Thomas Graves

Jim, I don't mean to sound overly rude or insulting, but it appears to me that you're simply never going to be able (or willing) to understand what I've been trying to convey on this thread to you and other members, i.e., how impressive a grasp of English syntax, grammar, and vocabulary (but obviously not spelling or punctuation, both of which are totally unimportant, as far as speaking is concerned) your "Hungarian-born, Hungarian-learning, then Russian-learning, and finally English-learning, HARVEY Oswald" had. LOL Regarding your assertions that the different dialects the one-and-only Lee Harvey Oswald picked up while living in different parts of the country somehow suggest the existence of two Oswald boys who were confused for each other over the years by different witnesses, or that the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald's losing (By golly, there it is again! -- that unmistakable indicator of Tommy's superior English grammar skills -- his applying (OMG!, I can't believe it! Lightening strikes twice in the same sentence!) the rule "The Gerund Takes The Possessive Form Of The Pronoun"), LHO's losing, I say again, one of those dialects due to the smothering effects of a radically-different regional dialect that he naturally "picks up" while living in said different region, as well as the fact that many people become self conscious, and are even picked on, for having a strong regional dialect when the move to a different part of the country, and therefore make a conscious effort to "lose" said embarrassing-for-them dialect. -- Tommy PS You never answered the question I asked you some time ago: What foreign language did YOU learn in high school? Or did you go to a trade school or some such place that didn't require you to learn a foreign language (or at least "give it a shot")? FWIW, mine was Spanish. Adios.

At the top of "document page" 83 is the most interesting sentence of all in the three-page Church Committee document I've been talking about. "Angleton again mentioned the double agent to Mexico -- in complex with Leanovov (phonetic)." (Which conjures up in my mind Leonov's 1993 statement to National Enquirer magazine that Oswald showed up at the Soviet Embassy unannounced, anxious, and with his revolver, on Sunday, September 29, and met inside the embassy with only him, i.e., KGB officer Nikolai Leonov, the guy who had turned young Raul Castro onto Communism in 1953 and 1955. The very next sentence is interesting, too. "Angleton then mentioned the threat by Castro against the President." http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1462#relPageId=82&tab=page -- Tommy

Sandy, That's interesting about Farsi being a relatively easy language to learn. Try learning Czech sometime. LOL Conversely, my Czech students seemed to have a hard time learning English grammar. One of my students (not a 16 year-old, but a PhD. in biochemistry, actually) who became my girlfriend, accused me one day of practically single handedly making the English language so gosh-darned "tense-heavy" and "hung up about time" (English has something like eighteen tenses whereas Czech has either three or five, depending on how you define "tense," I suppose). -- Tommy PS I know it's boring and perhaps difficult to get a "handle" on, but Oswald's writing (there I go again; notice the apostrophe "s"?): "my losing" instead of "me losing" simply "set in concrete" my already-firm conviction that he was a very good speaker of the English language (and writer, too, if you're willing to ignore, as I am,the relatively unimportant -- when contrasted with his obvious proficiency with grammar, syntax, and vocabulary -- spelling and punctuation errors), and therefore it's very unlikely, IMHO, that, since he was born in Hungary to Hungarian parents, he first learned a non-Indo-European Turkic language (Hungarian), then learned and mastered a highly-inflected Indo-European language (Russian) as a child (?), and then (as an adolescent-juvenile???) virtually mastered a different Indo-European language that not only has a lot more tenses than Russian, but which also requires strict adherence to "correct" word order (e.g., subject - verb - object; object, verb, subject), mastery of lots of highly-idiomatic phrasal verbs (which are non-existent in Slavic languages, btw), etc, etc, etc. But I'm gonna stop now, because I know you really aren't gonna accept what I've been trying to tell you about your "Harvey's" English language skills -- quitey high indeed -- and you'll fixate on his absolutely horrible spelling and punctuation instead of his mastery of the much more challenging grammar, syntax, and vocabulary aspects of the English language. Maybe it takes someone like me (or is it "I" ? -- LOL-- always had problems with that) -- someone who scored in the top 98th percentile in "Verbal Intelligence" on the 1965 or 1966 (can't remember if it was my sophomore or junior year) SAT -- someone who taught English in a Slavic country for seven years -- to realize just how good at English your "Harvey" really was. I give up. -- Tommy

Edit: I recently read a 1975 Church Committee document that said James Angleton, while being privately interviewed by two Church Committee members, voluntarily started talking about this photo, or one like it, because it shows KGB officer Nikolai Leonov with Castro. In the document, Leonov's name is spelled phonetically as "Leninoff" on "document page" 81, and as "Leanovov" and "Leninov" on "document page" 82. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1462#relPageId=81&tab=page Interestingly, on said MFF page 81, the report says Angleton was talking about two photos, a "Leninoff" photo and another photo, perhaps another one of him, the description of which (i.e., the second one) was apparently redacted with white-out in the report. In connection with the first photo, "Leninoff" is confusingly described by the person who wrote the report as a "Mexican KGB agent," and the photo was said to have been "found by the Mexican police." One wonders if either (or both) of the photos Angleton was talking about were was one or both of the 10/02/63 Mexico City CIA photos of Azcue's (highly probable, imho) "thin, blond, very thin-faced" Oswald impostor, which photos were labeled "Russian Male LEON" by the CIA. -- Tommy PS Please note that "the major defector" written about at the top of page 81 is, from context, Anatoliy Golitsyn, and that Yuri Nosenko's name is constantly misspelled "Nesanko," or some such thing.

I'm glad to hear that you've eliminated the janitors from consideration, at least for the time being.

The whole CIA, huh?

Sandy, Does your epiphany give you any clues as to who killed Kennedy, or are you resigned to the "National Security Deep State" way-of-thinking "fact" that it must have been the whole evil, evil, evil CIA that done the deed? -- Tommy

Who won the Second World War? Russia. And they're winning this one, too. IMHO -- Tommy

ok

Well, haven't you got any original ideas or theories? -- Tommy

There has been some speculation by serious, highly-regarded researchers (Simpich?) to the effect that one of the ostensible reasons Oswald was sent to Mexico City was to "feel out for defection" Azcue and / or Kostikov and / or Proenza, iirc. But we digress. How's the search of more typewritten-by-Ruthie letters coming along? -- Tommy

I may have conflated the TUMBLEWEED op with the Tilton - Anderson FPCC-discrediting op, or something that was piggybacked on it or being run against Azcue and / or Kostikov around the same time. Or maybe not -- Tommy

Edited, merged, bumped

Ice is nice and will suffice. TUMBLEWEED Going from memory here I swear just to try, like a fool, to impress you -- Buerbell (spelling?) ? Some Russian dude working at the U.N.? Something to do with trying to get Azcue and / or ..... to defect? I don't have a clue, really. Wasn't someone suspected of being a double agent? -- Tommy

Sandy, That's probably because oftentimes the infinitive (to walk, to eat, to stand, etc, etc, etc.) form of a verb can be substituted for a gerund, and when given this choice (in the proper syntactical situation -- the substitution doesn't always work), most people opt for the infinitive over the gerund because they're unsure which form of the pronoun they should use with that damned "-ing"-ending gerund thingy. Gerunds are used differently in different syntactical situations. But getting back to my original point. (Yeah, I know. That's not a complete sentence, but I'm putting it here for dramatic effect, okay?) To wit: Lee Harvey Oswald had such a good grasp of English grammar that he did not make the very easy-to-make and therefore very common mistake of using the object pronoun "me" in his sentence, but correctly used the possessive pronoun "my," instead. And (yeah, I know) why did he choose "my" over the more common (in this syntactical situation) "my"? Because he realized that the word "losing," as he was using it in the sentence, was not a verb in its "continuous" or "progressive" "-ing" form, but one of those weirdo half-verb / half-noun gerund thingys, and he remembered the simple five-word grammar rule that my Dad told me (in a conversation in which I'd made the mistake) that "the (emphasizing the noun-like attributes of a verbish-looking "-ing" word, I suppose) gerund takes the possessive (i.e., possessive form of the pronoun instead of the object form of the pronoun." Once again: "The gerund takes (i.e., requires; uses) the possessive." "The gerund takes the possessive." "The gerund takes the possessive." Now, repeat after me: "The gerund takes .... " -- Tommy PS As an example of the the infinitive form of a verb's not always being substitutable (is that even a word?) for a gerund in a sentence, consider this and ask yourself how these two sentences sound -- "You needn't worry about me to lose American citizenship." - AND - "You needn't worry about my to lose American citizenship." Either of those work for you? I didn't think so. Obviously better is: "You needn't worry about me losing American citizenship." But perfect is: "You needn't worry about my losing American citizenship." PPS Pop Quiz. Any idea why I put an apostrophe s ('s) on the word "verb," above? Yep. The Gerund Takes The Possessive. There's hope for you yet, Grasshopper.

Or how about Comrade Kostin? -- Tommy

Bumped for Cliff Varnell

Dear Cliff, Please tell me something I don't already know. -- Tommy

Gosh, I think I finally see your point. Was Siragusa QJ/WIN ?

"Narcotics middlemen" Hmmm I thought were talking about John Paul Vann.

Was Trafficante collaborating with Castro in that regard in 1963?

So? --Tommy

Jim, If it helps you to sleep a little more soundly, there are two or three things in the Warren Commission report which I don't believe to be true. Sweet dreams, -- Tommy PS Although the sentence which has the phrase "send by him" in it might seem a bit awkward (sp? lol), let me ask you a question -- how would you have written it? I'll give you two minutes.

Jim, You're either living in denial or are blinded by the fact that Oswald couldn't spell or punctuate properly. His spoken English was excellent. -- Tommy

edited and bumped until Chris gets back with more Comarade Kostin info