Jump to content
The Education Forum

The St. Ruthie and St. Michael "We both know" call


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

Michael is concerned by a thread diversion here but I need to offer one more possibility.....this is just from memory but I think the two crop duster types attended the same meeting (DRE) that Oswald was reportedly sighted at.  That never was confirmed but it would have been SOP for the FBI to be monitoring such meetings and if they were aware of both Oswald and had the crop duster pilots as suspected infiltrators it could well explain Hosty's comments.  Again, just from memory but worth pondering.

I'm not really that concerned. I just like to give members an opportunity for their posts to fill-out relevant threads. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 7/23/2017 at 0:22 PM, Mark Knight said:

Specifically, who had the authority to order a wiretap, beyond the FBI, in 1963? The information ended up in the hands of the FBI, but did they issue the order? Why did the Paynes not object, once they learned of the wiretap? Most people would protest loud and long. The Paynes did not, best I can determine. Did they know about the tap, and only afterwards feign ignorance? Were the Paynes actually FBI informants, and willing participants in the wiretapping scheme? Did the FBI possibly hope to gather incriminating information, possibly spoken in Russian, in calls that the Oswalds participated in? 

Too many unanswered questions there. Too many UNASKED questions, at least ON THE RECORD, by the WC regarding the wiretap information.

Mark,

Ruth Paine told me in December 2015, that she did object to the wire-tap -- and very forcefully.

She told me that she demanded to know who ordered the wire-tap of her phone!   She could not guess why the Dallas Police, or the Irving Police, or the FBI, or any other government or private agency, would want this done.

Ruth Paine wants to know the answer to this very day.  It has puzzled her for over 50 years.

Also -- your point that there remains to this day "too many UNASKED questions" about this wire-tape is a good one.   IMHO, the reason is that a Radical Right CT is too quickly implied by an answer.

Nor does this exclude the local, Dallas branches of the FBI and Secret Service.   Dallas FBI agent James Hosty was for years (according to Penn Jones, Jr.) the bridge partner of General Walker's business partner, Robert Allen Surrey.

Robert Allen Surrey was the only person in the entire Warren Commission Hearings to plead the 5th Amendment.  He pled it more than a dozen times.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Y'all took a perfectly good question about Ruth Paine's disclosure of Lee Harvey Oswald's "Soviet Embassy Letter" of November 9, 1963, and then fell apart into debates over the direction of the JFK bullets in Dealey Plaza.

FOCUS!

David Von Pein is obviously correct that the timestamp on the envelope reads "Nov 12".  It's just that the "1" in the number "12" is printed very faintly.  All baby boomers who know the US Postal Service from childhood know that Post Office ink very often came out faint in one letter or number, and heavy in the next.  It's too obvious for words.

Yet even this postmark is outside the scope of the main theme, which is: did Lee Harvey Oswald write the "Soviet Embassy Letter" of November 9, 1963, or did Ruth Paine forge it?

To be perfectly clear about the debate, here is the letter again, in full:

FROM: LEE H. OSWALD, P.O. BOX 6225, DALLAS, TEXAS
              MARINA NIKOLAYEVNA OSWALD, SOVIET CITIZEN

TO:  OVERSEAS DIVISION
        EMBASSY U.S.S.R.
        WASHINGGON, D.C.
        NOVEMBER 9, 1963

Dear Sirs,

This is to inform you of recent events since by meetings with comrade Kostin in the Embassy Of the Soviet Union, Mexico City, Mexico.

I was unable to remain in Mexico indefinitely because of my Mexican visa restrictions which was for 15 days only. I could not take a chance on requesting a new visa unless I used my real name, so I returned to the United States.

I had not planned to contact the Soviet embassy in Mexico so they were unprepared, had I been able to reach the Soviet Embassy in Havana as planned, the embassy there would have had time to complete our business.

Of course the Soviet embassy was not at fault, they were, as I say unprepared, the Cuban consulate was guilty of gross breach of regulations, I am glad he has since been replaced.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is not now interested in my activities in the progressive organization Fair Play For Cuba Committee, of which I was the secretary in New Orleans (state Louisiana) since I no longer reside in that state.

However, the F.B.I. has visited us here in Dallas, Texas, on November 1. Agent James P. Hasty warned me that if I engaged in F.P.P.C. activities in Texas the F.B.I. will again take an ‘interest’ in me.

This agent also ‘suggested’ to Marina Nichilayova that she could remain in the United States under F.B.I. ‘protection.’ that is, she could defect from the Soviet Uion, of course, I am my wife strongly protested these tactics by the notorious F.B.I.

Please inform us of the arrival of our Soviet entrance visa’s as soon as they come.

Also, this is to inform you of the birth, on October 20, 1963, of a DAUGHTER, AUDREY MARINA OSWALD in DALLAS, TEXAS, to my wife.

Respectfully,
Lee H. Oswald

Bear in mind, that mailing any letter to the Soviet Embassy in Washington DC would guarantee that the FBI would intercept it.  So, if (and only if) Lee Harvey Oswald actually wrote this letter (as I maintain), he would certainly know this.  IMHO, LHO certainly wrote it with the FBI foremost in his mind.  Indeed, the letter seems to poke and tease the FBI, in my reading.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

   2 hours ago,  Paul Trejo said: 

"Bear in mind, that mailing any letter to the Soviet Embassy in Washington DC would guarantee that the FBI would intercept it.  So, if (and only if) Lee Harvey Oswald actually wrote this letter (as I maintain), he would certainly know this.  "

 

(Bold, above, is mine)

Paul

So, if LHO did not mail the letter, he would not know that such a letter would be intercepted?

I am not seeing anything coherent in your argument.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the text of the letter, it's as if Oswald (assuming he actually wrote the letter) KNEW that he had just been removed from the FBI "watch list."

If Oswald knew this...HOW did he know this? Unless Oswald was privy to FBI communications or strategies, I suggest very strongly that there is NO OTHER WAY he could have known this.

IF there was a mole hunt, looking for a Soviet spy who had access to FBI files, then Oswald notifying the Soviet embassy of news their spy could easily verify would be an easily-set trap. But it also makes  curious person wonder that, if LHO wasn't working for the FBI in some capacity, how would he even know he was no longer on the watch list? That's not the kind of thing the FBI would tell you.

So what else COULD Oswald's knowledge of this have meant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

IMO none of that mattered, certainly not a molehunt.

The USSR embassy in DC was simply a constant target at the hight of the Cold War.  It was that simple.  The letter was going to be intercepted. 

IMO, the work done on this letter at first by Hewitt, then by Douglas, and now by Josephs and Newton,  have raised the most serious questions about its genuineness.  And most of all in Ruth Paine's role in it all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2017 at 6:17 PM, Mark Knight said:

From the text of the letter, it's as if Oswald (assuming he actually wrote the letter) KNEW that he had just been removed from the FBI "watch list."

If Oswald knew this...HOW did he know this? Unless Oswald was privy to FBI communications or strategies, I suggest very strongly that there is NO OTHER WAY he could have known this.

IF there was a mole hunt, looking for a Soviet spy who had access to FBI files, then Oswald notifying the Soviet embassy of news their spy could easily verify would be an easily-set trap. But it also makes  curious person wonder that, if LHO wasn't working for the FBI in some capacity, how would he even know he was no longer on the watch list? That's not the kind of thing the FBI would tell you.

So what else COULD Oswald's knowledge of this have meant?

Mark,

Good question.  Let's look again at the relevant text that Oswald wrote to the Soviet Embassy in Washington DC on November 9, 1963:

...The Federal Bureau of Investigation is not now interested in my activities in the progressive organization Fair Play For Cuba Committee, of which I was the secretary in New Orleans (state Louisiana) since I no longer reside in that state.

However, the F.B.I. has visited us here in Dallas, Texas, on November 1. Agent James P. Hosty warned me that if I engaged in F.P.P.C. activities in Texas the F.B.I. will again take an ‘interest’ in me.

This agent also ‘suggested’ to Marina Nichilayova that she could remain in the United States under F.B.I. ‘protection.’ that is, she could defect from the Soviet Union, of course, I and my wife strongly protested these tactics by the notorious F.B.I...

Respectfully,
Lee H. Oswald

1.  Lee Harvey Oswald said that "the FBI is no longer interested in my activities."  

1.1.  Yet the FBI was at Ruth Paine's house only four days before this letter, and five days before that, asking direct questions about Lee Harvey Oswald (not Marina, but Lee).  

1.2.  So, the FBI clearly was still interested in his activities.

2.  Lee Harvey Oswald is telling the Soviet Embassy in Washington DC that he was a Secretary of the FPCC in New Orleans.  He is telling them this as new information.  

2.1.  The Soviets would be interested, because the FPCC was important to Fidel Castro and Cuba.  However, the Soviets were well-informed, and they would have known instantly that Oswald was never, at any time, any genuine Secretary for the FPCC in New Orleans or anywhere else.  

2.2.  Therefore, I conclude that Oswald wasn't really directing his statement to the Soviets, but to the FBI, because Oswald knew that the FBI was going to intercept this letter as soon as it entered Washington DC.   Lee was playing cat and mouse with the FBI.

3.  Lee Harvey Oswald said that "the FBI has visited us here in Dallas, Texas, on November 1."

3.1.  This was correct, and Lee got this information from Marina Oswald, who became very worried that the FBI was now tracking Lee in Dallas.

4.  Lee Harvey Oswald said that "Agent James P. Hosty warned me that if I engaged in FPPC activities in Texas the FBI will again take an ‘interest’ in me."

4.1.  Oswald lied blatantly, because Hosty didn't warn Lee of anything, since Lee wasn't even present in the room when Hosty visited Ruth Paine.    

4.2.  As Ruth Paine noted, Hosty didn't even mention the FPCC during either of his visits.  This was probably part of Marina's worry, however.

5.   Lee Harvey Oswald said that Hosty told Marina that she could defect from the USSR under FBI protection.  

5.1.  Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald both agreed that James Hosty said no such thing during either of his visits.

6.  Lee Harvey Oswald said that he and Marina "strongly protested these tactics by the notorious FBI."

6.1.  Since Oswald was not present during either of these visits, then this was another fib.

6.2.  Ruth Paine in her WC testimony said that Marina Oswald wanted more than anything to stay in the USA, and she absolutely didn't want to return to the Soviet Union.   So, Lee Oswald was guilty of another fib.

OK, enough about the fibbing.  The question at hand is how else to interpret Lee Oswald's first lie, namely, that "the FBI is no longer interested in my activities."

In your interpretation, Mark, the meaning is that Lee Harvey Oswald somehow found out that the FBI re-opened his case in August, 1963, in New Orleans, and then re-closed his case two months later, in early October, 1963.

But Oswald doesn't mention any dates.

Actually, the FBI closed Oswald's case file in late 1962, by FBI agent John Fain.   In August, 1963, in New Orleans, it seems that Lee Harvey Oswald himself tried to get his own case re-opened, because after he was arrested for a scuffle on Canal Street with Castro supporters, he himself called the FBI to interview him!

 FBI agent James Quigley did in fact "take no interest" in Oswald at that time; and after that interview saw no need to re-open the case.  There was no violence, and there were no Federal laws broken.

So -- what was Oswald saying in that letter?  In my interpretation, Oswald was sending an amateur double-agent message in two directions:

(1) Lee was sending a message to the CIA, proving he could pretend to be a Communist and fool the Soviets (probably because Oswald had been instructed in this game by Guy Banister, who pretended that his New Orleans FPCC operation was really a CIA operation). 

(2) Lee was sending a message to the FBI, to fool them into thinking he was a Communist, and also to try to place James Hosty in hot water, because it was illegal to offer "defection" to a foreign national.

That's my take on it.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo 

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

8 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Roughly translated from this ducument using my iPad voice text function.

Yeltsin/Clinton cashe ducument regarding LHO Russian Consulate letter.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/other/yeltsin/html/Yeltsin_0028a.htm

 

Do we have the source of our wire-tap?

Do we have the reason why a forged letter would be generated?

-------------

At 16 hours 00 minutes, the U.S. Telegraph agency reported that police in Dallas, TX, had arrested a U.S. National Lee H. Oswald, 24 years old, Chairman of the local branch of the FPCC, on suspicion that he had assassinated Kennedy.

It is also reported that Oswald was in the USSR some time ago and is married to a Russian woman.

It was ascertained by checking at the consulate section of the embassy that Oswald really did spend several years in Minsk,  where he married Soviet citizens Marina P. (born 1941). In June 1962, they returned to the US. In March 1963 Marina applied to return with her daughter to the USSR for permanent residency. The KU of the Ministry of Foreign Affair of the USSR (October 7, 1963) reported that her application was rejected.

The counselor section of the embassy has the correspondence between Marina and Oswald regarding her return to Russia.The last letter from Lee Oswald was dated November 9 (the text was transmitted on the line of nearby neighbors).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I can see how that would be of the utmost interest to the Russians, right Paul?

LOL:rolleyes:

James,

In my reading, the "Soviet Embassy Letter" was not intended for the Russians at all.  It was intended to be intercepted by the FBI and shared with the CIA.  

Mission accomplished.

The Soviets would have no clue in the world what Lee Harvey Oswald was talking about -- nor would they much care.

First, the Soviets would know for a fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was never any sort of Secretary for the FPCC in New Orleans or anywhere else.  With that fact, everything else that Oswald wrote in that nonsense would just be ignored as junk from some nut.

Oswald didn't care.  Oswald meant his letter mainly for the FBI to drool over, as payback for James Hosty pulling his chain by visiting Ruth Paine's house.    

As a secondary benefit, the "Soviet Embassy Letter" was in line with Guy Banister's plans to portray Oswald as a Communist and a Secretary of the FPCC.  Thus Banister's sheep-dip was accomplished with the enthusiastic cooperation of the Patsy.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my reading of the letter, the goal was to tie the FPCC to a 'known' communist, not to sheep dip Oswald as a communist assassin. It was common practice to discredit left wing groups by smearing them with the Communist brush, and we do know that FPCC was a target of such US Intel operations. Doesn't this make more sense? It explains Oswald's trip to MC much better than the fake news that he was really part of a kill Castro operation. Those who sent him to MC knew that he would never be given passage to Cuba. Once he was there however, someone got the idea to tie Oswald to KGB and Kostikov, and impersonated him to accomplish that. This was very likely sheepdipping in preparation for making him a future patsy. 

Edited by Paul Brancato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul:

I will go you one better.   Although everything in your post is, as usual, well reasoned and based on evidence, in my view I think it might be worse.

It was meant to demonstrate that Oswald was in Mexico City, doing what the WC would say he was.

If you believe as I do, that he was not  there, then this is a backstop.

As you know, one of Ruth's main preoccupations after the assassination was producing phony evidence to show Oswald was in Mexico. (Later on, her replacement as Marina's babysitter, Priscilla Johnson, would also help in that regard.)

If this letter turns out to be her concoction--and with the work Chris Newton and David Josephs are doing it looks like its getting close to that--then one can make the argument she was actually doing this stuff prior to the assassination.

It is remarkable to me that no one went rigorously after this Paine angle for about 30 years.

And BTW, I am still waiting for Greg Parker's new volume, which should be a doozy about the Paines.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not read Mr. Parker's first volume though it is high on my list if I ever finish JFK and Vietnam.  However I have read a post or two here and on ROKC from him about it that seem tantalizing regarding the Paines.   Thanks to all who enlighten myself and others, honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

I will go you one better.   Although everything in your post is, as usual, well reasoned and based on evidence, in my view I think it might be worse.

It was meant to demonstrate that Oswald was in Mexico City, doing what the WC would say he was.

If you believe as I do, that he was not  there, then this is a backstop.

As you know, one of Ruth's main preoccupations after the assassination was producing phony evidence to show Oswald was in Mexico. (Later on, her replacement as Marina's babysitter, Priscilla Johnson, would also help in that regard.)

If this letter turns out to be her concoction--and with the work Chris Newton and David Josephs are doing it looks like its getting close to that--then one can make the argument she was actually doing this stuff prior to the assassination.

It is remarkable to me that no one went rigorously after this Paine angle for about 30 years.

And BTW, I am still waiting for Greg Parker's new volume, which should be a doozy about the Paines.

James,

I keep waiting and waiting -- for years -- for Greg Parker to cough up something negative about Ruth Paine as he promised.

I'm still waiting.  Probably he's still searching like mad.

As for Mexico City -- Oswald was unquestionably there, according to the Hardway-Lopez Report (2002), and furthermore was also Impersonated there (Bill Simpich, 2014) to hype up his accidental meeting with KGB agent Kostikov (Oleg Nechiporenko, 1993).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg had a heart attack Paul.

It took him many, many months to recover.

Regarding your other point, there is no unquestionable evidence that puts Oswald in Mexico City.  In fact, that is the underlying message of the Lopez Report.  And if you talk to Eddie, that is what he will tell you.

And, BTW, let us not forget a parallel.  The Secret Service returned the so-called Walker note to Ruth, because they thought she had written it.  (Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 203)

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Greg had a heart attack Paul.

It took him many, many months to recover.

Regarding your other point, there is no unquestionable evidence that puts Oswald in Mexico City.  In fact, that is the underlying message of the Lopez Report.  And if you talk to Eddie, that is what he will tell you.

And, BTW, let us not forget a parallel.  The Secret Service returned the so-called Walker note to Ruth, because they thought she had written it.  (Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 203)

I'm very sorry to hear about Greg Parker's heart attack.   I wish him a full recovery soon.

Back to Edwin Lopez, however.   On video,  "Eddie" only admitted that without CIA photographic evidence, he cannot place Lee Harvey Oswald at the Cuban and Soviet Embassies.  Otherwise, Edwin Lopez asserts -- straight up -- that Lee Harvey Oswald was certainly in Mexico City.  We have this on video in the BBC Oswald Trial.

As for the Secret Service accusing Ruth of writing the Russian "Walker-note" that Lee wrote to Marina Oswald on the day of the Walker shooting -- they apologized for that accusation after the Warren Commission handwriting experts confirmed that Lee Harvey Oswald was the writer.  

So, you're zero for two there, James.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
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...