrow" lurking in the upper right-hand corner by the "share" icon to see the post it's replying to

IMHO, that's one of the sixty-four thousand dollar questions, folks. That, and why Duran's description of the "Blond Oswald" she'd dealt with (or not dealt with) on 9/27/63 appeared to vary so much over the years, and why the combined description of the guy who had (or not) visited them on 9/27/63 so closely matched the description of KGB officer "Third Secretary" Nikolai Leonov? Man, that's like $192,000 altogether if my "maths" is correct. -- Tommy

edited a little and bumped for comments

bumped

bumped for Mr. Simpkin

Michael, It's not a "threat" for the simple reason that it's something that I've already done. I suppose "a heads up" would be a better way for you to put it. Shall I try to copy-and-paste a copy of it to you via PM? Look at it this way -- It could be the beginning of a wonderful "relationship"! -- Thomas

Michael, I should warn you, I suppose, that about an hour ago I sent a longish post to Kathy Beckett regarding your goading behavior ever since the infamous "Nice post, Toomy" incident (which itself is "water under the bridge" as far as I'm concerned). My offer still stands. We can converse civilly by PM (or insult each other by PM -- whichever you prefer), but I would prefer that you cease and desist trying to disrupt and / or "hide" so many of my posts with your, so-far IMHO shortish and inane, "replies". -- Thomas

Michael, If I, admittedly against the new Forum rule, "bump" my post to Mr. Simkin before the mandatory 24 hours have come-and-gone, will you once again cover it up with one of your little covering "posts"? -- Thomas