The KGB and the JFK case

[Thomas Graves]

On 2/2/2018 at 5:43 PM, Thomas Graves said:

 

James,

 

With all due respect, could you please give us a plausible reason for Sylvia Duran's and Eusebio Azcue's collectively describing the "Oswald" they allegedly dealt with on 9/27/63 in such a way as to perfectly describe the Mexico City-based KGB officer Nikolai Leonov?

Quite short (not much taller than Duran's 5' 3.5"), blue-eyes, blond; blond-or-dark-blond haired, thin, about 30 years of age, VERY THIN-FACED, and, according to Azcue, wearing a darkish suit (which Azcue seemed to remember quite well, as he said it was a gray "Prince of Wales" with vertical blue "highlight" stripes), not, one would think, totally unlike the darkish suit "diplomat" Leonov was photographed wearing five days later on October 2.

Regardless, do you agree with Sandy Larsen that the evil, evil CIA must have sent an agent with Nikolai Leonov's physical characteristics to Mexico City to "kill two birds with one stone," i.e.:

1)  to impersonate the one-and-only Lee Harvey Oswald, and ...

2)  to implicate that very nice "diplomat," Nikolai Leonov, and the very nice organization for which he worked (the KGB) in the assassination?

Which, IF TRUE, raises the following awkward question: Was Sylvia Duran -- the person who claimed to have stapled Lee Harvey Oswald's passport-sized photos to his visa application forms in his presence -- secretly in the employ of the evil CIA, either directly or via the equally evil, evil, evil Mexican Police/Intelligence Service?

Or, on the other hand, isn't it possible that Duran and Azcue described the "Oswald" they did meet (or did not meet at all) deal with on Friday, September 27 the way they did in order to point the finger at Leonov and the KGB for having arranged / coerced the ruse?

Or that the midget Ruskie bugger really did impersonate the one-and-only Lee Harvey Oswald? Which, in a way, could help us to make sense of Leonov's amazing National Enquirer interview in which he said that he alone met with crazy, dangerous-looking Oswald at the Cuban Consulate on SUNDAY, September 29.  A stroke of genius, actually, it that said interview "confirms" that LHO was in Mexico City, that he was "crazy and dangerous a looking," and that if the person Leonov dealt with was an imposter, it couldn't possibly have been Leonov, himself.


More challenging questions for James DiEugenio (and fascinating points from me) will appear on this thread shortly. 

Stay tuned, folks ...

--  Tommy 
 

Edited and bumped.

James,

With all due respect, seein' as how I tend to be proactive from time-to-time, here is my preliminary answer to your first question.

How do we know Nagell is telling the truth?

Regardless, even if Nagell is telling the truth, it's possible that Oswald was trained / programmed to be an assassin at the KGB school a few blocks away from his apartment in Minsk, that Khrushchev got "cold feet" after Kennedy's heartwarming speech at American University, Oswald, having already returned to the U.S., went "rogue," and that KGB got "wind" of this and sent Nagell on what turned out to be a "mission impossible" to prevent Oswald from committing his dastardly deed.

--  Tommy 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Michael Walton]

21 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Regardless, even if Nagell is telling the truth, it's possible that Oswald was trained / programmed to be an assassin at the KGB school a few blocks away from his apartment in Minsk, that Khrushchev got "cold feet" after Kennedy's heartwarming speech at American University, Oswald, having already returned to the U.S., went "rogue," and that KGB got "wind" of this and sent Nagell on what turned out to be a "mission impossible" to prevent Oswald from committing his dastardly deed.

This sounds way too far-fetched to me. Oswald did not act nor speak like an assassin from the time he was captured until he was murdered.  He said he was a patsy. He seemed angry that something went wrong and it dawned on him that he was taking the blame for the assassination. And he was worried about his daughter getting a new pair of shoes. If he had been acting like McVeigh - all chin up - then yes, maybe. But he never projected that kind of behavior that weekend.

[Thomas Graves]

29 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

This sounds way too far-fetched to me. Oswald did not act nor speak like an assassin from the time he was captured until he was murdered.  He said he was a patsy. He seemed angry that something went wrong and it dawned on him that he was taking the blame for the assassination. And he was worried about his daughter getting a new pair of shoes. If he had been acting like McVeigh - all chin up - then yes, maybe. But he never projected that kind of behavior that weekend.

Michael,

With all due respect, are you old enough to remember Scott Peterson?

Regardless, what if Oswald was Manchurian-Candidated by those nice nurses at Botkin Hospital or those swell guys in Minsk? 

Regardless redux, what if Castro "dood da deed" and patsied both the CIA and the KGB via virtual patsy Oswald?

--  Tommy 

How do YOU explain Duran's and Azcue's (especially Azcue's) collectively describing the real or imaginary man they dealt with on Friday, September 27, in such a way that so closely resembled KGB "diplomat" Nikolai Leonov?

Do you think the evil CIA sent a single operative to Mexico City to somehow simultaneously impersonate the 23-year-old, 5' 9.5", brunette Oswald and the 30 year-old, 5' 7", blond haired Leonov?

--  Tommy 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Michael Walton]

3 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Regardless redux, what if Castro "dood da deed" and patsied both the CIA and the KGB via virtual patsy Oswald?

Tom, did you ever read the speech that Castro gave I think 3 or 4 days after the assassination? It's a very revealing read IMO and it hardly sounds like a man braying and bragging about maybe - just maybe - knocking off the US president. And it's on your buddy Jim D's site if you want to read it.

Wasn't Khrushchev ousted mere months after 11/22? Don't you find that just a little bit revealing?  And it's not because he planned Kennedy's murder. There was a little bit too much lovey-dovey (e.g., peace xxxx) going on for the hard-liners.  Again, my IMO.

And yes, I remember sneaky old Scott Peterson. And no, I don't think Oswald was sneaky or Petersonesque - just the opposite.  He basically threw a fit in the theater and out, looked pretty humble and "deer in the lights" at the midnight conference, and reminded his wife about getting his kid a new pair of shoes. Peterson is a spoiled narcissistic asshole so there's simply no comparison.

Your buddy Larsen said it best about what he thinks happened in this case - the plot was a "kill two birds with one stone deal" - getting rid of a president who almost certainly would have been reelected in 1964 and using that murder to invade Cuba so that all of the white-shoe special interests could have their island play land back. But of course they never would have said that.  Instead they would have waved the flag and have said, IT'S ALL BECAUSE OF DEMO-CRACY!! YAYY!

Edited February 17, 2018 by Michael Walton

[Thomas Graves]

4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Tom, did you ever read the speech that Castro gave I think 3 or 4 days after the assassination? It's a very revealing read IMO and it hardly sounds like a man braying and bragging about maybe - just maybe - knocking off the US president. And it's on your buddy Jim D's site if you want to read it.

Wasn't Khrushchev ousted mere months after 11/22? Don't you find that just a little bit revealing?  And it's not because he planned Kennedy's murder. There was a little bit too much lovey-dovey (e.g., peace xxxx) going on for the hard-liners.  Again, my IMO.

And yes, I remember sneaky old Scott Peterson. And no, I don't think Oswald was sneaky or Petersonesque - just the opposite.  He basically threw a fit in the theater and out, looked pretty humble and "deer in the lights" at the midnight conference, and reminded his wife about getting his kid a new pair of shoes. Peterson is a spoiled narcissistic asshole so there's simply no comparison.

Your buddy Larsen said it best about what he thinks happened in this case - the plot was a "kill two birds with one stone deal" - getting rid of a president who almost certainly would have been reelected in 1964 and using that murder to invade Cuba so that all of the white-shoe special interests could have their island play land back. But of course they never would have said that.  Instead they would have waved the flag and have said, IT'S ALL BECAUSE OF DEMO-CRACY!! YAYY!

.....

 

 

Michael,

With all due respect:

1)  Would you care to address the fact that Sylvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue (and especially the latter) described the Oswald they had (or had not) dealt with in such a way as to so perfectly resemble KGB "diplomat" Nikolai Leonov?

2)  Regarding Larsen, do you agree with him that, given the above, the evil CIA must have sent a Leonov lookalike to the Mexico City Cuban Consulate to impersonate Oswald?

(LOL)

 

--  Tommy 

Edited February 17, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Steve Thomas]

On 2/3/2018 at 1:40 PM, Paul Brancato said:

I like this post. It's possible to see Angleton working with a faction of KGB.

Paul,

 

I don't know if it was Angleton per se.

Didn't JFK send Bobby to talk to someone in the Russian government (I don't remember exactly who it was right now) and practically beg the Russian's help in stopping the Cuban Missile Crisis because he wasn't sure he could control his generals?

And didn't JFK promote the movie "Seven Days in May" and had it shown in the White House?

And didn't Eisenhower warn the American people about the rise of the military-industrial complex in 1961?

https://youtu.be/rd8wwMFmCeE

And didn't Truman later lament that the CIA had outstripped its original mandate and had become its own policy making arm?

When it's all said and done,

 

Steve Thomas

 

[Thomas Graves]

27 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Paul,

 

I don't know if it was Angleton per se.

Didn't JFK send Bobby to talk to someone in the Russian government (I don't remember exactly who it was right now) and practically beg the Russian's help in stopping the Cuban Missile Crisis because he wasn't sure he could control his generals?

And didn't JFK promote the movie "Seven Days in May" and had it shown in the White House?

And didn't Eisenhower warn the American people about the rise of the military-industrial complex in 1961?

https://youtu.be/rd8wwMFmCeE

And didn't Truman later lament that the CIA had outstripped its original mandate and had become its own policy making arm?

When it's all said and done,

 

Steve Thomas

 

 

Steve,

With all due respect, it was the whole dirty-rotten, evil, evil, evil American "system," wasn't it?

Anybody but those really, really nice organizations known as the KGB and the GRU.

(LOL)

 

--  Tommy 

[Michael Walton]

7 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Michael,

With all due respect:

1)  Would you care to address the fact that Sylvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue (and especially the latter) described the Oswald they had (or had not) dealt with in such a way as to so perfectly resemble KGB "diplomat" Nikolai Leonov?

2)  Regarding Larsen, do you agree with him that, given the above, the evil CIA must have sent a Leonov lookalike to the Mexico City Cuban Consulate to impersonate Oswald?

Personally, I don't think LHO was down there. As for who impersonated him - a Leonov look alike or whoever - I don't know.  I think the whole ruse was part of the plan to make LHO look like the crazed communist.

This will sound like I'm defending the entire institution when I'm not, but it's people that create evilness. Didn't one man create the holocaust? Didn't Stalin kill millions of his own people? Didn't one 19 year old kid kill the FL students?  The point being, there is evil everywhere just like there is goodness everywhere. And yes, there was evil going on when the Kennedy murder was planned and executed. But it's unfair to project it onto an entire agency.

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

Personally, I don't think LHO was down there. As for who impersonated him - a Leonov look alike or whoever - I don't know.  I think the whole ruse was part of the plan to make LHO look like the crazed communist.

This will sound like I'm defending the entire institution when I'm not, but it's people that create evilness. Didn't one man create the holocaust? Didn't Stalin kill millions of his own people? Didn't one 19 year old kid kill the FL students?  The point being, there is evil everywhere just like there is goodness everywhere. And yes, there was evil going on when the Kennedy murder was planned and executed. But it's unfair to project it onto an entire agency.

Michael,

With all due respect, you didn't address the questions I asked you.

David Josephs, who has extensively researched the "Mexico City" issue, has recently (somewhat grudgingly) admitted  that the descriptions Duran and Azcue gave of "Oswald" matched the unique description of KGB "diplomat" Nikolai Leonov.

My question to you is, given THAT, what are we to make of it?

Do you think CIA sent a Leonov lookalike to Mexico City to not only impersonate Oswald (but ... but ... but ... what about those visa photos?), but to implicate Leonov and the KGB, as well?

Or do you think Nikolai Leonov impersonated Oswald (but ... but ... but) what about those visa photos?), himself?

Or do you think that no one physically impersonated Oswald, at all, and that Duran and Oswald, many years later, described Invisible Man Oswald in such a way as to point a guilty finger at 30-years-old-in-1963, short, thin, blond, blue-eyed, very thin-faced Nikolai Leonov and, perhaps, by association the other KGB "diplomats" stationed in Mexico City, as the ones who had forced Duran  and Azcue to implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of JFK?

Or do you think Fidel Castro might have had something to do with it, and somehow patsied both the CIA and the KGB in his assassination plot?

Is it possible that the KGB dudes at the Soviet consulate lied about Oswald's (or anyone else's) visiting them on September 26th, 27th (and, yes, the 28th), simply because they wanted to not only portray "crying, pistol-brandishing" Oswald as someone the KGB would have found so crazy and dangerous-looking in 1959 as to preclude it from interviewing and monitoring him (much less ... gasp ... Manchurian-Candidating or training him for assassination) during the two and one-half years he had lived in the Soviet Union, BUT TO ALSO convey the "message," post assassination, that, "yes, that crazy, violent guy Oswald dude really WAS capable of killing JFK all by him widdle self!" ?

 

Regardless, may I give you a friendly suggestion?

Maybe you should spend a lot less time trying to rebut the ridiculous Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites Theory (and the ancillary Missing 2.5 Teeth Expose) and start looking into this "Mexico City Thing" a little bit deeper?

Or are you, like Sandy "Genius" Larsen and way too many others on this forum (IMHO), absolutely convinced that it was the evil, evil, evil CIA that killed Kennedy, and that those nice Ruskies had nothing to do with it?

Hmm?

 

--  Tommy 

Edited February 17, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

8 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Steve,

With all due respect, it was the whole dirty-rotten, evil, evil, evil American "system," wasn't it?

Anybody but those really, really nice organizations known as the KGB and the GRU.

(LOL)

 

--  Tommy 

Completely unfair characterization. No one here sees the KGB and GRU as really nice. By far the harder thing to contemplate is the evil WITHIN our own government. 

[Michael Walton]

6 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Michael,

With all due respect, you didn't address the questions I asked you.

Tom, I can't answer your questions because I simply don't know and no one else does for that matter.  Even State Secret author Simpich says the same thing. We can read the available records and then speculate. I just find it hard to believe that there was never a single photograph from the most photographed building in the western hemisphere showing the one and only Oswald outside the doors of the embassy down there. In this case, no picture is worth a thousand words.

FWIW - here's a pretty simple to follow Duran timeline about what happened:

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKduranS.htm

Rather than get bogged down into the minutiae of this event, it's clear that the CIA was involved and manipulating the Oswald narrative before and after 11/22. I don't know what else to say about the Russia/Cuba involvement connection other than I don't see, at least in my mind, that direction being plausible. Motive should play a role in this and I just don't see a real motive from Cuba or Russia being the case.

[Thomas Graves]

5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Completely unfair characterization. No one here sees the KGB and GRU as really nice. By far the harder thing to contemplate is the evil WITHIN our own government. 

Paul,

With all due respect, IMHO you grossly underestimate not only the average American citizen's capacity for (conscious or unconscious) self-loathing, but his or her capacity for being deceived and manipulated.

In this case, not by the evil, evil, evil "Deep State" or the "Military Industrial Intelligence Complex," but by 90-plus years of Soviet / Russian "active measures counterintelligence ops" waged against us and our allies (and against Nazi Germany during WWII), artfully interwoven with 58 years of Second Chief Directorate "strategic deception" / "operational deception" operations (the most effective example of which toxic and unholy brew was, I'm coming to believe, the assassination of our beloved president, JFK).

--  Tommy 

PS  Do you think those three Russian "companies" and those thirteen Russian nationals indicted yesterday by Mueller are "patsies" created by the evil, evil, evil "Deep State" and/or the evil, evil, evil MIIC?

(LOL!)

(And what about the eleven Russian "illegals" uncovered in 2010, including that silly, silly, silly "Anna Chapman"?  Hmm?)

(In short, Maestro, are you a "closet supporter" of both Trump AND Putin?)

 

PPS  But then again, Castro might have "dood da deed," and patsied BOTH the CIA and the KGB ...  Ever thought about THAT possibility?  Of course not.

PPPS  Or maybe LHO never got the "stop and desist" order from Mister K.

Or DID receive such, and decided to go "rogue elephant" on the emerging Global Village ...

Edited February 17, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Michael Walton]

Tom - insead of blathering on about the evil evil this and the evil evil that, just take all of that away and read these stories:

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/17/anti-trumpists-use-mueller-indictments-to-escalate-tensions-with-nuclear-armed-russia/

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/16/russians-spooked-by-nukes-against-cyber-attack-policy/

There's plenty of "evil" to go around...on both sides of the "aisle." Not saying either is more or less evil.

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

Tom - insead of blathering on about the evil evil this and the evil evil that, just take all of that away and read these stories:

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/17/anti-trumpists-use-mueller-indictments-to-escalate-tensions-with-nuclear-armed-russia/

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/16/russians-spooked-by-nukes-against-cyber-attack-policy/

There's plenty of "evil" to go around...on both sides of the "aisle." Not saying either is more or less evil.

Michael,

With all due respect ... what a load of crap.

--  Tommy 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Quote from : Anti Trumpists use Mueller Indictments to escalate tension

America’s unelected power establishment doesn’t care about impeaching Trump, it cares about hobbling Russia in order to prevent the rise of a potential rival superpower in its ally China. All this lunacy makes perfect sense when you realize this. The U.S. deep state is using the hysterical cult of anti-Trumpism to manufacture support for increasing escalations with Russia, and the anti-Trumpists are playing right along under the delusion that pushing for moves against Russia will hurt Trump.

 

It certainly is lunacy. I've been trying to get some idea of the motivations of the "Deep State" from anybody who would offer here, with no results but this explanation makes absolutely no sense at all. How would hobbling Russia have any effect on the rise of potential rival Superpower China? Do you think China sees Russia as anything other than a pitiful broken giant, with nuclear weapons? Russia has no influence on China. It's total misguided b.s

If people want to get fearful, then go to Shanghai or Beijing, and see what true modernism and a 21st century infrastructure looks like, and then maybe go to Moscow where they can see a dilapidated 1930's America infrastructure in a third rate fossil fuel based economy, and tell me who they should fear most.

And due to Trumps and the Republicans artificial stimulus at a point in the cycle that we least need it. To hopefully project to the middle class a false sugar high that will last through 2020, That will just hasten the day when interests rise to the point that China will pull out from financing our debt. Then you'll see a real cause for war.

She is  right about Trump's militarism. Ollie Stone has been 180 degrees off and completely alarmist in his fears about Hillary Clinton getting us in a war against Russia. It's actually more dangerous to have a President whose been financially compromised in his dealings with Russia. Of course the hacking has become a smoke screen by which nobody considers any of the other conflicts of Trump's finances, or that Trump's Commerce Secretary has ties to Cypriot Bank a known money launderer  for many, including Russian Oligarchs, is not even considered.

Anyway our "Utopian prepper" author knows nothing about International Relations or economics.

I may have liked Robert Parry's work in Iran Contra, but I'm no fan boy, I'm not the least impressed with this article.