Jump to content
The Education Forum

James Hosty and KGB Agent Kostikov


Paul Trejo
 Share

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

If LHO typed the document at the dining room table, why would he leave the draft on her secretary desk?

Chris,

All these questions occurred to Ruth Paine, as well.  Why was LHO being so coy about this letter?  Why was he turning his back to her, pretending he didn't want her to see it, but then leaving it on her secretary desk (there in the dining room) for more than two solid days?

As for the furniture placement in her house, remember that Ruth Paine had asked Lee and Michael to move furniture around for her that weekend.  It was a small place, and fairly crowded with Ruth, Marina, four children, and on the weekends Lee and Michael.

Ruth Paine's testimony is rock solid -- yet I would ask readers to remember that the WC attorneys fired more than five thousand questions at her, from all angles.  I don't know of any other court case in US History where one witness was pressured so hard.  

As for the Soviet Embassy in Washington DC itself, they said they had NO IDEA what Lee Oswald was talking about.  His letter came out of the clear blue sky -- reminding them of letters from provocateurs and other Radical Right nut jobs trying to infiltrate the CPUSA.  

Lee Oswald knew the FBI would intercept this letter.  The letter was therefore part of a plan by Guy Banister, IMHO.  It was an extension of the Mexico City trip, also planned by Guy Banister.  Very likely, then, LHO's call for John Abt to be his attorney was also planned by Guy Banister (secretly in the service of General Walker).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Maybe "dining room table" is synonymous with "my desk" in Texas?

59 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ruth Paine's testimony is rock solid -- yet I would ask readers to remember that the WC attorneys fired more than five thousand questions at her, from all angles.  I don't know of any other court case in US History where one witness was pressured so hard.  

None of the researchers that read these threads are at all interested in the mountain of cow manure you peddle. You have spent the better part of two days lying about "knowing" what Ruth Paine testified to. I have wasted hours responding to your petty disinformation.

 

I'm done with it. again.

Edited by Chris Newton
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris Newton said:

Maybe "dining room table" is synonymous with "my desk" in Texas?

None of the researchers that read these threads are at all interested in the mountain of cow manure you peddle. You have spent the better part of two days lying about "knowing" what Ruth Paine testified too. I have wasted hours responding to your petty disinformation.

I'm done with it. again.

Chris,

You're not qualified to speak for everybody.   I realize that many people in the FORUM (by no means all) are influenced by the 1990's CTKA propaganda against Ruth Paine -- how her mother-in-law's childhood friend later became the lover of Allen Dulles, thereby "proving" to the CTKA that Ruth Paine was a CIA agent.   OMG.

I can only hope that the 21st century reader is more sophisticated than that.  I myself don't make up stuff -- I base my CT on solid facts from 21st century documents, like the Lopez Report (2003), Larry Hancock's SWHT (2009), Bill Simpich's State Secret (2014), Jeff Caufield's General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy (2015) , and recent FOIA releases of FBI and CIA documents.

I also made a thorough study of the Warren Commission witnesses, and based on 21st century data, I propose to discern the li@rs from the truth-tellers.

In summary: the most important result in this thread so far, is that there really was a CIA cable from 10/18/1963, and you were the one to bring it out, and I thank you for that, despite our sharp disagreement on interpretation.

I wonder what Pamela will make of my concession.  Are we ready to proceed to pages 139-140 of James Hosty's Assignment Oswald?

My next challenge to readers is this -- the CIA Mole Hunt theory in Bill Simpich's State Secret (2014) proposed that only the Mole would access the deliberate falsifications in LHO's CIA 201 file, and use that photograph of the large Russian dude, and call LHO, Lee HENRY Oswald.  It is uncanny, IMHO, that the CIA cable from 10/18/1963 would call LHO, Lee HENRY Oswald.

It underscores my belief in the guilt of both David Morales and James Hosty,.  Using Occam's Razor (to minimize the suspect list) I will propose that the origin of the CIA cable of 10/18/1963 was none other than CIA agent, David Morales (the impersonator) and I will propose -- as a theory -- that David Morales was working with James Hosty in the context of this CIA cable from 10/18/1963.

Thus, the Mole has been captured.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Pamela,

Fair enough.

By the way, I'm glad you're following this thread, because Chris finally found that 10/18/1963 CIA cable that James Hosty claimed he saw on page 48 of his book, Assignment Oswald (1996) and that seriously injured my theory about Hosty.

So -- Hosty was telling the truth -- there really was a CIA document dated 10/18/1963 alleging a connection between Oswald and Kostikov.  This is a most interesting development, and despite our disagreements on particulars, I sincerely value the research being shared here.

Of course, that 10/18/1963 CIA cable does name Lee HENRY Oswald... 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Glad to know you are acknowledging that there  was such a cable. I think if you start with the premise that Hosty was 'doing his best' (or thought he was) and bungled, you might avoid the pitfalls of taking a more sinister stance on him.  Just my 2 cents...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Chris,

You're not qualified to speak for everybody.   I realize that many people in the FORUM (by no means all) are influenced by the 1990's CTKA propaganda against Ruth Paine -- how her mother-in-law's childhood friend later became the lover of Allen Dulles, thereby "proving" to the CTKA that Ruth Paine was a CIA agent.   OMG.

I can only hope that the 21st century reader is more sophisticated than that.  I myself don't make up stuff -- I base my CT on solid facts from 21st century documents, like the Lopez Report (2003), Larry Hancock's SWHT (2009), Bill Simpich's State Secret (2014), Jeff Caufield's General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy (2015) , and recent FOIA releases of FBI and CIA documents.

I also made a thorough study of the Warren Commission witnesses, and based on 21st century data, I propose to discern the li@rs from the truth-tellers.

In summary: the most important result in this thread so far, is that there really was a CIA cable from 10/18/1963, and you were the one to bring it out, and I thank you for that, despite our sharp disagreement on interpretation.

I wonder what Pamela will make of my concession.  Are we ready to proceed to pages 139-140 of James Hosty's Assignment Oswald?

My next challenge to readers is this -- the CIA Mole Hunt theory in Bill Simpich's State Secret (2014) proposed that only the Mole would access the deliberate falsifications in LHO's CIA 201 file, and use that photograph of the large Russian dude, and call LHO, Lee HENRY Oswald.  It is uncanny, IMHO, that the CIA cable from 10/18/1963 would call LHO, Lee HENRY Oswald.

It underscores my belief in the guilt of both David Morales and James Hosty,.  Using Occam's Razor (to minimize the suspect list) I will propose that the origin of the CIA cable of 10/18/1963 was none other than CIA agent, David Morales (the impersonator) and I will propose -- as a theory -- that David Morales was working with James Hosty in the context of this CIA cable from 10/18/1963.

Thus, the Mole has been captured.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

With all due respect, it seems to me that giving either of the Paynes a free pass can block serious investigation of their possible collusion in the events that transpired involveing LHO.  If nothing else, they managed to be at the right place at the right time on a number of occasions. I have never found them to be believable.  I think they're hiding something.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Chris,

All these questions occurred to Ruth Paine, as well.  Why was LHO being so coy about this letter?  Why was he turning his back to her, pretending he didn't want her to see it, but then leaving it on her secretary desk (there in the dining room) for more than two solid days?

As for the furniture placement in her house, remember that Ruth Paine had asked Lee and Michael to move furniture around for her that weekend.  It was a small place, and fairly crowded with Ruth, Marina, four children, and on the weekends Lee and Michael.

Ruth Paine's testimony is rock solid -- yet I would ask readers to remember that the WC attorneys fired more than five thousand questions at her, from all angles.  I don't know of any other court case in US History where one witness was pressured so hard.  

As for the Soviet Embassy in Washington DC itself, they said they had NO IDEA what Lee Oswald was talking about.  His letter came out of the clear blue sky -- reminding them of letters from provocateurs and other Radical Right nut jobs trying to infiltrate the CPUSA.  

Lee Oswald knew the FBI would intercept this letter.  The letter was therefore part of a plan by Guy Banister, IMHO.  It was an extension of the Mexico City trip, also planned by Guy Banister.  Very likely, then, LHO's call for John Abt to be his attorney was also planned by Guy Banister (secretly in the service of General Walker).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

It seems to me that any part of the timeline of this letter that involves Ruth Paine needs to be examined objectively. It all seems way too convenient for me.  I don't think anything about her testimony is 'rock solid'.  I think she comes across as a polished teller of fables (I tried to use the 'l' word but it was xxx'd out!) who is used to fooling people.  

Edited by Pamela Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we to suppose that Hosty saw the CIA cable that is at the heart of what Trejo, and I presume Simpich, calls the mole hunt, and did not think it was the Lee Oswald that he knew? Forgive my ignorance - if Hosty read this cable didn't everyone? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Tommy,

In her WC testimony, Ruth Paine was dealing with WC attorneys who were still trying, slowly, to remember all the pieces,  Ruth Paine was asked more questions than any other WC witness by far.  She was asked over 5,000 questions.  The next most questioned witness was Marina Oswald, with 2,900 questions.

It is fascinating to me that the two people questioned most about Lee Harvey Oswald were two young mothers with small children, so engrossed in their childcare that they knew the least about what Lee Harvey Oswald was doing.  Yet they were questioned the most.

The key reason that Ruth Paine was asked so many questions was to determine if she was a Communist, and helped to kill JFK in a Communist plot.  The fear was that she was so educated, so intelligent, and (gasp) from the East Coast, that she might be the Top Communist in all of Texas -- the mastermind of the JFK assassination.  So, they grilled Ruth Paine good and proper.

The same applied to Marina Oswald -- she was grilled between diaper changes -- are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?!

The question was put to Ruth Paine by the WC attorneys.-- did you write that in English or in Russian?   It was a political test with them.  Where were her loyalties?

Ruth Paine consistently emerged as a Liberal Quaker -- live and let live -- but don't dare lie to me.  Ruth Paine remains so conservative to this very day; she respects the FBI the way Saint Paul would (ROMANS 13:1-7).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

I don't see why you are putting Ruth Paine on a pedestal.  She is a clever manipulator who is responsible for getting LHO into a lot of hot water.  

As for Marina, Hosty told me he thought she was a 'snake-in-the-grass' and said that if anyone was a spy in the Oswald family, it was her.  Everyone in the WC knew Marina was not telling the truth, or certainly not telling everything she knew.  Garrison wanted to treat her as a hostile witness, but thought better of it due to the sympathy surrounding her.  Both of these women were at the center of these events.  Neither of them has come clean, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot of things going on with this Kostin/Kostine/Kosti/kostikov letter.

 

We have the alleged original LHO draft - stolen by Mrs. Paine (11/9)

We had Mrs. Paines handwritten copy of the original draft. (11/9-11/10)

We have an HTLINGUAL report of the intercepted letter (11/18)

We have the original typed copy supplied by the Russian Embassy (postmarked 11/12 rec'd 11/20).

The letter provided a "cover" for Hosty to describe the "supposed" confusion surrounding his destruction of the Oswald note.

 

The Paine story about how and why she acquired the original and made a copy baffles the mind. It simply does not add up.

The story we were told about the license plate number... how it got in LHO's address book, why the FBI withheld the information ...is unresolved to this day.

 

4 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

As for Marina, Hosty told me he thought she was a 'snake-in-the-grass' and said that if anyone was a spy in the Oswald family, it was her.

Pamela, Marina had some very unflattering things to say about Ruth and the FBI. I don't remember if she singled Hosty (Hasty) out but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2016 at 1:19 PM, Paul Trejo said:

It took Dallas FBI Agent James Hosty 33 years to publish his book about the JFK assassination: Assignment Oswald (1996).

I reviewed this book last month, and it suddenly struck me that Bill Simpich's recent eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014) offers the best interpretation of James Hosty's biased slant on the JFK murder.

The theme of James Hosty's book is that KGB assassin, Valerie Kostikov, was the accomplice of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) in Mexico City, and supported LHO in the JFK assassination.  Hosty goes further, and insists that the FBI, the State Department, the CIA and the Secret Service all knew about Kostikov's connection to LHO in 1963, and deliberately kept this information from Hosty. 

If these evil US Government forces would have told him the truth, implies Hosty, he could have saved JFK, his beloved President, for whose funeral he wept.  This is the thematic undercurrent of Hosty's 1996 book,  Assignment Oswald, from chapter one to the final chapter.

Starting on page 48 of his book, Hosty sets up the chronology.   In late October, 1963, Jeff Woolsey, INS officer, asked Hosty: "How about Oswald in Mexico City contacting the Russians?"  Hosty replies that he never heard of this, and asked for more information, but Jeff Woolsey exclaimed that he shouldn't have said anything, and hurried away.

Later that week, Hosty claimed that he saw an FBI communique of 10/18/1963 from the CIA, saying that Oswald was in Mexico City and contacted Valerie Kostikov.  Hosty then asked himself, melodramatically setting up the theme for his book, "Who is the world is Valerie Kostikov?"

The theme is carried out throughout the book in tiny snippets,  In the center of his book is a photograph of Kostikov, and his text is peppered with allusions to his many murders in Mexico City, and the failure of the FBI and CIA to arrest him.

Hosty concludes that the JFK plot began in Mexico City, not NOLA (as Jim Garrison proposed) and on page 244, in his final chapter, Hosty claims that FBI Directors Clarence Kelly and William Webster both agreed that the FBI failed to give Hosty information about Valerie Kostikov -- thus confirming Hosty's innocence of any role in the JFK assassination.

The trouble with Hosty's account is seen in vivid color by implication from Bill SImpich's brilliant eBook from 2014, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City.  This eBook is free for the taking on the Mary Ferrell web site, and IMHO one cannot offer an informed opinion about the JFK assassination today without reading this eBook.  It's free, so there's really no excuse.

What Bill Simpich shows, by using a careful analysis of recent FOIA releases of CIA documents from 1963, is that the legend that LHO contacted Valerie Kostikov in Mexico City was started by an underground plot in Mexico City, by somebody who impersonated LHO over the telephone of the Cuban consulate, calling the USSR Embassy, which was the most heavily wire-tapped telephone on the planet in 1963. 

Calls on this telephone had to be transcribed into English and placed on the Mexico City CIA Director's Desk within 15 minutes.

When this was done, the conclusion was clear -- the caller was not LHO.  The caller claimed to be LHO, and directly asked the clerk about Valerie Kostikov -- thereby linking the names of the two men for the record.  The CIA concluded that the caller knew that the phone would be tapped -- and therefore the impersonation had to be an inside job.   Somebody in the CIA or in the FBI in Mexico City did this -- as a rogue operation -- as a mole -- completely unknown to the CIA high-command -- deliberately to link the names of LHO and Kostikov.

Bill Simpich proved that a high-level CIA Mole Hunt emerged from this scenario, and Simpich traces that CIA Mole Hunt for more than a year after this event.  The CIA sought the mole, but never caught the mole.

Does anybody else see this connection?  The truth only came out in 2014.  Yet in 1996 James Hosty claimed that LHO really did try to contact KGB Agent Kostikov.  So, how did James Hosty know about this event -- when actually (1) it never really happened; and (2) the CIA kept this a secret so that it could pursue its Mole-Hunt in peace.

The implied answer should be obvious -- James Hosty was part of that plot to frame LHO as a Communist, an FPCC officer, and a secret member of the KGB!

This was the main thrust of the news coming out of Dallas on November 22, 1963 -- exactly 53 years ago today.  That LHO was a Communist.  Not a "Lone Nut," but a Communist.

Long after the JFK assassination and the Warren Report -- the Radical Right in the USA continued to attempt to revive the legend that LHO was a Communist.  James Hosty, it now seems to me, was working for the Radical Right.  Certainly his argumentation in his 1996 book fully harmonizes with the claims of General Walker's WC testimony on that score.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo 

Dear Paul,

Does Hosty speculate in his book as to why, as alegedly admitted by Kelly and Webster, the FBI failed to tell him about Kostikov? 

To protect TUMBLEWEED?

-- Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

With all due respect, it seems to me that giving either of the Paynes a free pass can block serious investigation of their possible collusion in the events that transpired involveing LHO.  If nothing else, they managed to be at the right place at the right time on a number of occasions. I have never found them to be believable.  I think they're hiding something.  

Pamela,

I am certainly not giving the Paine's a free pass -- I give credit only where it is due.  I have not only studied the voluminous WC testimony of Ruth Paine, but I have spoken with her, and clarified many questions I had.

Ruth Paine's role in the LHO saga is that she was there when Marina Oswald was desperate for help in giving birth to her second baby Rachel, where LHO had no job and no health insurance.  The crucial time was when Marina was eight months pregnant and LHO had no job in New Orleans.  Think of that, please.

Ruth Paine was in the wrong place at the wrong time -- that was her only mistake.  The fact that she was originally from the East Coast, but now in Texas, when and where LHO was being framed as the Communist-who-killed-JFK, made Ruth Paine an obvious suspect as a Communist.  She was educated (gasp) and she was even learning to speak Russian (gasp).  Perhaps worst of all, she was a Quaker (gasp).

For example, Dallas Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers claimed that he found "six or seven file cabinets full of names of Castro supporters" in Ruth Paine's garage.  These alleged file cabinets were never photographed, never inventoried, never seen by anybody else -- but the mythology lingers to this very day.  Buddy Walthers was quick to accuse Ruth Paine of being a Communist.  James Hosty was also quick to suspect Ruth Paine of Communism.  That comes out in his words often.

Ruth Paine had nothing to hide.  She is an open book.  No single WC witness has ever testified more -- or was interviewed more for more years -- than Ruth Paine.  That's a fact.

Things are slightly different with Michael Paine.  He has avoided the press, and the one time he came out with Dan Rather in 1993, he shocked the CT world by admitting that he had seen a Backyard Photograph of LHO on April 2, 1963 (the first time he ever met LHO), the night he drove Lee and Marina to dinner from Dallas to Irving.

Marina said that LHO and Michael Paine had plenty of political conversations, and discussed General Walker.  Michael Paine distanced himself from that topic as far as possible, yet the April 2, 1963 dinner comes very close to the April 10, 1963 shooting at General Walker.  

Everett Glover, Micheal's good friend and fellow madrigal singer, invited LHO and Marina to his house on two occasions, it seems; February 22 and February 23, as a kind of a freak show for yuppie Dallas engineers.  Volkmar Schmidt was there on both occasions; Ruth (but not Michael) was there on the 22nd, and I believe Michael Paine (but certainly not Ruth) was there on the 23rd.  At the party on the 22nd, Ruth Paine met Marina Oswald (and saw the De Morhenschildts for the first and last time of her life, up through her WC testimony).  

At the party of the 23rd, Ruth Paine did not attend, but I surmise that Michael Paine did attend.  This was the party in which Volkmar Schmidt spent hours to convince LHO that General Walker was "as bad as Hitler."  (We have Volkmar Schmdt on video, confessing this.)  It was after this party that LHO allegedly bought his famous rifle, and started taking photographs of Walker's house, and started making his fake Alek J. Hidell ID at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall where he worked.

Oswald's co-workers at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall are in the same position as Michael Paine, IMHO, that is, they know more about the General Walker photographs and shooting than they wanted anybody to know.

So, yes, I think that MIchael Paine has more to share with the world about the General Walker shooting -- in the interest of US History.  But otherwise, no, I think Michael Paine has told us all he knew about the JFK assassination -- zip.  Michael Paine was an expert in Marxism, and he regarded LHO as a Fake Marxist -- somebody who talked the talk but never walked the walk -- a mere complainer.  They were never close.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

I don't see why you are putting Ruth Paine on a pedestal.  She is a clever manipulator who is responsible for getting LHO into a lot of hot water.  

As for Marina, Hosty told me he thought she was a 'snake-in-the-grass' and said that if anyone was a spy in the Oswald family, it was her.  Everyone in the WC knew Marina was not telling the truth, or certainly not telling everything she knew.  Garrison wanted to treat her as a hostile witness, but thought better of it due to the sympathy surrounding her.  Both of these women were at the center of these events.  Neither of them has come clean, imo.

Pamela,

Please explain this.  How is Ruth Paine, the Quaker lady who helped Marina Oswald when Marina begged for help -- a "clever manipulator"?

Here are the circumstances, based on her WC testimony and on personal interviews with Ruth:

(1) Ruth thought she had a middle class friend in Marina Oswald on their first meeting on 22 February 1963.  She learned differently instantly when Marina admitted that she had no telephone -- and no car.   They started a relationship by mail.

(2) When Ruth began to visit Marina Oswald at LHO's Neely Street address from Irving, Marina dropped two bombshells on Ruth; first, that she was pregnant; secondly, that LHO was trying to send her back to the USSR without him.   Whether or not Marina meant that is secondary -- this is what Ruth Paine heard.   Marina said she loved the USA and wanted to stay at all costs.

(3) Ruth Paine went into patriotic mode.  She decided to "save" Marina from LHO.  Yet she was patient.  Only if Marina really wanted it -- and only if LHO was really trying to abandon her (as she believed Marina had claimed).

(4) Ruth Paine obsessed about the problem of saving Marina Oswald for several weeks -- until  her April 24th visit to the Neely Street address, when she had a surprise; there was LHO, fully packed, and asking for a ride to the Greyhound bus station -- he was going to travel to New Orleans alone, and leave pregnant Marina and baby June behind at the Neely Street address with a few dollars and a bus ticket, to wait for his letter to pack up and take the bus to New Orleans.

(5) Ruth Paine finally saw her chance.  She offered to LHO personally that she could take Marina into her own house so that when he was ready, he could use the telephone to notify Marina.  And then, instead of Marina taking the bus, Ruth offered to drive Marina to New Orleans, personally.

(6) LHO quickly agreed to this superior solution, and cashed in Marina's bus ticket.  LHO loaded up Ruth Paine's station wagon with all the Oswald goods (which were very little, as they had no furniture) and that was that.  Marina started living with Ruth Paine.

(7)  Ruth Paine was completely prepared to see LHO abandon Marina.  That's what she expected.  Ruth Paine thought that she would not only improve her Russian conversational skills with Marina, but also teach Marina some English, and then after the baby was born, help Marina get a job and live as a successful single mother in the USA.  That was Ruth Paine's plan.  She was surprised when LHO called two weeks later and said he had a job and an apartment in New Orleans.

(8) Yet, true to her word, Ruth Paine loaded up her car immediately, took her own two kids, and drove Marina and baby June to New Orleans in early May, 1963.

(9) Nobody denies that Ruth Paine came from a wealthy family.  She would take three months of summer vacation every year.  She would drive her two kids to the East Coast and stay with friends and family and kick back.  They all wanted to talk about her separation from Michael, but Ruth only talked about saving Marina Oswald.

(10) Ruth and Marina kept up their mail correspondence.  Marina began to complain again that LHO was trying to force her to return to the USSR without him.  This made Ruth Paine furious.  She bad-mouthed LHO to all her friends and family that summer.

(11) Then, near the end of September, Marina dropped a final bombshell -- now that she was eight months pregnant, LHO revealed that he had lost his job in New Orleans.  They had nothing.  

(12) Ruth Paine sprang into action -- she hurried to the rescue of Marina Oswald by driving to New Orleans and offering again to take Marina into her home -- so that she could register Marina at Parkland Hospital for the birth of Marina's new baby.  LHO agreed and that's what Ruth did.

That's what happened, Pamela.  How anybody can turn that into "manipulation" is beyond me.  Please help me understand why you take this attitude against Ruth Paine.

James Hosty is infinitely more suspicious than Ruth Paine, in my reading.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Paul,

Does Hosty speculate in his book as to why, as alegedly admitted by Kelly and Webster, the FBI failed to tell him about Kostikov? 

To protect TUMBLEWEED?

-- Tommy :sun

Tommy,

In chapter 13 of Assignment Oswald (1996) James Hosty offers this account.  This date is "early June, 1967":

"I waited for my turn on the Fort Leavenworth firing range next to a young agent, Joe Holtzslag, who was stationed just up the road in St. Joseph, Missouri...After a bit, Holtzstag figured out who I was: 'Oh, I know you.  You're that agent who had the Oswald case in Dallas.  I heard about you.'

"Holtzslag told me that...one instructor Simon Tulai..blurted out that...the Warren Commission had swept under the rug all the information about the Soviets; Tulai said the Commission had steered completely away from the fact that when Oswald was in Mexico City in October, 1963, he had met with Kostikov...

"What!  Headquarters knew about this and didn't tell me, the field agent in Dallas monitoring Oswald!"

"...When the wagons circled, I was left on the outside.  Now it made sense why Howe pulled from my Oswald file the communiques from HQ about Oswald's Mexico City visit and his contact with the Soviet Embassy in Washington."

"...The FBI was trying to keep from the public the fact that Oswald had met with a KGB assassin expert six weeks before President Kennedy's assassination."  (Hosty, pp. 174-176)

So, here is the Commie-LHO CT at its most refined, from the pen of James Hosty in 1996.  He claims it dawned on him in 1967.  Those of us who are familiar with the WC testimony know that the Commie-LHO CT was already flourishing in Dallas and Mexico City in 1963.   Revilo P. Oliver, one of the final witnesses for the WC, is eloquent about this CT.  General Walker's own WC testimony is also articulate on this topic.  There are others.

I take James Hosty's 1996 book to be a confession that he was working with General Walker from the beginning of the plot.  The Kostikov scenario is solid evidence, IMHO.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is evidence that the 10/18/63 CIA cable from DC describing the possible Mexico City contact between Oswald and Kostikov was put in James Hosty's workbox where it sat untouched until 11/23/63.

That's some police work.

A follow-up Cable describing the Oswald letter to the Russian Embassy was delivered to FBI Dallas (from FBI HQ) on 11/20/63 and may not have been disseminated inter-office to Agents until 11/22/63.

I'm still gathering confirmation so I'll post links when I have them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...