Thomas Graves

LOL -- Tommy

Edited and bumped for Ray Mitcham.

It doesn't pause at frame 139.

Paul, Who was Angleton? Answer: The possibly mobbed-up (from his time working for the OSS in Italy during WW II) counterintelligence officer who spilled (pardon the pun) a lot of secrets to British double-agent Kim Philby over their Washington, D.C., six-martini lunches, I would imagine. Who then went kinda nutty when Philby's pals and double-agent colleagues Burgess and Maclean skipped town, and Colonel Popov got arrested (probably due to poor tradecraft on the CIA's part) in Moscow (the same day LHO arrived there, ironically), and whose old drinking buddy Philby himself "skipped town" in January, 1963, and who then proceeded to do more damage to the CIA, through his internal mole hunts and firings, than any Russian spy could ever do, one would think. Or maybe, just maybe .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Jesus_Angleton -- Tommy

Huh?

(My handlers told me to bump it again, seein' how it's topical and everything.) This guy's two 10/02/63 Mexico City CIA photos were labeled "LEON," as in LEONOV. (Nikolai Leonov was a Mexico City-based KGB Officer in 1963.) Nikolai Leonov interpreting for Fidel Castro in Moscow, 1963. This is just a couple of oar-derves, folks. -- Tommy

I've never been more serious in my life, "Deep State" James, Are you 1 ) afraid to think "outside the box," or 2 ) do you think you're actually gonna have your long-hoped-for confirmation that "The-Whole-CIA-Did-It" in the near future? Like sometime in the next fifty years? Now, Given the "facts" that we think we know, (minus the silly "Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites" theory, of course), would it have been impossible for the Ruskies to do? Did they perhaps think they would benefit in the short run? The long run? Hey! I have an idea! How about some Rogue Ruskies? -- Tommy Or even better -- Rogue Yanks and Rogue Ruskies workin' together!

Why did Nikolai Leonov say years after the assassination that the real Oswald showed up unannounced at the Soviet Embassy on Sunday, September 29, and met with him "when the guard was the only other person in the building because it was a Sunday" He was lying, of course, but to what end? OR WAS HE?

A tangential question: Is our present President an unwitting (or even witting!) agent of Nikolai Leonov's buddy, Vladimir Putin? Factoid section: The short, thin-bodied, very thin-faced, "Blond Oswald" whom Duran and Azcue claimed to have dealt with on 9/27/63 may very well have been photographed near the Mexico City Soviet embassy on 10/02/63. The identically-described Russian man in the photos was labeled "LEON," as in KGB officer Nikolai Leonov. See photo #7. "LEON & 2 U[nknown] R[ussian] M[ales]" https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=4490&relPageId=3 Please also see this thread: Here he is interpreting for Mr. K and Che.

Question: Was the CIA ultimately strengthened or weakened by the assassination of JFK?

Komarad? -- Tommy

Now that you're here, let's think "outside the box" for awhile, shall we? I mean, I mean, I mean ..... you and I? Like a patient etherized upon a table! -- Tommy

Thanks! (LOL) -- Tommy

Dear George, I guess we could speculate until the cows come home, huh. -- Tommy

"Dear James" No, you don't seem to understand. -- Tommy

George, The account I read had Veciana flying in from out of town (Miami?) and showing up at that bank building 15 minutes earlier than he was supposed to, thereby kinda surprising Phillips by being there too early. So, maybe it was just due to poor time management on Phillip's part, and a little of the same on Veciana's part, that caused Veciana to see Oswald in Phillip's presence like that. -- Tommy

Dear George, Just so Veciana couldn't possibly confuse him with "The Other Oswald" (Lee? Harvey?) later, I suppose. -- Tommy

Dear Mister Mitcham, Due to your insistence on referring to "(the original) Elm Street", etc., etc, etc., I'm a little confused now. Bottom line: Do you or do you not believe "Gloria CalvAry (sic)" was labeled correctly (not from a spelling point of view (lol), but from a location point-of-view), in the big, color, heavily-labelled Z-Frame (and other photographic images taken during the motorcade) which Thierry Speth, or Don Roberdeau, or Robin Unger apparently labeled way, way back in the day? (I'll try to post it below.) Below clip below is for reference as to who I'm talking about, only, because said clip was taken after the motorcade, after these three ladies had left their "during the motorcade position", and I certainly don't want to confuse you more than I evidently already have. [From left to right: CalvAry, Hicks, Reed] Here it is!: Edit: I've just now found this image, below, on another (unrelated) thread, and I thought I'd share it with you. The gal wearing the light-blue headscarf on the other side of the street, directly above the limo's windshield / windscreen, is the same person who is labeled "Carol Reed" at the far right in the Z-Frame, above. Now, it seems to me that if Stella Jacob, Gloria Jeanne Holt, and Sharron Simmons were standing at the curb on the south side of Elm Street, about 150 down the street from the TSBD (where they worked), like their FBI statements say, that we'd be able to see them doing so in this film frame, below, ... but we don't. Why is that? Because the light-blue headscarf-wearing gal isn't Carol Reed, after all, but Sharron Simmons, and the blond-haired gal next to her in the Z-Frame isn't Karan Hicks, but Gloria Jeanne Holt, and the dark-haired gal standing next to her isn't the strangely dark-skinned Gloria CalvAry (sic) after all, but Native American Stella Jakcob! -- Tommy

Are "researchers" afraid to admit that the putative "Blond Oswald" captured in two photos [ #6 (which the CIA labeled "LEON") and #7 on the contact sheet ] by the LILYIRIC camera at 12:05 pm on October 2, 1963, (11 minutes before the more famous Mexico Mystery Man was captured by the same LILYIRIC camera) was Mexico City-based KGB officer Nikolai Leonov because they're afraid it would suggest that the Ruskies killed JFK? Hmmm.

Edited and bumped.

"Philips had a reason for Veciana to see Oswald(1). It could have been that Philips had planned work for Veciana and Oswald(1) and wanted Veciana to meet the man who would be working with him (Veciana)." But forgot to introduce them (even with phony mames) and say, "I want you two to work together." O-kaaaay. More likely that Phillips wanted Veciana to meet the one-and-only Oswald, whom Veciana would be manipulating for Phillips, imho. -- Tommy

"Dear James" Too bad you're a relative newbie here. LOL -- Tommy PS -- The Agency told me that if I'm ever suspected of being ... well, you know what I mean ... that I should just "take the initiative" and volunteer that I AM, to throw the really paranoid "researchers" (not like you, of course) "off balance" and "off the scent" if you know what I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, because after all I AM on a highly-paid mission here to get you to blame the assassination on just 5,000 Agency employees instead of what was, in truth, The Whole Freaking Enchilada from top-to-bottom (excluding a couple of janitors --- maybe.) Please don't tell anyone.

Edited for the CIA and bumped for Ray Mitchum

"Dear James" Don't get all paranoid on me again. I'm a compulsive editor of my own, and sometimes other people's writings (depending on what my handler at Langley tells me to do, of course). It's an obsession for me (probably due to all of those Agency-financed lobotomies I've had), and IMHO, THEY are very wise to make use of my ... disability .... in such a "creative" way. -- Tommy

Tracy, Just going from what you wrote in your fine essay, I gotta ask -- When you say W. was "unable" to recall who the other agent was, do you mean that literally, like "I can't remember," or was it more like "I better not tell you"? Also, you wrote -- "Wilcott stated that although he heard the allegation the day after JFK was assassinated, he did not check agency disbursement records to verify the claim or report the information to any investigative agencies. He said that the reason he did not do this is because he viewed the information as “shop talk” and “hearsay” and gave it little credence." It seems to me that a more plausible reason for W to give for not having looked into it at the time (right after the assassination) was that he didn't want to leave any paper-trail indications that he had checked into it. -- Tommy