Does Lifton's Best Evidence indicate that the coverup and the crime were committed by the same people?

[Chris Newton]

7 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Stupid question, but did those Ruskies at the Sov Emb play volleyball on Saturdays and Sundays?

Was Leonov's residence in the Embassy compound? Sounds like a normal weekend to be outside and playing volleyball if they had a decent court. That's where I'd be, with a case of cold Tecate, salt and lime.

[Chris Newton]

13 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

dit:  Here's an interesting-looking MFF page I just now stumbled upon while innocently checking the correct spelling of Yatskov's name.

 

...and LITEMPO-4, for reference.

https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php?id=LITEMPO-4

[Thomas Graves]

On 5/14/2017 at 5:27 PM, Chris Newton said:

Was Leonov's residence in the Embassy compound? Sounds like a normal weekend to be outside and playing volleyball if they had a decent court. That's where I'd be, with a case of cold Tecate, salt and lime.

Didn't you read the National Enquirer article you posted the link to, here?

Regardless, you do know that Leonov wrote a book -- his memoirs (in Russian, of course) -- a few years ago, don't you, and that if you do a little googling around you can find an analysis of his recounting of his (alleged) one-on-one sit down with revolver packin' n' cryin' LHO on Sunday  ... in English?

Edit:  It's on jfkfacts.org. Google  * leonov oswald sunday *  to find it.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Chris Newton]

2 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Didn't you read the National Enquirer article you posted the link to, here?

I did read that but you know stuff goes in and sometimes gets misfiled in my brain. Thanks for the reminder... will review.

[Thomas Graves]

3 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

I did read that but you know stuff goes in and sometimes gets misfiled in my brain. Thanks for the reminder... will review.

Don't forget, now.

[Thomas Graves]

On 5/14/2017 at 8:53 PM, Thomas Graves said:

Don't forget, now.

Edited and bumped.

Please note that on the google "hit list" for those three search terms, it's apparent that Peter Dale Scott has written about the alleged SUNDAY Leonov - Oswald meeting in one of his books that, luckily for us, is a free, ready-to-read (at least the page I'm talking about) GOOGLE BOOK.

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 6:41 PM, Chris Newton said:

...What purpose does it serve for a Russian Diplomat to impersonate Lee Harvey Oswald in the Cuban Embassy? Why would he do that? I think if Leonov was inside the Cuban Embassy at the same time as an Oswald impersonator, he'd be there as his KGB tail. How does he get away with an impersonation?

More puzzling, how does the KGB or the CIA get a copy of Lee Harvey Oswald's Fake FPCC resume, complete with current photographs and New Orleans newspaper clippings?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited May 16, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

On 5/14/2017 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Graves said:

Chris,

In a couple of PMs to me last night, Bill Simpich said rather cryptically that Leonov was the KGB's David Atlee Phillips, that he was the victim of (evil, evil) CIA "dirty tricks" -- a 3-time target of TARBRUSH.  Edit:  Is Simpich implying that Duran's and Azcue's describing a guy (Oswald) who was-or-was-not there the way they did (i.e., like Leonov) somehow was related to the (evil, evil) CIA's TARBRUSH project?  Or am I only inferring that that's kinda what Bill Simpich is kinda maybe geting at?

MFF has some stuff on Leonov and TARBRUSH.

--  Tommy

 

Edit:  Here's the follow-up, explanatory PM Bill sent me.  I hope he won't mind my (possessive pronoun) making (gerund) it "public".

"If you go to MFF you will see he was the target in several TARBRUSH actions designed to make [Leonov]  look bad.  I think he helped direct covert actions like Phillips that is why he was targeted.  I believe he saw someone upset - not sure it was Oswald.  Few people care about Leonov in the 10/1 [sic; 10/02, actually] photo because it doesn't solve the case - you and I find it fascinating to actually resolve another puzzle piece and be able to move on."

Edited and bumped

PS  Move on?  Are you kidding, Bill?  LOL

Edited May 16, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

On 4/19/2017 at 10:21 AM, David Lifton said:

Yes, we [Lifton and Trejo] apparently agree on Ruth Paine.

And to anyone attempting to follow this discussion, let me offer the following advice.

To understand Ruth Paine, and to appreciate Ruth Paine's situation, it is helpful to do all of the following:

1. Read the entire sequence of Ruth Paine FBI interviews --some in the 26 Volumes, some not.

2. Read all of her testimony (and she testified several times)

3. Watch her appearance on the London produced "Trail of Oswald" (1985  where she undergoes examination by Bugliosi and cross-examination by Pence).

4. Watch her very early Dallas (KRLD -TV) interviews (which I recently viewed on YouTUbe),  Those interview(s) were in December 1963. Important.

5. Dig up and study the very friendly 1967 letter that she wrote Garrison, wishing him well, etc.

6. Read and study her  New Orleans NODA  (Grand Jury) testimony.

Please Note: Besides doing all of the above, I spent several hours with Michael Paine, in 1995, at his home in Boxboro, Mass. It was taped interview that was so intense that Michael started to cry.

Pat Valentino and I also interviewed Michael Paine's 90+ year old mother (also named "Ruth") in Berkeley, California, around 1995. Also, Michael Paine's step-father, Arthur Young.  Helping me get access to various members of the Paine family was a member of that family, from a younger generation, a nephew of Arthur Young, who also wanted to get at the full truth.

 

But back to DiEugenio:

DiEugenio runs a completely biased website at CTKA.  The one area where he got everything right, I believe, concerns the CIA and and the assassination of Lumumba.  And by closely following John Newman, he understands that there was a foreign policy reversal between what Kennedy intended to do in Vietnam (withdraw) and what Johnson subsequently did (escalate).  ALso: I'm glad to see that DiEugenio recognizes that  Judyth  is a fantast. But one must heavily discount much else at CTKA that he writes about.  There--as the so-called "Chairman of the Board" (or at least, that's what he used to call himself, and sign his intro statement each month--he  indulges in all his favorite biases, and its all rather insidious. 

Under the guise of scholarship, DiEugenio fosters  and promulgates a seriously warped view of the JFK case. One of his peculiar ideas, for example, is that John and Robert Kennedy knew nothing about the anti-Castro assassination plots--that they were innocent, and it was all concocted behind their backs over at CIA.  (Totally absurd and ridiculous; and I say that even though the CIA's IG report, written when Bobby was still alive, covered for him).  Another is that everything in Seymour  Hersh's 1997 book, The Dark Side of Camelot, can be discounted. (Not true. Not by a long shot.)  Another is his mistaken idea that everything is "after-the-fact."  Another of his pet ideas is that Lyndon Johnson had nothing to do with JFK's assassination.  His CTKA site takes a completely biased anti-Best Evidence stance, whether the basic concepts came from me, or, years later, or from Doug Horne.  Once, on Black Ops Radio, DiEugenio said that the reason the coffins were different that the ambulance containing Jackie and Robert Kennedy stopped --yes stopped!--en route from Andrews AFB to Bethesda.  I have had any number of reports from people who have had contact with DiEugenio.  When the subject of  Best Evidence comes up, his eyes just glaze over.  He cannot handle it.  He has no basic understanding of the medical evidence, always referring to certain third  parties (Aguilar, et al)  when he wants to say anything in that area.   He's like a poor student who,  not understanding physics  says "I can't answer that. I know nothing about physics. But here, speak to my friend John Smith, he knows all about physics." He actually eulogizes the late Roger Feinman, the disbarred lawyer who was fired from CBS news and who wrote a libelous and malicious (unpublished manuscript) about me. He hardly understands the truth about Marina (he once made disparaging statements about her, stating  that of course he wouldn't deign to interview her, because he knows she is a xxxx) and, finally,  he would like to put the Paines--both of them--in jail.  The list goes on. Another time.

DSL

4/19/2017 - 10 a.m. PDT

David,

I agree.

--  Tommy

PS  But let's not be too hard on James, David.

After all, he is kinda right about 85% of the time.  (IMHO.)

It's fact-checking it all to weed out that 15% that's so gosh-darned time consuming.

 

Edited May 16, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎5‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Paul,

Didn't Duran tell the HSCA she'd dealt with a guy on 9/27/63 who was short, blue-eyed, and blond-haired?

What did she tell the Mexican Police the two times they so brutally interrogated her?

Do we know?

Thanks,

--  Tommy

Tommy,

Short, blue eyes and blonde hair; spoken by a young woman in Mexico City being harassed by the police.  Hmm.  Actually, it's ambiguous.  I can read it two ways, under the JFK circumstances.

(1) Sylvia Duran was deliberately vague.
Shorter than whom?
How blue?
How blonde?  Dark blonde?

This verbal posture was Sylvia's way of evading the question. 
Shorter than the average FBI/CIA man in Mexico City, who was generally six-feet tall?
Bluer than the average Mexican whose eyes are dark brown?  (Oswald's eyes were grey)
Blonder than the average Mexican whose hair was black?  (Oswald's hair was light brown)

(2) Sylvia Duran was going to repeat her most recent story to the Mexican Police.

This would minimize the questioning by the HSCA, as well as the chances that the Mexican Police would call on her again - and again.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited May 17, 2017 by Paul Trejo
format

[Thomas Graves]

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Tommy,

Short, blue eyes and blonde hair; spoken by a young woman in Mexico City.

Hmm.  Actually, it's ambiguous.  I can read it two ways, under the JFK circumstances.

(1) Sylvia Duran was deliberately vague. 

Shorter than whom?

How blue?

How blonde?  Dark blonde?

This verbal posture was Sylvia's way of suggesting that she didn't remember.

(2) Sylvia Duran was going to repeat her most recent story to the Mexican Police.

This would minimize the questioning by the HSCA, as well as the chances that the Mexican Police would call on her again.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Dear Paul,

Nice try.

As I keep saying, it was Duran's and Azcuce combined description of the guy who was (or more likely was-not) there that's significant, because their combined decsription describes Leonov to a "T", imho.

But fwiw and just to cajole you:

1 )  Duran described herself as being  5' 3.5" tall.  

2 )  Common consensus is that LHO was 5' 9.5" or 5' 10" tall.  

3 )  Duran described "the blond-haired guy" as being "short", "about the same height" as her.

Now, in all honesty do you really think that Duran would have said that a guy who was 5' 9.5" or maybe even 5' 10" tall as being about the same height as her 5' 3.5"?

(And yes, in her testimony, she did say that the dude was blond-haired.)

I've read two documents that mention Leonov's height.  One (which I can't seem to find) says he was 5' 6" , and the other says he was about 5' 7.5" (170 cm.) 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48495#relPageId=2&tab=page

--  Toomby

PS  Azcue described the guy who was either there-or-not-there as being "blond or dark blond," " thin (skinny)," and as having a "very thin face."

I can hear it coming.   "But but but ... how blond or dark blond .... and how skinny .......... and exactly how ... uh ... very thin-faced, Tommy?" 

LOL

Leonov is the "hunk" in the middle.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

14 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Paul,

...But fwiw and just to cajole you:

1 )  Duran described herself as being  5' 3.5" tall.  

2 )  Common consensus is that LHO was 5' 9.5" or 5' 10" tall.  

3 )  Duran described "the blond-haired guy" as being "short", "about the same height" as her.

Now, in all honesty do you really think that Duran would have said that a guy who was 5' 9.5" or maybe even 5' 10" tall as being about the same height as her 5' 3.5"?

(And yes, in her testimony, she did say that the dude was blond-haired.)

I've read two documents that mention Leonov's height.  One (which I can't seem to find) says he was 5' 6" , and the other says he was about 5' 7.5" (170 cm.) 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48495#relPageId=2&tab=page

--  Toomby

Toomby,

Your own argument falls back against you.   Sylvia was 5'3" while Leonov was 5'7" which is a big difference.  

Now, in all honestly, do you really think that Duran would have said that a guy who was 5'7" was about the same height at her, 5'3"?

The very fact that Sylvia added this nervous clause "about the same height as me," is proof that she was being deliberately inaccurate.

Once that's admitted, then the whole Leonov argument falls into question.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

P.S.  Here is a photo of Marina and Lee in the USSR.   Marina is also 5'3".   How tall does Lee look here?   Again, height is relative.  Sylvia Duran is short by US standards, and she was talking to tall US officers.  Her language was most likely relative to them.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

5 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Toomby,

Your own argument falls back against you.   Sylvia was 5'3" while Leonov was 5'7" which is a big difference.  

Now, in all honestly, do you really think that Duran would have said that a guy who was 5'7" was about the same height at her, 5'3"?

The very fact that Sylvia added this nervous clause "about the same height as me," is proof that she was being deliberately inaccurate.

Once that's admitted, then the whole Leonov argument falls into question.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

P.S.  Here is a photo of Marina and Lee in the USSR.   Marina is also 5'3".   How tall does Lee look here?   Again, height is relative.  Sylvia Duran is short by US standards, and she was talking to tall US officers.  Her language was most likely relative to them.

Dear Paul,

There's no need for you to round some numbers off to your perceived advantage (and to ignore others altogether) in trying to make your "case", because it still doesn't quite "work".  

Ignoring the fact that I told you that one of the two documents I found (but have since misplaced) says that Leonov was 5'6", you state categorically that he was 5'7".  You also, to your perceived advantage, round Duran's height down half-an-inch to 5'3". But to no avail, Paul. For the simple fact that Lee Harvey Oswald's being at least six inches taller than Duran precludes the possibility that it was he she was talking about when she described the guy who was (or was not) there as having been about the same height as her. 

It's as simple as that.

--  Tommy

PS  In the photo you posted, please take into consideration the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald is standing closer to the camera than Marina(?) is.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Paul,

There's no need for you to round some numbers off to your perceived advantage (and to ignore others altogether) in trying to make your "case", because it still doesn't quite "work".  

Ignoring the fact that I told you that one of the two documents I found (but have since misplaced) says that Leonov was 5'6", you state categorically that he was 5'7".  You also, to your perceived advantage, round Duran's height down half-an-inch to 5'3". But to no avail, Paul. For the simple fact that Lee Harvey Oswald's being at least six inches taller than Duran precludes the possibility that it was he she was talking about when she described the guy who was (or was not) there as having been about the same height as her. 

It's as simple as that.

--  Tommy

PS  In the photo you posted, please take into consideration the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald is standing closer to the camera than Marina(?) is.

Tommy,

If it is really a "fact" that Lee Harvey Oswald is standing closer to the camera than Marina Oswald, then he should appear even LARGER. 

By the way, I have another photograph of Oswald, appearing fairly short, standing with two Dallas cops.  Oswald is the "hunk" in the middle.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited May 17, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

10 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Tommy,

If it is really a "fact" that Lee Harvey Oswald is standing closer to the camera than Marina Oswald, then he should appear even LARGER. 

By the way, I have another photograph of Oswald, appearing fairly short, standing with two Dallas cops.  Oswald is the "hunk" in the middle.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Dear Paul,

You're right about that perspective thingy, but you're still wrong overall.

--  Tommy

PS  It's interesting that you chose to avoid my question: "How could a short person (like 5'3.5" Duran) say that an average-height person (say 5'9.5" or 5'10" Lee Harvey Oswald) is "about the same height as me" when the latter is at least six inches taller than the former?"