Thomas Graves Posted March 22, 2017 Author Share Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said: You said " On the left: The same man photographed on the same day in the same place" And I understood that day was Oct 2,1963.( the photo above) right? "What we got here is a failure to communicate." -- Cool Hand Luke Huh? This is going downhill fast. What do you not understand? -- Tommy The photograph on the left was taken on October 2, 1963, in Mexico City. The photo on the right was taken in Moscow, also in 1963 (if I'm not mistaken). Edited March 22, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) I said 3 years, because I know that photo of Khrushev and Castro could only be 60-63, right? My first impression is that they could have been the same guy, 20 years later., but you're telling me that's not true. The poor resolution and fuzziness might make his hair style look different, and curiously that change of hairstyle period wise is exactly what you might expect to see from a 30'ish Russian man with a slicked back look in the early's 60's to a more relaxed poofy look of that same guy in the 80's say. But of course you tell me it's not. Edited March 22, 2017 by Kirk Gallaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 22, 2017 Author Share Posted March 22, 2017 8 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said: "What we got here is a failure to communicate." -- Cool Hand Luke Huh? This is going downhill fast. What do you not understand? -- Tommy The photograph on the left was taken on October 2, 1963, in Mexico City. The photo on the right was taken in Moscow, also in 1963 (if I'm not mistaken). bumped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 22, 2017 Author Share Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said: I said 3 years, because I know that photo of Khrushev and Castro could only be 60-63, right? My first impression is that they could have been the same guy, 20 years later., but you're telling me that's not true. The poor resolution and fuzziness might make his hair style look different, and curiously that change of hairstyle period wise is exactly what you might expect to see from a 30'ish Russian man with a slicked back look in the early's 60's to a more relaxed poofy look of that same guy in the 80's say. But of course you tell me it's not. Thanks for the input. Ciao. PS If my maths is correct, Leonov would have been 35 years old when the fuzzy, poor-resolution photo on the left was taken. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Leonov Edited March 22, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 22, 2017 Author Share Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) Does this photo taken of the same guy on October 2, 1963, make him look any younger to you, Kirk? Edited March 22, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 28, 2017 Author Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) On 3/17/2017 at 1:23 PM, Thomas Graves said: Here's an undated photo showing Nikolai Leonov meeting with Raul and 6'3" Fidel Castro. -- 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. Edited April 28, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 28, 2017 Author Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) 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 Edited April 28, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Thomas Graves said: The very next sentence is interesting, too. "Angleton then mentioned the threat by Castro against the President." Did you read the last sentence on page 4? Deflection and obfuscation, how does that look in hindsight to you? Edited April 28, 2017 by Chris Newton corrected page # Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 28, 2017 Author Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) On 4/28/2017 at 9:53 AM, Chris Newton said: Did you read the last sentence on page 4? Deflection and obfuscation, how does that look in hindsight to you? Chris, Regardless of the fact that there is no "page 4" in the well-paginated three-page document I've been talking about (btw, it begins here: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1462#relPageId=80&tab=page ), and despite the fact that neither "deflection" nor "obfuscation" is mentioned in said three-page document, I will go ahead and try to answer your question in a general kind-of-way by saying that it's pretty well known by now that when "major defector" KGB major Anatoliy Golitsyn defected to the U.S. on December 15, 1961, he immediately predicted that the KGB would send a fake KGB "defector" to the U.S. to, I suppose, "deflect and obfuscate" what Golitsyn was telling the CIA (in particular James Jesus Angleton, whom Golitsyn had insisted upon "spilling the beans" to). Perhaps it's just a coincidence that, whereas Golitsyn claimed that according to KGB and GRU policy every U.S. military man (or woman) who defected to the Soviet Union would automatically be interviewed by KGB's Department 13 in order to determine whether or not said defector had any knowledge of U.S. military weapons or policies which might be of interest to the Soviet Union, another KGB officer, Yuri Nosenko, who started "defecting" in place in 1962 and full-on "defected" in January, 1964, remarkably claimed, just one month after the JFK assassination, to have been privy to Oswald's KGB files while Oswald was in the Soviet Union, and told the CIA that the KGB had had absolutely no interest whatsoever in "unstable" Oswald, and that there was, therefore, nothing at all in Oswald's KGB files to indicate that Department 13 had ever interviewed him. Or something like that. -- Tommy Edited January 27, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) Tommy, LOL I can get you some new glasses. ...second third sentence ...under the - 4 - http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1462#relPageId=83&tab=page Yea I've looked at the Golitsyn/Nosenko feud several times. I lean toward believing Golitsyn. Was LHO really trying to commit suicide? This was where the "unstable" notion comes from. If not, it was simply a last ditch attempt to remain in the USSR. He doesn't seem to have bled to much, he tells the Intourist lady (KGB handler) that he didn't even pass out. I know everyone is different but I can't even give 1 pint without passing out. Were LHO's scars across the wrist or lenthgth-wise up his arm? Edited April 28, 2017 by Chris Newton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 29, 2017 Author Share Posted April 29, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Chris Newton said: Tommy, LOL I can get you some new glasses. ...second third sentence ...under the - 4 - http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1462#relPageId=83&tab=page Yea I've looked at the Golitsyn/Nosenko feud several times. I lean toward believing Golitsyn. Was LHO really trying to commit suicide? This was where the "unstable" notion comes from. If not, it was simply a last ditch attempt to remain in the USSR. He doesn't seem to have bled to much, he tells the Intourist lady (KGB handler) that he didn't even pass out. I know everyone is different but I can't even give 1 pint without passing out. Were LHO's scars across the wrist or lenthgth-wise up his arm? Tommy, LOL I can get you some new glasses. ...second third sentence ...under the - 4 - http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1462#relPageId=83&tab=page .................................................................................................... Sorry Dude, Although I was wrong when I said there was no "page 4" in the document to which I was referring, even after I put my glasses on I could still not find the words "deflection" or "obfuscation" on it. I guess it's time for me to visit my optometrist again, huh. -- Tommy PS You believe Nosenko, I believe Golitsyn. Edited April 29, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 1 minute ago, Thomas Graves said: Although I was wrong when I said there was no "page 4" in the document to which I was referring, even after I put my glasses on I could still not find the words "deflection" or "obfuscation" on it. I guess it's time for me to visit my optometrist again, huh. That was my comment about the notes taken about Angleton's comments about RFK's assassination. Sorry for the confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 29, 2017 Author Share Posted April 29, 2017 10 minutes ago, Chris Newton said: Tommy, LOL I can get you some new glasses. ...second third sentence ...under the - 4 - http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1462#relPageId=83&tab=page Yea I've looked at the Golitsyn/Nosenko feud several times. I lean toward believing Golitsyn. Was LHO really trying to commit suicide? This was where the "unstable" notion comes from. If not, it was simply a last ditch attempt to remain in the USSR. He doesn't seem to have bled to much, he tells the Intourist lady (KGB handler) that he didn't even pass out. I know everyone is different but I can't even give 1 pint without passing out. Were LHO's scars across the wrist or lenthgth-wise up his arm? Sorry Dude, although I was wrong when I said there was no "page 4" in the document to which i was referring, when I put my glasses on and looked at that page again, I still could not find the words "deflection" or "obfuscation" on it. I guess I really should visit my optometrist, huh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 29, 2017 Author Share Posted April 29, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Chris Newton said: That was my comment about the notes taken about Angleton's comments about RFK's assassination. Sorry for the confusion. Huh? -- Tommy I thought we were talking about JFK assassination. Which MFF "document page" can I find what you're talking about on? "Document page" 18. "document page" 37, ................. where? Edited April 29, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 29, 2017 Author Share Posted April 29, 2017 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said: Chris, Regardless of the fact that there is no "page 4" in the well-paginated three-page document I've been talking about (btw, it begins here: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1462#relPageId=80&tab=page ), and despite the fact that neither "deflection" nor "obfuscation" is mentioned in said three-page document, I will go ahead and try to answer your question in a general kind-of-way by saying that it's pretty well known by now that when "major defector" KGB major Anatoliy Golitsyn defected to the U.S. on December 15, 1961, he immediately predicted that the KGB would send a fake KGB "defector" to the U.S. to, I suppose, "deflect and obfuscate" what Golitsyn was telling the CIA (in particular James Jesus Angleton, whom Golitsyn had insisted upon "spilling the beans" to). Perhaps it's just a coincidence that, whereas Golitsyn claimed that, according to KGB and GRU policy, every U.S. military man (or woman) who defected to the Soviet Union would automatically be interviewed by KGB's Department 13 in order to determine whether or not said defector had any knowledge of U.S. military weapons which might be of interest to the Soviet Union, another KGB officer, Yuri Nosenko, who started "defecting" in place in 1962 and full-on "defected" in January, 1964, remarkably claimed, just one month after the JFK assassination, to have been privy to Oswald's KGB files while Oswald was in the Soviet Union, and told the CIA that the KGB had had absolutely no interest whatsoever in "unstable" Oswald, and that there was, therefore, nothing at all in Oswald's KGB files to indicate that Department 13 had ever interviewed him. I believe the "major defector" Golitsyn. I don't believe Nosenko. -- Tommy edited and bumped Edited April 29, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now