Benjamin Cole Posted January 12, 2023 Share Posted January 12, 2023 9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Ben, On November 26, 1963, the Soviet Ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Dobrynin, wrote a document that (surprisingly) answers all of your questions. In the document, Dobrynin wrote that Oswald's November 9 letter to the Washington Embassy was suspicious because the letter gave the false impression that Oswald had close ties to the Russians; because the letter was unlike the other letters they had received from Oswald; because Oswald had never visited the [Mexico City] Embassy despite what was written in the letter; and because the letter was typed, unlike all the other letters. David Josephs disagrees with me regarding the comment stating that Oswald hadn't visited the embassy. He believes Dobrynin was referring to the Washington Embassy, not the one in Mexico City. I have two lines of proof backing my interpretation. I'd bet the farm on it. You should read the whole document. It is less than two pages long. It answers all the questions you asked. https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/other/yeltsin/html/Yeltsin_0095a.htm Boris Yeltsin gave this document to Bill Clinton when he was president. SL-- I appreciate your investigations and work. In the main, we agree the JFKA official story, even the HSCA story (which concluded there had been a conspiracy), fall short of the mark. We have to agree to disagree on this particular matter. If LHO never visited the Soviet MC embassy in 1963, the Russians should have explicitly said so, especially after three KGB'ers went on US national television (Frontline 1993) and said they had met the real LHO in MC. I have read the document you provided. But hey, reasonable people can disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 12, 2023 Share Posted January 12, 2023 30 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: If LHO never visited the Soviet MC embassy in 1963, the Russians should have explicitly said so, especially after three KGB'ers went on US national television (Frontline 1993) and said they had met the real LHO in MC. You think the Russians would still care 30 years later? When still dealing with the break-up of the USSR? I don't think so Ben. Pick your witnesses carefully. I'd believe Nagell before three ex-KGB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Gram Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 Does anyone know anything about this 50-page SSCIA transcript supposedly on Oswald’s trip to Mexico City that according to NARA cannot be located in the JFK Collection, even though they have a RIF and a date of last review listed on the RIF sheet of 2018? https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=219697 I’m hoping the interview is just under a different RIF or something, but there are no other copies on MFF that I can find. 157-10014-10049 03/15/1976 FBI; OSWALD, LEE, POST-RUSSIAN PERIOD, TRAVEL, TRIP TO MEXICO CITY; OSWALD, LEE, RUSSIAN PERIOD The “FBI” makes me think this is an interview of someone like Alan Belmont, Alex Rosen, etc. I feel like I recall one of Rosen’s transcripts being listed as missing in ARRB files, but if that were the case I don’t think it would have a RIF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Cohen Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 On 1/11/2023 at 10:32 PM, Sandy Larsen said: I'd believe Nagell before three ex-KGB. Virtually everything Nagell claimed regarding his involvement with domestic and foreign intelligence agencies, much less his alleged interactions with Oswald, is at best impossible to confirm and at worst provably false. Not one of the pieces of evidence for the above that he claimed for decades to possess has ever surfaced, because it never existed in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/docid-32423437.pdf From the 2022 release but is part of the "Pending Resolution" Records RIF is the same... yet only has page 1 of 50. 2 hours ago, Tom Gram said: Does anyone know anything about this 50-page SSCIA transcript supposedly on Oswald’s trip to Mexico City that according to NARA cannot be located in the JFK Collection, even though they have a RIF and a date of last review listed on the RIF sheet of 2018? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Gram Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 1 minute ago, David Josephs said: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/docid-32423437.pdf From the 2022 release but is part of the "Pending Resolution" Records RIF is the same... yet only has page 1 of 50. That’s the same link, I just posted the MFF version of the 2022 release. It actually has zero pages out of 50 - the page included is the “pending resolution” page that says this 50-page Church Committee transcript is one of the 28 “not located” records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 157-10014-10049: Untitled, 3/15/1976 [50 pages - date and subject suggest this is FBI Supervisor (Retired) of the Soviet Section with FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division] For more background information, see : https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_Missing_Church_Committee_Transcripts.html?search="3/15/1976" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 9 hours ago, Tom Gram said: That’s the same link, I just posted the MFF version of the 2022 release. It actually has zero pages out of 50 - the page included is the “pending resolution” page that says this 50-page Church Committee transcript is one of the 28 “not located” records. Great work Tom. 60 years after the JFKA, we are being snowed. How else to see it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Gram Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 17 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said: 157-10014-10049: Untitled, 3/15/1976 [50 pages - date and subject suggest this is FBI Supervisor (Retired) of the Soviet Section with FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division] For more background information, see : https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_Missing_Church_Committee_Transcripts.html?search="3/15/1976" That’s a great article, though it needs an update since it was written prior to 2017 and some of the transcripts Bradford lists as missing have been released. Example: Ted Shackley’s Hart-Schweiker Committee testimony, which as of 2022 still has a bunch of redactions, including a number of things that are obvious and/or released elsewhere like Shackley’s name and the name of Customs/CIA agent Cesar Diosado. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=219696 This kind of thing really is a major f-u to the public by the CIA. John Tunhiem was spot-on in his interview with Robbie Robertson: The CIA is currently maintaining redactions by their internal standard, which is to not release anything, even if it’s already common knowledge, since that would constitute a “confirmation” and it’s CIA policy to never confirm or deny - or something like that. If Bradford is just going off the subject line on the Mexico City RIF I don’t think that’s enough to state it was a specific individual in the FBI, but maybe I’m missing something. Speculation time, but Tunhiem told Robertson that the FBI had a bugging/wiretap operation on the Soviet/Cuban embassies in MC that was separate from the CIA. Everyone assumed he just made a mistake, since he did misremember a few things, but maybe he really read that somewhere in the files? Perhaps in an interview transcript that subsequently vanished? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Boylan Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 Tom, I had just read Shackley's testimony yesterday. One take home for me was that Schweiker asked Shackley who the DRE case officer was in 1963 and Seymour Bolten answered off the record. We now know that it was Joannides. So, this would have been known by just a select few just before the HSCA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 (edited) @Tom Gram only wanted to indicate that that testimony has a long history, Haron did push a little to have it released in 1998, looks like the FBI never approved it. In first he sort of assumed there would be no problem (see his letter to NARA, it was just one on the list), next he is contacting the FBI specifically on that one... Edited January 19, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans picture removed to save attachment space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 (edited) I am trying to find references to his testimony (from the retired Supervisor that is). There are references to the 4/23 testimony from the active supervisor (like on page 36 - or 42 of the pdf - of the report in NARA Record 124-10371-10100). Edited January 19, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans picture removed to save attachment space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 (edited) It's not a lot..., but but there is a mix-up as it seems. Anyway, I'm done with this one Edited January 19, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans picture removed to save attachment space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Gram Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 (edited) 5 hours ago, David Boylan said: Tom, I had just read Shackley's testimony yesterday. One take home for me was that Schweiker asked Shackley who the DRE case officer was in 1963 and Seymour Bolten answered off the record. We now know that it was Joannides. So, this would have been known by just a select few just before the HSCA. That’s great, I did the exact same thing but on Saturday - read both of Shackley’s SSCIA testimonies. I also noticed the part about the DRE case officer. Also, I think Shackley contradicted his prior testimony on Antonio Veciana when he testified to Schweiker, but I’ll have to double check. His initial testimony on Veciana was sketchy as hell. There’s some other stuff worth mentioning but I don’t have time right now. Both transcripts are pretty interesting. Edited January 16, 2023 by Tom Gram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Gram Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 5 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said: @Tom Gram only wanted to indicate that that testimony has a long history, Haron did push a little to have it released in 1998, looks like the FBI never approved it. In first he sort of assumed there would be no problem (see his letter to NARA, it was just one on the list), next he is contacting the FBI specifically on that one... Thanks for all the info Jean Paul. How the hell does something like that just flat-out disappear from the JFK Collection? The ARRB and NARA clearly had it, and the FBI undoubtedly still has a copy somewhere, so something seems off about this “not located” business. 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