Who Did it?

[Jon G. Tidd]

James Di,

What you report about Titovets is important. I've written here how the Walker letter contains errors (including translation errors). Errors of the sort a native user of the Russian language just wouldn't make. It's true one may be a fluent speaker of a language but not know how to read or write the language. Marina's husband, however, not only appears to have spoken Russian well but also appears to have read it with ease. This suggest to me he was a capable writer of Russian. If this is true, the Walker letter is a blatant fake, and its translation is dishonest.

[Thomas Graves]

James Di,

What you report about Titovets is important. I've written here how the Walker letter contains errors (including translation errors). Errors of the sort a native user of the Russian language just wouldn't make. It's true one may be a fluent speaker of a language but not know how to read or write the language. Marina's husband, however, not only appears to have spoken Russian well but also appears to have read it with ease. This suggest to me he was a capable writer of Russian. If this is true, the Walker letter is a blatant fake, and its translation is dishonest.

Jon,

How do we know that Oswald "read Russian with ease"?

Krokodil?

Also, we know that he had problems spelling in English. Would that translate into spelling problems in Russian?

Would you say he was a capable writer of English?

--Tommy

Edited September 7, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Kenneth Drew]

You shouldn't have stopped at the second paragraph of my "Oswald Is Guilty" page, Kenny.....

"Does the average researcher just simply ignore all of the evidence that supports Oswald's lone guilt (and every bit of hard evidence supports it), or is the idea of a conspiracy in JFK's assassination so ingrained into subsequent generations of people since the event took place that they feel they have no choice BUT to go with the flow and believe the conspiracy theorists?

For I ask --- How could ALL of the following evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald have been either fabricated, planted, distorted, or in some manner faked? There's just TOO MUCH stuff here on the "Oswald Did It" table to ignore.

Granted, I'd agree that perhaps one or two of these things could have been manufactured to set up a patsy. But ALL of these items?! And complete silence be maintained by the many, many operatives who must certainly have been involved in the acts themselves and ensuing 40-year cover-up?!

Common sense (to me) dictates otherwise. And the "otherwise" leads anybody who isn't prone to cry "Conspiracy!" at every turn in the road to finally envision the fact that 24-year-old Lee Oswald was a lone nut who DID indeed pull off what the majority of people say couldn't happen in a million years." -- DVP

You shouldn't have stopped at the second paragraph of my "Oswald Is Guilty" page, Kenny.....

One paragraph is usually sufficient to see which direction you are attempting to blow the smoke. But to give you an opportunity, how many pages or paragraphs would I have to read to get to the first actual proof that LHO is guilty? I'm guessing you can't answer that question because I'm quite sure you don't have that proof in that series.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Jon G. Tidd]

Thommy,

I can give you an example, by way of analogy.

You want to say, "I speak Cambodian." You want to say this to a cabbie in Washington, D.C.

You say (American translation): "khnom cheh nyheh piassah Kmay".

The structure of my translation is correct, even if imperfect.

Oswald got the structure wrong in the Walker Letter.

[Thomas Graves]

Thommy,

I can give you an example, by way of analogy.

You want to say, "I speak Cambodian." You want to say this to a cabbie in Washington, D.C.

You say (American translation): "khnom cheh nyheh piassah Kmay".

The structure of my translation is correct, even if imperfect.

Oswald got the structure wrong in the Walker Letter.

Ah ha. Syntax and grammar..

What's interesting to me is that Russian and Czech (which I had to learn) are both Slavic languages, and when I was living in the Czech Republic I learned that Czech is more highly inflected than English is, meaning that word order is much more flexible in Czech than it is in English. I would imagine that the same would hold true for Russian -- more flexible word order than English, but the words themselves have different prefixes and / or suffixes, which made it very difficult for me to "process" spoken Czech.

My students were always telling me they could understand English, but they couldn't speak it.

The opposite was true for me as regards Czech. I could speak it, but half the time I couldn't understand what was being said to me.

Unless, of course, the waitress was asking me if I wanted another beer.

--Tommy

Edited September 7, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Ron Ecker]

My students were always telling me they could understand English, but they couldn't speak it.

The opposite was true for me as regards Czech. I could speak it, but half the time I couldn't understand what was being said to me.

I had the same trouble with Spanish. When I lived in Peru, I could speak Spanish pretty good, but I couldn't understand what was being said in normal conversations. Peruvians among themselves would talk too fast. They would have to accommodate me when speaking to me by slowing down and almost stopping, like the limo in Dealey Plaza.

[Thomas Graves]

My students were always telling me they could understand English, but they couldn't speak it.

The opposite was true for me as regards Czech. I could speak it, but half the time I couldn't understand what was being said to me.

I had the same trouble with Spanish. When I lived in Peru, I could speak Spanish pretty good, but I couldn't understand what was being said in normal conversations. Peruvians among themselves would talk too fast. They would have to accommodate me when speaking to me by slowing down and almost stopping, like the limo in Dealey Plaza.

When I first moved to the Czech Republic, Czech sounded like a language from another planet, being played backwards.

When I left seven years later, it no longer sounded like it was being played backwards.

--Tommy

[Linda Giovanna Zambanini]

"Keeping the hands of all of Kennedy's enemies clean."

Ok.

In the summer of 1963, Oswald was at Guy Bannister's office doing leafleting on his phony Fair Play for Cuba Committee, of which he was the only member in all of New Orleans. When Banister, who hated Kennedy, found out about Oswald printing his address on this leafleting material, he was aghast. (Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 111)

That summer, James Arthus, the custodian at the Camp Street address who covered up for Bannister, suggested to Guy that they send a dead rat to the White House. (ibid, p. 116)

David Ferrie, who Oswald was also seen with that summer, made speeches against Kennedy for his alleged mishandling of the Bay of Pigs. Bannister tried to cover this up for his pal Dave. (ibid, p. 115)

Clay Shaw, also seen with Oswald that summer, offered to pay a gubernatorial candidate to harangue JFK in order for him to visit New Orleans. (ibid, p. 217)

The anti-FPCC campaign run out of the CIA was co helmed by David Phillips, a man who made several anti-Kennedy remarks, and then was seen with Oswald in Dallas. (ibid, p. 158) Phillips then told numerous lies about Oswald being in Mexico City before confessing later that there would be no evidence linking Oswald with the Soviet Embassy. Before he died, Phillips weepingly admitted to his brother he had been in Dallas the day Kennedy was killed. (ibid, pgs. 354, 363, 364)

Allen Dulles used to joke about how his good friend Mary Bancroft was the best friend of Michael Paine's mother, where Oswald stayed in Dallas when he returned from New Orleans. (ibid, pgs. 197-98) Dulles, while on the WC, then conspired with the FBI on how to keep secret any Oswald ties to the intelligence community.

This was fairly easy to do. Why? Because the man who ended up the main liaison to the WC for the CIA was James Angleton, who actually carried Dulles' cremated ashes at his funeral. But beyond that, it was Angleton who had control of the Oswald files at the CIA. When news of Oswald's defection came in from Russia, it was filed properly at FBI and ONI but not at CIA. At CIA it did not go to Soviet Russia division, it went to CI SIG, Angleton's mole hunting group. (ibid, pgs. 141-42) Further, no 201 file was opened by Angleton until a year after the defection, a fact that no on in the CIA, including Helms could explain.

But yet Angleton did have Oswald on the very small HT LINGUAL mail intercept program. Let's see, tens of thousands of people had 201 files opened up on them, but yet only 300 were in the mail intercept program. (ibid, pgs. 142-44) Kind of weird status for Oswald with Angleton, eh?

Now, you will not see one word about any of this in the WR. Not a word about Guy Bannister, Ferrie, or Shaw. Not a word about the associations of Ruth and Michael Paine with anyone at all. Incredibly, in 19,000 pages the name of David Phillips does not appear. Even though the indications are Phillips was tracking Oswald from New Orleans, to MC to Dallas that summer and fall. Not a word about the CIA's anti FPCC program is in the WR. And finally there is not a word about the CIA directing George DeMohrenschildt to befriend Oswald when he returned from Russia. (ibid, p. 194)

As the late Sen. Richard Schweiker once said, Oswald had the fingerprints of intelligence all over him. And these prints should have set an iinvestigatory trail to a conspiracy.

It was the function of the WC to erase that trail. And with Allen Dulles on board, they did.

See what happens to you when you take Jean Davison seriously? http://www.ctka.net/2014_reviews/Davison%20review.html

Today, the life and character of Oswald are an absolute loser for the other side. They should not touch it at all.

BAMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ......... ........

Nobody can sum it up quite like DiEugenio!

P.S. I liked your article on Davison and Oswald's language acquisition too! Bravo! Keep up the good work!

[Paul Trejo]

What I find relevant in the Ruth Paine saga is the fact that the "Dear Sirs" Mexico City letter that she found on her personal desk in her home on November 9, 1963, addressed to the Consular Division of the USSR Embassy in D.C., had the same flavor as the Mexico City credentials that Lee Harvey Oswald took to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City (as revealed in the Lopez Report, released by the CIA in 2003).

The Warren Commission, Jim Garrison and the HSCA all lacked the Lopez Report. Therefore they could never tell us the whole truth about Oswald's Mexico City visit.

Yet to fully appreciate the skullduggery of Oswald's game, one must combine his Mexico City "credentials" with the "Dear Sirs" letter found in Ruth Paine's home on November 9, 1963.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 14, 2015 by Paul Trejo