Jump to content
The Education Forum

The KGB and the JFK case


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Tommy...   (flag) penalty.... 5 yards for excessive assumption.

If you were to read that description under either man's photo... "Not similar" is not what I see.  Works pretty well for either in 1963 when you've not seen images of both for 20 years.

But if you want to play.. "Maybe"...  I can read King's 11/22/63... The case is hard enough with what we know... Let us know what you turn up....

:sun

David "Arcane and Hard-to-Follow" Josephs,

With all due respect, if I were to read WHAT description?

I honestly don't understand if you're agreeing with me that Oswald and Leonov looked very different from each other, or if you're disagreeing with me on that point.

Regardless, do you always have to write in an arcane, minimalist / modernistic-poetry-kind-of way (in which the reader has to try to "fill in the blanks" to make sense out of it) whenever you are (evidently) disagreeing with me about something?

Although I suppose in a way I should be flattered, shouldn't I.  For you seem to assume that I'm ... like ...really, really intelligent and / or that I can read your incredibly brilliant mind or something.

Or is that another "5-yard penalty" in-an-of-itself?

LOL

--  Tommy  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 369
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, Paz  posed a perfectly logical question based on the above list.

That question was:  Where did the KGB fit into New Orleans?

I don't think TG replied on point at all and instead reacted in a kind of bullying and condescending way.  

I am assuming he was avoiding answering the question.

James,

With all due respect (LOL), the post by Paz that I "overreacted to" was, iirc, the one in which she wrote two short sentences.  (Maybe you missed that one.)

Which one are YOU referring to?

--  Tommy  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2018 at 4:05 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Correct Paz. But somehow that is not important.

 

Okay,

 

Paz Marverde's entire post consisted of two short sentences: 

1 )  "Nothing to add."

2 )  "KGB had NOTHING to do with the plot."



Fearless Leader James DiEugenio gallantly replied: 

"Correct Paz. But somehow that is not important" (i.e., to me, Thomas Graves/ aka "Tommy" / "Tom" / "Graves" / or even DiEugenio's slightly dehumanizing and dismissive "TG")

 

Question for Fearless Leader James DiEugenio:  How do you know that the KGB had nothing to do with the assassination of JFK? 

Is that what Julian Assange, Oliver Stone, or Vladimir Putin, himself, told you, James?

Or is it that you actually believed false defector Yuri Noskenko when he said that he had personally handled Oswald's KGB file three times (lol), and that Oswald was so crazy and dangerous-looking that KGB hadn't even interviewed or monitored him during the two and one-half years he lived in Minsk (not far, strangely enough, from a KGB training school)?

Hmm?

 

--  Tommy  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

David,

With all due respect (and with apologies to LHO) -- "Your the genius detective, Josephs.  YOU figure it out." 

And while you're at it, give a plausible explanation for  Duran's and Azcue's collectively describing ...

--  Tommy  :sun

 

Btw, have those probable coincidences and unexplanable anomalies (whatever it is you're referring to here) been proved to have been part-and-parcel of the evil, evil, evil CIA's conspiracy?  You know, "altering the wounds," the fifteen caskets, "the phony x-rays," "the missing x-rays," the really, really, really suspicious radio transmissions --- those sorts of things?

Or will I have to read "Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites" to understand it all?

 

Without a hint of respect....

your flippin theory... follow up and substantiate...  or can’t you be bothered by little things like facts in support of this idea you have?

I get it, if nothing else for your KGB idea jumps out of the research and into your lap, you repeat the one thing you do have ad nauseam and pray one of us comes to your aid....

Until you forward the idea, all you have is a self made mountian from a mole hill. And it’s not that good an idea in the first place... but how would you know that, right?

This thread was dedicated to proof of your idea... let’s concede you’re premise.

have you added anything to point 1... they described Leonov?  Or is that the lynchpin to your entire presentation of support, as well as the only item in the list?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Without a hint of respect....

your flippin theory... follow up and substantiate...  or can’t you be bothered by little things like facts in support of this idea you have?

I get it, if nothing else for your KGB idea jumps out of the research and into your lap, you repeat the one thing you do have ad nauseam and pray one of us comes to your aid....

Until you forward the idea, all you have is a self made mountian from a mole hill. And it’s not that good an idea in the first place... but how would you know that, right?

This thread was dedicated to proof of your idea... let’s concede you’re premise.

have you added anything to point 1... they described Leonov?  Or is that the lynchpin to your entire presentation of support, as well as the only item in the list?

Davis,

With all due respect, sorry, but I don't have a full-blown Trejo-like theory for you.

But don't you find it interesting that Duran and Azcue (and especially Azcue) described the person who did, or did not, visit them on Friday, September 27 in such a way that so closely resembled the English and Spanish-speaking, suit-wearing KGB "diplomat" Nikolai Leonov?  (Who, ironically, was caught on film down there on October 2, one day after the mysterious "Kostikov" phone call.)

And don't you find it interesting that many years later, Leonov thought that it was so important to dissociate himself from the real or imagined Oswald impersonator role that he (effectively) contradicted his Mexico City KGB colleagues by claiming that HE alone had met one-one-one with the very same emotional-and-pistol-brandishing Oswald on Sunday, September 29?

So, a question for you now, David.  Will you be able to incorporate these facts into your grand, all-inclusive theory, or will you, like Bill Simpich, have to end up brushing the Duran and Azcue dealie off as a "red herring"?

A "red herring" thrown out into the middle of the street by whom, and for what purpose, David?

--  Tommy  :sun

 

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

In you, I have found the perfect sleep aid and laxative...  

See, you ARE helpful here... stipend well deserved....

:up

David,

With all due respect, are you trying to get yourself kicked off the forum again?

--  Tommy  :sun

Simply because you can't explain why Duran and Azcue described the guy they did or did not meet with in such a way that perfectly described KGB-boy Nikolai Leonov,  and why Leonov, many years later, would claim that only he had met with the crazy, dangerous-looking (but invisible) Oswald at the Soviet Consulate / Embassy? 

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will it finally relieve me of your endless parroting of the first sentence to an idea to which you can’t seem to find a second sentence?

What would YOU call pushing an uncorroborated idea ad nauseum when requested repeatedly to expand from 1 idea into a supported theory that ties into other aspects of the case...

Looks more like e.e. cummings than an attempt at discussion or resolution...

You remain one of the laziest people here...   “please do my work, you all are the experts... “

patience gone now.... little respect that was left... gone.

bye tommy... :sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Will it finally relieve me of your endless parroting of the first sentence to an idea to which you can’t seem to find a second sentence?

What would YOU call pushing an uncorroborated idea ad nauseum when requested repeatedly to expand from 1 idea into a supported theory that ties into other aspects of the case...

Looks more like e.e. cummings than an attempt at discussion or resolution...

You remain one of the laziest people here...   “please do my work, you all are the experts... “

patience gone now.... little respect that was left... gone.

bye tommy... :sun

Bye david.

PS  With all due respect, WHAT uncorroborated idea?

That Leonov didn't look anything like Oswald?

LOL

--  Tommy  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
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...